Search

This thesis explores the factors that influence the US Supreme Court’s decisions to overturn precedent. I argue that the Court is more likely to depart from precedent in cases relating to the right to privacy due to the dynamic nature of privacy rights and their inherent connection to rapidly evolving technology and societal values. As society grapples with digital surveillance, data collection, and personal freedoms, the question of how the Supreme Court navigates past precedents in the face of new realities becomes increasingly relevant. I find that privacy precedents are more likely to be altered than other subject matter. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the common law system’s adaptability in the face of contemporary challenges by examining the Court’s decisions to overturn precedents based on subject matter.

Copyright of Arab Law Quarterly is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines Pakistan's preventive detention policy, focusing on its conflict between national security and individual liberties. The policy, implemented after the 9/11 attacks, aims to hold individuals suspected of terrorism responsible for any crime but their suspecting terrorism status. However, critics argue it undermines constitutionalism, particularly the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and personal liberty. The study uses qualitative legal and case study research to analyze Pakistan's preventive detention laws and detainee experiences. Results show that while the policy has reduced terrorism incidences, it has also led to significant human rights violations. Critics blame the lack of judicial review and misuse by security teams. The paper recommends addressing the issue of preventive detentions in Pakistan and ensuring a balance between security and liberty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Foco (Interdisciplinary Studies Journal) is the property of Revista Foco and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Electronic delivery in cases of appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary is sometimes of key importance for the resolution of cases by the Supreme Court. The issue of delivery is not obvious and easy to verify. It happens that both the National Council of the Judiciary and common courts do not treat deliveries seriously and do not respect all the consequences, which are the same as the consequences of deliveries made using a postal operator. Electronic deliveries are intended to facilitate and accelerate procedures conducted by the National Council of the Judiciary, but their use may involve irregularities that can only be verified by the Supreme Court. Electronic delivery in cases of appeals against resolutions of the National Council of the Judiciary is sometimes of key importance for the resolution of cases by the Supreme Court. The issue of delivery is not obvious and easy to verify. It happens that both the National Council of the Judiciary and common courts do not treat deliveries seriously and do not respect all the consequences, which are the same as the consequences of deliveries made using a postal operator. Electronic deliveries are intended to facilitate and accelerate procedures conducted by the National Council of the Judiciary, but their use may involve irregularities that can only be verified by the Supreme Court.

The military detention facility at the Guantánamo Bay naval base is the most enduring manifestation of the US “war on terror.” It is also materially and symbolically central to US torture, war crimes, and other egregious violations of law in the post-9/11 era. Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, Guantánamo has been the subject of controversy and debate, as well as a key setting for legal challenges to government policies. This article traces the legacy of the prison and the military commissions across four administrations. It demonstrates that the lack of a common understanding or shared narrative about what Guantánamo means or has meant is a product of entrenched partisanship that characterizes contemporary US politics more broadly. Guantánamo's confounding legacy reflects the lack of a national consensus about the role of laws and courts as guarantors of even the most basic rights.

The article analyses Supreme Court judicial practice in cases arising from disputes between foreign shipowners, protection and indemnity clubs, seafarers or seafarers’ next of kin. Ukraine is among the top five states who provide seafarers working on board vessels flying overseas flags. According to different assessments, the number of Ukrainian seafarers working on board foreign shipowners’ vessels may vary from 80,000 to 100,000 persons. This results in a significant number of cases considered by Ukrainian courts where the plaintiff is a Ukrainian seafarer or his/her next of kin, and the defender is a foreign shipowner and/or protection and indemnity club. Examining the peculiarities of these disputes is the aim of this research. Particular attention is devoted to the application of overseas states’ law by Ukrainian courts of different instances, as well as the procedure of establishing the content of its provisions.

