This article will attempt to identify a principled limit to colorblindness -- to chart a course between the Scylla of a jurisprudence where the Equal Protection Clause perpetuates racial supremacy, and the Charybdis of a racial politic where discrimination on the basis of race is not a matter of fundamental principle but only a matter of whose ox is gored. Part II of this article further elaborates on the dilemma at the heart of Justice Anthony Kennedy's hypothetical. Part III will describe "": the process of individual racial classification and definition of benefits and burdens on that basis, rather than mere "classification," that is central to the Supreme Court's race jurisprudence. Part IV will explain why the process of is so troubling. Part ...
Notice is hereby given of a public meeting of the of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). The meeting will involve discussion of a research report prepared by Professor Lenni B. Benson (New York Law School) and Russell Wheeler (The Governance Institute and Brookings Institution) for ACUS's ``Immigration Adjudication'' project. The committee will meet via a virtual, online Web forum extending over a period of approximately six weeks. Committee members will discuss the research report by posting comments to the forum and reading comments submitted to the forum by other persons. The public may participate by submitting comments electronically or by mail or fax.
Just days after the leaders of the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations announced that they would not drop their lawsuit that challenges the purchase of the Sardis Lake Reservoir, the state's attorney general said he has asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction over a comprehensive stream adjudication in the case. Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office announced the action in a media release Friday afternoon. Pruitt said he filed the motion because both tribes have aggressively pursued litigation in which they claim the right to all the waters in southeastern Oklahoma.
The US Supreme Court may have gone too far in encouraging members of the Court to engage in public conflict, and that some simple reforms may have the effect of reducing the expression of political differences in published opinions. This is not to suggest that the Court should adopt formal rules in order to suppress the publication of multiple opinions, or even that individual justices feel obliged to adopt restrained postures toward those with whom they disagree. The public expression of diverse legal views about controversial issues has a direct value in a constitutional democracy. However, there seems to be a genuine conflict between the pursuit of this value and the development of a shared or common view of what the Constitution requires. The European courts have plainly made a diff...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Genetics | migrant workers in the united states | california v whitney | Franklin Western | Alside Inc. | daños ambientales en puerto rico | emigracion mexicana | seguros de desempleo bancomer | Lachapelle-sous-chaux | discurso persuasivo
