In this annual review from the Cato Institute, leading legal scholars analyze the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, specifically the most important and far-reaching cases of the year, plus cases coming up. Now in its nineteenth edition, the Review is the first scholarly journal to appear after the term's end and the only one grounded in the nation's first principles, liberty, and limited government.
In this annual review from the Cato Institute, leading legal scholars analyze the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term, specifically the most important and far-reaching cases of the year, plus cases coming up. Now in its nineteenth edition, the Review is the first scholarly journal to appear after the term's end and the only one grounded in the nation's first principles, liberty, and limited government.Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.
Topics and Contributors for the 2019-2020 Cato Supreme Court Review FOREWORD - The Review's publisher examines how the Court, now with Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, is shaping up. By Ilya Shapiro INTRODUCTION - The Review's editor in chief gives a preview of the Review and an overview of the trends in the previous term. By Trevor Burrus ANNUAL B. KENNETH SIMON LECTURE: "Judicial Independence and the Roberts Court" - A prominent federal appeals judge examines whether the "conservative" and "liberal" judges vote in predicable lockstep, or whether, in fact, our independent judiciary is functioning as the Framers' intended. Judge Thomas M. Hardiman DACA AND THE DREAMERS - DHS v. Regents - The Court aimed to sketch the limits of unilateral executive action in the context of the controversial immigration debate. The chief justice found that, in repealing DACA, the Trump administration didn't weigh the consequences carefully enough. By Peter S. Margulies THE PRESIDENT'S REMOVAL POWER - Seila Law v. CFPB - The Court waded into the power dynamic between Congress and the White House by examining whether the director of the CFPB can be removed by the president only for cause. The decision could ultimately restructure some significant federal agencies. By Ilan Wurman OBAMACARE: REDUX - Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania - Obamacare's litigation legacy lingers on as the Supremes saved the nunnery from the ACA's so-called contraception mandate. By Robin Fretwell Wilson & Tanner Bean EQUITABLE REMEDIES - Liu v. SEC - The Court cabins the SEC's ability to disgorge defendants beyond ill-gotten gains. Many questions still remain, but the SEC must now be more careful when taking assets. By Jennifer Schulp INSANITY AND STATE LAW - Kahler v. Kansas - The Supremes offer strong protection to a state's right and responsibility to formulate its own criminal law in light of local needs and traditions. This includes determining when "insanity" absolves a killer-and when it doesn't. By Paul J. Larkin Jr. QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY - Hernandez v. Mesa - Quite relevant to recent public discourse over law enforcement's exaggerated legal protections, the Court's ruling on a cross-border shooting incident risks a precedential loophole in which federal officers are essentially absolutely immune from personal liability. By Stephen I. Vladeck THE PRESIDENT: SUBPOENA RESISTANT? - Trump v. Vance & Trump v. Mazars -The Court finds that a president is hardly personally immune from state subpoenas, but Congress needs to get its facts straight before it subpoenas records from the president. All justices agree that the president is not absolutely immune from either. By Jonathan H. Adler CHURCH AND STATE - Espinoza v. Montana - The Court holds that state-constitutional "Blaine Amendments"-restricting state expenditure on religious schools-cannot stop individual parents from using state tuition assistance for such purposes. By Clint Bolick TRIALS ON TRIAL - Ramos v. Louisiana - The incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states continues unabated, as the Court rules that guilty verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous. Possibly a worthy policy goal but, as a constitutional matter, originalists would like a word. By Nicholas M. Mosvick & Mitchell A. Mosvick ELECTORAL COLLEGE - Chiafalo v. Washington & Colorado v. Baca - Its crunch time for the Electoral College in this test of a state's power to control its presidential electors. The Court chose to follow a tradition of wide latitude to a state's choices, reducing the chance that the outcome of a presidential election might ever hang on the whims of a cadre of faithless electors. By Keith E. Whittington LOOKING AHEAD - The Pacific Legal Foundation's Anastasia Boden previews what we can expect in the Court's next term.
Topics and Contributors for the 2019-2020 Cato Supreme Court Review FOREWORD - The Review's publisher examines how the Court, now with Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, is shaping up. By Ilya Shapiro INTRODUCTION - The Review's editor in chief gives a preview of the Review and an overview of the trends in the previous term. By Trevor Burrus ANNUAL B. KENNETH SIMON LECTURE: "Judicial Independence and the Roberts Court" - A prominent federal appeals judge examines whether the "conservative" and "liberal" judges vote in predicable lockstep, or whether, in fact, our independent judiciary is functioning as the Framers' intended. Judge Thomas M. Hardiman DACA AND THE DREAMERS - DHS v. Regents - The Court aimed to sketch the limits of unilateral executive action in the context of the controversial immigration debate. The chief justice found that, in repealing DACA, the Trump administration didn't weigh the consequences carefully enough. By Peter S. Margulies THE PRESIDENT'S REMOVAL POWER - Seila Law v. CFPB - The Court waded into the power dynamic between Congress and the White House by examining whether the director of the CFPB can be removed by the president only for cause. The decision could ultimately restructure some significant federal agencies. By Ilan Wurman OBAMACARE: REDUX - Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania - Obamacare's litigation legacy lingers on as the Supremes saved the nunnery from the ACA's so-called contraception mandate. By Robin Fretwell Wilson & Tanner Bean EQUITABLE REMEDIES - Liu v. SEC - The Court cabins the SEC's ability to disgorge defendants beyond ill-gotten gains. Many questions still remain, but the SEC must now be more careful when taking assets. By Jennifer Schulp INSANITY AND STATE LAW - Kahler v. Kansas - The Supremes offer strong protection to a state's right and responsibility to formulate its own criminal law in light of local needs and traditions. This includes determining when "insanity" absolves a killer-and when it doesn't. By Paul J. Larkin Jr. QUALIFIED AND ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY - Hernandez v. Mesa - Quite relevant to recent public discourse over law enforcement's exaggerated legal protections, the Court's ruling on a cross-border shooting incident risks a precedential loophole in which federal officers are essentially absolutely immune from personal liability. By Stephen I. Vladeck THE PRESIDENT: SUBPOENA RESISTANT? - Trump v. Vance & Trump v. Mazars -The Court finds that a president is hardly personally immune from state subpoenas, but Congress needs to get its facts straight before it subpoenas records from the president. All justices agree that the president is not absolutely immune from either. By Jonathan H. Adler CHURCH AND STATE - Espinoza v. Montana - The Court holds that state-constitutional "Blaine Amendments"-restricting state expenditure on religious schools-cannot stop individual parents from using state tuition assistance for such purposes. By Clint Bolick TRIALS ON TRIAL - Ramos v. Louisiana - The incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states continues unabated, as the Court rules that guilty verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous. Possibly a worthy policy goal but, as a constitutional matter, originalists would like a word. By Nicholas M. Mosvick & Mitchell A. Mosvick ELECTORAL COLLEGE - Chiafalo v. Washington & Colorado v. Baca - Its crunch time for the Electoral College in this test of a state's power to control its presidential electors. The Court chose to follow a tradition of wide latitude to a state's choices, reducing the chance that the outcome of a presidential election might ever hang on the whims of a cadre of faithless electors. By Keith E. Whittington LOOKING AHEAD - The Pacific Legal Foundation's Anastasia Boden previews what we can expect in the Court's next term.
Es gelten unsere Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen: www.buecher.de/agb
Impressum
www.buecher.de ist ein Internetauftritt der buecher.de internetstores GmbH
Geschäftsführung: Monica Sawhney | Roland Kölbl | Günter Hilger
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Batheyer Straße 115 - 117, 58099 Hagen
Postanschrift: Bürgermeister-Wegele-Str. 12, 86167 Augsburg
Amtsgericht Hagen HRB 13257
Steuernummer: 321/5800/1497
USt-IdNr: DE450055826