Though the Polish rule of law crisis has been on the scholarly agenda since the Law and Justice Party (PiS) took power in 2015, the individual agents of legal disruption within the judiciary have been largely off the radar. This intervention aims to fill this gap. This article analyses the legal mobilisation practices of the Supreme Court (SC) judges appointed by the PiS party in a court-packing manner after 2017. It is argued that this is a specific type of legal mobilisation; because it is conducted from within the legal system by judges, it aims to challenge doctrinal views strategically and to legitimise the status of unlawfully elected judges, which consequently destabilises the legal system. Because the legal tools to solve the conflict appear to have been exhausted, new judges engage in public discourse to convince citizens that they have a right to sit on the bench. In the first part of this paper, I critically analyse this public discourse in order to explain the framing of the rule of law crisis. The analysis of this discourse is drawn from 106 texts produced by new SC judges between 2017 and 2023. It is argued that although the 'populist' group of SC judges is internally differentiated and does not exhibit clear ideological linkage with the PiS party, it strategically produces certain legal narratives in which their appointments and judicial practices at the SC conform to the Constitution and to relevant statutes and, as such, are legitimate in legal terms. The new judges' narratives are based on four populist dichotomies that distinguish them from old judges (legitimacy–lack of legitimacy, autonomy–political dependence, formal rule of law–legal anarchy and accountability–corporatism). In the second part, the article proceeds to analyse selected case law of the Supreme Court to explore whether and how court-packing makes it more responsive to the legal mobilisation of the conservative Christian organisation Ordo Iuris (OI) and helps the governing party maintain its power. It is argued that the judicial mobilisation inside the packed Supreme Court is mostly of a discursive nature, as there is limited evidence that newly appointed judges side ideologically with the government and right-wing organisations in recent case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient history assists clinicians in determining the most appropriate tests to identify the symptoms' source and select appropriate interventions. Therefore, a subjective history is an essential component of patient management. When physical therapist practitioners transition into academia, they must understand how the history of the education system may affect learners. Health disparities are related to the lack of workforce diversity and skills in cultural responsiveness, and the education system is critical in addressing the impact of future providers on health disparities. Developing a doctor of physical therapy program to address health disparities requires an analysis of the historical context of the US educational and health care systems, along with traditional components of physical therapist education. This country's education system was built upon a 2-tiered system, where minoritized individuals struggled to overcome barriers imposed by legislation and societal beliefs. Jim Crow laws continued this unequal access to education, and the recent Supreme Court ruling to deny race-based affirmative action continues these inequities. This historical context informed the construction of the College of Saint Mary Doctor of Physical Therapy Program. The program's mission led to using less traditional educational approaches; thus, the pillars of practice took form. The 5 pillars evolved to include social determinants, inclusive faculty and student recruitment and retention practices, equitable grading, culturally responsive pedagogy, and community development. The purpose of this paper is to present a historical overview of the US education system and its influence on physical therapist education. Furthermore, it will illustrate how this historical context inspired the 5 Pillars of Community Practice from College of Saint Mary and discuss the challenges and interventions related to these pillars. There are tremendous disparities in educational outcomes and patient services in the United States. Disparities are most significant in those with historically marginalized identities. If those disparities are to improve, a change is required in the people providing care to patients. The best way to accomplish this is by transforming how future providers are educated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relying on theories positing general resentment of the rich, we argue that people who believe there are a greater number of Justices who are millionaires will have more negative attitudes towards the Court than those who believe there are fewer millionaires on the Court. Analyzing the results of a nationally representative survey, we find that individuals who believe a larger number of the Justices are millionaires are more likely to believe the Court gives special rights to the wealthy and are overall less likely to view the Court as legitimate. We supplement these results with a survey experiment, demonstrating that individuals believe the Court will become less fair if a millionaire nominee is confirmed to be a Justice and that individuals are less likely to support a millionaire nominee compared to nominees with a lower net worth. Our results have implications for perceptions of bias within the judiciary, the selection of judicial nominees, and how attitudes about the wealthy can influence attitudes towards institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An economic model of news contends that the pressures of limited column space and market competition force media actors to be strategic concerning which notable events receive exhaustive coverage, if any at all. Applying this framework to the Supreme Court can explain why coverage of the Justices' decision-making has historically been sensationalized and reserved for decisions sure to have a pronounced effect on public discourse. However, the emergence of social media as a practical alternative for mass media dissemination raises notable questions, chief among them being whether the economic framework fully extends to this newer medium. In this study, I analyze media