AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Worst supreme court decisions 20138/17/2023 Sadly, the legal academy here comes off as result-oriented, but bad at calculating results, and blind to their own self-interest. But these opponents of Citizens United never give a second thought to the kind of distortions that come from the overwhelmingly politically one-sided views of academics and the news media, which this issue of Time once again confirms. I have explained elsewhere why this claim misunderstands the Framers’ understanding of democratic representation. Two of the those contributors suggest it does away with democracy, no doubt because they fear the distortion of opinion by corporate expression of views about elections. The other decision most disliked is Citizens United with four critics. There have been many instances where it has delivered brilliant judgments. Laws, like those in Bowers, that even at the time were rarely enforced, would be a dead letter today because of social changes, regardless of the result in Lawrence and Bowers. Supreme Court of India is a very dynamic interpreter of Constitutional provisions. The ordinary political processes of democracy, and especially the operation of competitive federalism, do not operate flawlessly or instantaneously, but they have numerous advantages over the impatient and self-satisfied imposition of constitutionally unjustified judicial edicts.Īnd so it has proven. The Constitution creates alternative mechanisms for achieving desirable legal changes that are far superior to this kind of judicial improvisation. The Lawrence approach to substantive due process has relatively small and ephemeral benefits but very large and enduring costs, particularly to the judiciary as an institution. Texas was one of the most ill-reasoned decisions in the modern Supreme Court, as Nelson Lund and I explain. We also show why a contrary result cannot be defended simply by arguing that it has good effects: Indeed, the contrary holding in Lawrence v. While the rhetoric of this case was indeed unfortunate and the law it upheld foolish, its refusal to extend substantive due process was defensible. Hardwick is another case that comes in for much criticism. And my friend, Nelson Lund has ably shown why the case was the best reading of the Court’s own Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence and the Florida Supreme Court’s own preferences on the remedy.īowers v. And others proclaim that the result was partisan, although seven justices, including two who were not conservatives, agreed that the Florida Court’s decision violated the equal protection clause. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Thursday reaffirmed his role as the ardent defender of Native American rights on the nine-member bench, writing dozens of pages in a pair of opinions about. But by now it is well-known that a recount would likely have led to a Bush victory nevertheless, even assuming that Republican House did not decide for Bush. Some argue that it was bad for consequential reasons, because it put the terrible George W. Thus, Time encourages the view that what is important about a decision is whether the result accords with one’s preferences rather than if it is correctly reasoned.īut even given the poor structure for the assignment, the answers are often thoughtless and sometimes wrong even on their own terms. Then it gave the professors an absurdly small amount of space to explain their reasons-so small that it would be almost impossible to give a reasoned legal critique of any decision. While the academy leans about eleven to two to the left, Time managed to exacerbate that disparity, picking only one conservative to participate and what appear to be 15 professors on the left side of the American political spectrum. It is an illuminating enterprise, not because the answers are particularly interesting but because it perfectly illustrates the mindset of the traditional media and the legal academy today.īegin with Time. The gynaecologist "failed to provide the woman with information that a reasonable consumer in her circumstances would expect to receive".Timeasked 16 law professors what they thought were the worst Supreme Court decisions since the 1960s. She said without the necessary information, the patient wasn't able to make an informed choice and give informed consent to the surgery. "I am not satisfied that the gynaecologist informed the patient of the risks specific to the surgical mesh procedure, including those of mesh erosion and chronic pelvic pain." Wall found the gynaecologist did not explain the risks of gynaecological surgical mesh to the woman before the procedure. "The woman raised concerns about the informed consent process prior to surgery, in particular whether the treatment options, and the clinical rationale and risks of these options, were explained adequately," Wall explained of the woman's complaint to the HDC. Worsening pain in her left hip saw the TOT removed in 2018, where it was found to have eroded the vaginal wall and was noted as being "a little on the tight side". Her complications also included an increase in recurrent UTIs between 2014 to 2018.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |