This is our backup site. Click here to visit our main site at MellenPress.com
Subject Area: United States Supreme Court
Prescott, Jr., James F.2010 0-7734-3832-7 392 pages
The primary audience of this work will be scholars who study judicial process and behavior at the federal level of government. The data cover in excess of 205 years of American history. No comprehensive work on this subject has ever been published.
Owens, Lori J.
2005 0-7734-5852-2 316 pages
This study examines the judicial philosophy of original intent and how the 1987 Robert Bork hearings impacted the judicial nomination and confirmation process. Although the debate had raged in the law schools for decades, the debate became public during Ronald Reagan’s second term. The Bork nomination was a merging of jurisprudence and politics. Following Bork’s rejection, many opponents of original intent argued that originalism was dead. The purpose of this research was to determine if the original intent debate still exists and how the Bork episode affected the nomination and confirmation process.
This study examines the scholarly literature on the emergence of the original intent debate, the exchange of words between Edwin Meese and William Brennan, the confirmation process prior to 1987, the Bork hearings, how the Bork hearings impacted post-Bork nominations and confirmations, Bill Clinton’s nominees to the federal judiciary, and the current status of original intent. Interviews with participants on both sides of this debate are included in this study.
Mongkuo, Maurice Y.
2005 0-7734-5944-8 480 pages
This study offers a legally and methodologically acceptable approach that governments can use to generate factual predicate for establishing compelling state interest in adopting race preference programs in government contracting under the United States Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard of review. Race preference programs are critical for increasing opportunities among minority firms to do business with government. These programs have come under judicial attack in recent years at both the state and federal government levels because they do not serve a “compelling state interest” to correct discrimination in the government contracting process. The courts rejected these programs as premised on evidence that do not offer a legally and methodologically acceptable probative explanation of the extent to which discrimination influence contract award to minority firms under the United States Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard. Using the City of St. Petersburg as the research setting, this study combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to determine probative explanation of the extent to which discrimination influence contract awards to minority-owned firms within the framework of the Supreme Court strict scrutiny standard. These approaches can be relied upon by any government entity to ascertain if race preference and/or race neutral remedial policies are warranted.
Hunter, Kerry L.
2006 0-7734-5843-3 172 pages
This study examines the irreconcilable demands of American contradicting political mythology and how this dynamic is played out in the arena of constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike those who argue that America suffers from the paradoxical contradictions in its ideas (see, for example, H. Mark Roelofs, The Poverty of American Politics), this book suggests that the very strength of American political idealism lies in its contradictions, and that the Supreme Court’s essential role is the preservation of those contradicting ideals. In early chapters, classic liberal demands and contradictions as well as republican ideals are examined. The author argues that healthy liberalism is dependent upon a healthy republican ideal. The author further demonstrates that dominant judicial philosophies from the right and left are all inadequate due to their failure to comprehend the Court’s mythical responsibilities. In the final chapter, Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore are shown as examples where the Court failed. By refusing to take their mythological responsibilities seriously, the Court’s opinions in these cases appear to rest on blatant power politics. It is as if the members of the Court blatantly replaced their mythical priestly robes with the hats of highly suspect politicians. A brief examination of Brown v. Board of Education reveals a Court meeting its obligation by carefully staying in the realm of myth as it cautiously resolved the case. The author further argues that the nation would be well served if justices on the Court would pursue this most important political responsibility when exercising judicial review and that conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, all have a vital interest in encouraging justices on the Court to accept this responsibility. The author suggests that conflicting idealism is essential to freedom as it checks powerful political agendas from the right and the left, and demonstrates that the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to promote this idealism. History has shown that a single unifying political philosophy, which makes it easy to run rough-shod over all who stand in its way, it not always desirable. The strength of American idealism is that it refuses to grant full legitimacy to virtually any government initiative.
Fife, Brian L.
1997 0-7734-8725-5 146 pages
This in-depth empirical examination of city versus metropolitan school desegregation is a significant addition to the literature on school desegregation policy. Chapter headings and topics include: The Supreme Court and School Desegregation Since 1896; Segregation and Poverty; Residential Segregation; Assessing the Status of School Desegregation (in-depth analysis of Indiana schools, political culture, electorate); City and Metropolitan School Desegregation (in four cities, two metropolitan areas, Jefferson County Public Schools); School Desegregation in the Hub; Racial Balance, Enrollment Patterns, Population Trends in the Boston Public Schools; A Metropolitan Remedy for Desegregating America's Public Schools; Notes and Bibliography.
Ulloth, Dana
2022 1-4955-1038-7 140 pages
[Hardcover Edition] "One of the reasons the founders created a multi-seat court was to ensure that a diversity of knowledge and opinion would help to bring balance to its opinions. With the emergence of the new originalist block, decisions have become increasingly uniform in content. ...As I read the opinions, a question arose that seemed to demand attention: To what were the originalists being faithful? Was it to the principles of the republican government defined in the Constitution, or was it to the religious content of the justice's ideology? To answer the question, it was necessary to identify two doctrines: one secular, one religious...." -from the Author's "Introduction"
Ulloth, Dana
2022 1-4955-1044-1 140 pages
[Softcover Edition] "One of the reasons the founders created a multi-seat court was to ensure that a diversity of knowledge and opinion would help to bring balance to its opinions. With the emergence of the new originalist block, decisions have become increasingly uniform in content. ...As I read the opinions, a question arose that seemed to demand attention: To what were the originalists being faithful? Was it to the principles of the republican government defined in the Constitution, or was it to the religious content of the justice's ideology? To answer the question, it was necessary to identify two doctrines: one secular, one religious...." -from the Author's "Introduction"