coverage of the Court's decisions using Twitter and observe important distinctions among environments for news dissemination. I argue that the apparent reduction in the economic costs associated with coverage dissemination and consumption on social media platforms like Twitter requires viewing Supreme Court news in these environments through an amended theoretical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In examining public evaluations of governing institutions, are job approval and legitimacy related? This question has dominated scholarship on Supreme Court legitimacy for decades. Conventional wisdom suggests that specific support (e.g., job approval) and diffuse support (e.g., legitimacy) are independent. Specific support captures short-term orientations based on policy alignment with the Court. Legitimacy is a long-term perspective reflecting more fundamental support for the Court as a governing institution. We challenge the paradigm that job approval and legitimacy are largely unrelated concepts. Specifically, we employ a variety of statistical techniques and panel data to show that changes in legitimacy are a direct effect of changes in public approval. Salient decisions and Court vacancies directly shape approval and indirectly shape legitimacy through their effects on approval. Longitudinal analysis confirms that changes in job approval precede and predict changes in legitimacy. These results suggest that the Court needs public approval, and its public approval is rooted in outcome-oriented perceptions of its decisions and membership. Further, sustained low levels of approval will eventually erode legitimacy and limit the Court's influence over policy. Thus, like the outwardly political executive and legislative branches, it is important for the Court to build political capital through job approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the legal consequences of the defense's declaration of provocation of a crime. Based on the analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court, the opinion was formulated that the declaration of the commission of a crime as a result of provocation by the defense gives rise to the corresponding obligations for the defense and the prosecution, as well as the court. It was analyzed that as a result of the influence of the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the practice of the Supreme Court began to form regarding the position of the defense on provocation of a crime, according to which the contradiction of the position of the defense, i.e. when the applicant denies the fact that he committed a crime and at the same time declares that he was provoked to commit it, is the basis for the court's refusal to verify such an application, citing the relevant reasons in the decision. Based on the study of the principle of adversariality of the parties in criminal proceedings, the thesis that it is the defense party that is obliged to prove the presence of provocation, to indicate which facts and circumstances confirm this with reference to specific evidence examined at the court hearing, is substantiated. In turn, the prosecutor, supporting public accusations, except for the circumstances specified in Art. 91 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, guided by the standard of proof «beyond a reasonable doubt», is obliged to prove the absence of provocation of the crime. Failure to prove «beyond a reasonable doubt» the absence of provocation is equivalent to proving its presence and causes legal consequences in the form of an acquittal by the court. It has been proven that when one of the arguments of the defense side was the presence of provocation of a crime, the court is obliged to properly evaluate both the arguments of the defense side and the arguments of the prosecution regarding the presence or absence of such provocation. According to the results of the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in which the lower courts did not evaluate the arguments of the defense about provocation, or formally evaluated them formally, it was concluded that this is a significant violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prevented or could have prevented the court from adopting a legal and justified court decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 23 July 2023, the Knesset (Israel's parliament) passed a highly controversial legislation that undid the Supreme Court's ability to overturn a government decision on the basis of 'unreasonableness', only to have this legislation abolished by the Supreme Court on 1 January 2024. Since the 1960s, Israel has barred political parties from participating in the national parliamentary elections. This article places these bans in historical and theoretical context in an attempt to demonstrate how they were carried out and on what grounds, with a special emphasis on the relationship between the legislature and the Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The integration of electronic systems into the judicial process represents a significant advancement in legal practice. The advent of e-Court and electronic mediation represent a broader trend towards integrating technology to improve the efficiency and reach of judicial processes. This study aims to find out the stages of implementation of Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2022 concerning Electronic Mediation in the jurisdiction of the Denpasar District Court, and the inhibiting factors of the implementation of the regulation in this jurisdiction. The study provides valuable insights into the practical application of electronic mediation, highlights challenges faced in the field, and offers recommendations for improving the regulatory process and overcoming obstacles. This research could evaluate how legal representatives support parties in fulfilling their rights and obligations during electronic mediation. Additionally, investigating the specific obstacles related to software and human resources could provide insights into how these challenges impact the mediation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., concluding that isolated genes were not patentable subject matter. Beyond being a mere patent dispute, the case was a political and cultural phenomenon, viewed as a harbinger for the health of the biotechnology industry. With a decade of perspective, though, Myriad's impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter—while greatly transformed—only centered on Myriad in small part. The case had only a modest impact on patenting practices both in and outside the United States. And persistent efforts to legislatively overturn the decision have not borne fruit. The significance of Myriad thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study is to review the specific features of the Constitution of the United States of America, in view of the historical circumstances of its creation, and its topicality. The author stresses that the US Constitution and its interpretation have changed in the light of changing economic, political and social circumstances. Methodology: The author of the study has used the historical and comparative method in writing the paper. It has been considered how and to what extent this constitution has been and is being taken into account today outside the United States, particularly in European countries. Findings: The authors, the 'Founding Fathers' of the Constitution of the United States of America agreed that the Constitution should provide the legal basis i.e. the garantee of the separation and balance of powers. The principle of separation of powers implies the creation of three separate institutions of equal importance in the exercise of power. The checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution ensure balanced exercise of power. In addition to widespread presidential power, the preeminent role of the Supreme Court is according to ou view the most distinctive feature of the constitutional system of the United States of America. Value: In Hungary, this study provides a complex introduction to the Constitution of the United States of America. This includes the sources of the Constitution, the original text of the Constitution and its Amendments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Belügyi Szemle / Academic Journal of Internal Affairs is the property of Ministry of Interior of Hungary and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The research paper aims to explore and analyze the constitutional dimensions surrounding the authority of the Supreme Court in Pakistan to extend the prescribed time frame for conducting general elections, as stipulated by Article 224(2) of the Constitution. The research delves into the delicate balance between adhering to constitutional mandates and addressing the exigencies that may necessitate the extension of election timelines for the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy. Drawing upon comparative perspectives from other jurisdictions, the research seeks to highlight the nuanced considerations that surround this constitutional issue, examining instances where similar challenges have arisen and the approaches taken to address them. By doing so, it aims to contribute to a broader understanding of the intersection between constitutional provisions, democratic imperatives, and judicial authority in the context of election timelines. The literature review traces the judiciary's historical evolution, emphasizing independence and highlighting a gap in jurisdiction during delayed elections. Using qualitative and doctrinal methodologies, the study explores the Supreme Court's role, addressing a literature gap on its jurisdiction in delayed election scenarios. Findings indicate context-dependent power to extend election timelines, stressing collaborative decision-making with the Election Commission and the President. This research underscores the Court's pivotal role in preserving democratic integrity amid intricate election timelines, emphasizing the contextual nature of its authority to extend election periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We study the relationship between lack of recusals by Supreme Court justices in cases where they have a direct or indirect personal financial interest and diffuse support for the Court. Justices should recuse when they have a personal stake in a case; otherwise, decisions are perceived as biased and violating the rule of law. Despite popular interest in this behavior and significant consequences for societal acquiescence, there are no empirical studies assessing this relationship. Methods: We construct a survey experiment with four conditions and a control. Each condition displays an article discussing the failure of different justices to recuse from a case involving a direct (stocks owned in the litigant party) or an indirect (stocks owned in the industry of the litigant party) personal financial interest. Results: We find that not recusing from a case where direct personal financial interests exist negatively affects institutional legitimacy, but indirect conflicts of interest show no effect on diffuse support. Additionally, ideological congruence between the public and justice involved in the scenario not only does not mitigate negative effects but rather enhances harm toward diffuse support. Conclusion: Non‐recusals in cases where a justice has a direct financial conflict of interest negatively affect Court legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is indicated that in the early days of June 2024, the judges of the Supreme Court appealed to the members of the Scientific Advisory Council with a request to provide scientific conclusions regarding case No. 466/525/22 (the case concerned the application of the provisions of Part 3 of Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code). It emerged from the appeal that the criminal proceedings based on the cassation appeal of the prosecutor against the decision of the Lviv Court of Appeals dated Octobe 2, 2023 were referred to the joint chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court. In this scientific publication, the authors attempted to examine the situation that arises during searches in emergency cases within the framework of the problem of prioritizing the protection of human rights. It is argued that given the legal nature and content of the above constitutional provisions, it should be concluded that part three of Article 30 of the Basic Law of Ukraine should be interpreted as a direct effect provision. This means that it prevents a participant in criminal proceedings on the side of the prosecution (prosecutor, investigator, inquirer) from making a decision to enter a person's home or other property unless the case is urgent and the purpose does not comply with the provisions of the said provision of the Constitution of Ukraine, taking into account an individual assessment of the circumstances of a particular case. It is summarized that in the absence of a clear definition of the term «urgent» in the criminal procedure legislation, it is advisable to apply the principle of in dubio pro tributario (priority with the most favorable interpretation of the rule of law)). Given that we are talking about an exceptional case of restriction of the constitutional right to inviolability of the home outside of judicial control, it is important to apply a literal (not extended) interpretation of the content of part three of Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Therefore, the authorized participants in criminal proceedings, when deciding on an urgent search, are obliged to find out whether the delay during the reasonably foreseeable time required to apply to the investigating judge, obtain a search warrant and conduct it in the normal course of events will inevitably lead to the consequences provided for in Article 30 of the Constitution of Ukraine; what specific circumstances of the case indicate the urgency of the entry into the home or other property, which must be in direct causal connection with the loss (destruction, etc.) of property. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines, in practical and theoretical aspects, of influence of judicial practice and judicial precedent on the modern legal system of Ukraine. Since Ukraine has been granted candidate status for accession to the European Union, significant changes have been taking place in the legal system of Ukraine, particularly in international law norms, where international treaties have become not only obligatory for application within the legal system of Ukraine but also have priority in case of conflicts between national and international legislation. These changes are driven, in part, by the inclusion of judicial power and issues of justice in the negotiating process regarding Ukraine’s membership in the European Union, identified as the most important tasks for Ukraine. This cluster, which opens first and closes last, defines the fundamental aspects of legal and institutional alignment between Ukraine and the European Union. The importance of this cluster lies in the fact that the judicial system and justice play a key role in ensuring the rule of law, democracy, and the protection of human rights. This significantly influences modern judicial practice and envisages an even wider use of existing precedents or precedents being formed. Currently, in the judicial practice of Ukraine, there are processes that can be interpreted as an indicative mechanism influencing the legal system of Ukraine. It involves a qualitatively distinct set of characteristics that were not evident in previous years. This concerns the interrelation between the legal system of Ukraine and contemporary judicial practice with inherent features of normativity of a precedent-based type. There is a mutually conditioned process. On the one hand, judicial practice is becoming increasingly internationalized, meaning it increasingly employs principles, standards, and norms of international treaties, increasingly accepts judicial precedent of varying degrees of formation, and increasingly orients itself toward widely recognized judicial-legal ideas and principles. On the other hand, the legal system of Ukraine provides for the possibility of effective control over the implementation of international acts within the framework of judicial practice, including the use of judicial precedent to a certain extent and in certain areas of application. Thus, judicial practice, utilizing judicial precedents of national and international origin, serves as an indicative mechanism for analyzing the legal system. Actual judicial practice becomes an indicator of the development of the legal system and its adequacy to contemporary socio-legal and state-legal processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The significance of the research lies in addressing the critical issue of judicial misinterpretation by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is subsequently mirrored by subordinate courts, potentially infringing upon citizens' rights and freedoms. This study aims to thoroughly develop theoretical frameworks to enhance constitutional and legislative measures in Kazakhstan, thereby increasing the efficacy of legal norm interpretation and its impact on criminal justice administration. Utilizing analysis and comparative legal methods, this research examines various statutes and scholarly theories to ensure the theoretical and practical soundness, objectivity, and credibility of the findings. The investigation identifies legislative gaps, particularly in the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 480-V "On Legal Acts" and administration of criminal justice, proposing amendments for legislative enhancement and advocating for the incorporation of case law into the Kazakh legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe prohibition of interfaith marriage is stipulated in the Indonesian Marriage Law where this practice is considered valid when conducted according to the laws of each respective religion and belief. This is supported by the Compilation of Islamic Law, regulating the prohibition of interfaith marriage. This research aimed to analyze the prohibition of interfaith marriage using a qualitative methodology with normatively on the regulations and Indonesian Supreme Court Decision Number 1977/K/PDT/2017. The results showed that Supreme Court Justices reject the review of the rules governing interfaith marriage submitted by a couple (Islam and Christianity). This was because the concept violated the Human Rights Law, the Marriage Law, the Compilation of Islamic Law, and the Fatwa of the Indonesian Ulema Council. Furthermore, the decision was in conflict with human rights concerning an individual’s freedom to have beliefs and form a family. Pluralist groups also viewed this prohibition as more of a political nature under the guise of religion. Therefore, many interfaith couples preferred unregistered marriage abroad before recording in the Civil Registry Office, which represented a form of legal smuggling in Indonesia as the impact of perplex on this issue.

The article presents a dispute over the model of codification of misdemeanor law in Poland in the interwar period in the Criminal Law Section of the Codification Commission. It indicates that the 1932 misdemeanor law was a compromise solution, covering the most common misdemeanors, subjected in the first instance to the jurisdiction of authorized administrative bodies. Its Chapter VI covered offenses against property. They had a modern, synthetic character. Using them as an example, the role of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in correctly qualifying the perpetrator’s behavior as either a misdemeanor or a misdemeanor against property from the Criminal Code was demonstrated. This is because the Supreme Court assessed in cassation proceedings whether the perpetrator’s behavior exhausted the elements described in Articles 54–63 of the Misdemeanor Law or fell under the relevant provision of the Penal Code.

Purpose: Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies. Methods: We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword "circumcision" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court. Results: We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%). Conclusion: Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Supreme Court conducts much of its business through talk, including during oral arguments, where a central activity is the consideration of hypotheticals posed by justices. Using conversation analysis, I examine a key segment of the oral arguments for Citizens United v. FEC, one that arguably changed the course of campaign finance history. I identify the conversational devices employed to advance and contest one particular hypothetical, involving an imagined ban on books, subject to a speech-exchange system that differentially empowers justices to dictate both the terms of the discussion and the time afforded the advocate to respond to any particular question. The article offers the first disciplined qualitative analysis of interaction during oral arguments, illustrates the place of temporality in legal reasoning and argumentation, and makes several contributions to conversation analysis: it advances the study of institutional talk to a new legal setting, identifies some ways in which the machinery of talk can be harnessed for rhetorical effect, and demonstrates the analytical utility of prior knowledge of what a participant arrives to an encounter equipped to say. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Language & Law / Revista de Llengua i Dret is the property of Revista de Llengua i Dret and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Female attorneys at the U.S. Supreme Court are less successful than male attorneys under some conditions because of gender norms, implicit expectations about how men and women should act. While previous work has found that women are more successful when they use more emotional language at oral arguments, gender norms are context sensitive. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted perhaps the most radical contextual shift in Supreme Court history: freewheeling in-person arguments were replaced with turn-based teleconference arguments. This change altered judicial decision-making and, I argue, justices' assessments of attorneys' gender performance. Using quantitative textual analysis of oral arguments, I demonstrate that justices implicitly evaluate gender performance with different metrics in each modality. Gender-normative levels of emotional language predict success in both formats. Function words, however, only predict success in teleconference arguments. Given gender's salience at the Supreme Court and in broader society, my findings prompt questions about the extent to which women can substantively impact case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party's congressional candidate to another party's candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the institutional legacy of the Bolsonaro government on Brazilian democracy, with effects on 2023 and beyond. Focusing on the rebalance of the power of the executive branch vis-a-vis other powers, we argue that Bolsonaro's botched coup attempt exposed the limitations of existing regime safeguards. First, the activation of the military brought the shadow of raw power to the political table. Second, the increased leverage Congress now exercises over the executive has ambiguous effects on its willingness to check authoritarian overreaches from the President. Finally, we consider how the conflict between the past President and the Supreme Court has made the court more politicized, potentially affecting its public standing and making it a more likely target for future attacks within the political system. We suggest that, while democracy has resisted, it is not immune to backsliding. We briefly discuss how this reshuffling will shape the scenario for Lula's presidency and the Worker's Party in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Who governs—and who should govern—online communication? Social media companies, international organizations, users, or the state? And by what means? A range of rhetorical devices have been used to simplify the complexities associated with the governance of online platforms. This includes "constitutional metaphors": metaphorical allusions to traditional political concepts such as statehood, democracy, and constitutionalism. Here, we empirically trace the ascent of a powerful constitutional metaphor currently employed in the news media discourse on platform governance: characterizations of Facebook's Oversight Board (OB) as a "supreme court." We investigate the metaphor's descriptive suitability and question its normative and political ramifications. We argue that uncritical characterizations of the OB as Facebook's "supreme court" obscure its true scope and purpose. In addition, we argue that appropriating the socio-cultural symbolism and hence political legitimacy of a supreme court and mapping it onto a different type of actor poses a threat to responsible platform governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)