分权审查时代的最高法院1

G. White
{"title":"分权审查时代的最高法院1","authors":"G. White","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Volume 2 of this series devoted several chapters to the emergence of what it called “guardian review” on the Supreme Court, a posture in which justices acted as guardians of individual rights against restrictions by the state. This volume contains several chapters exploring the replacement of that posture with “bifurcated review,” featuring a deferential attitude toward some restriction of individual rights and aggressive scrutiny of others. This chapter describes the evolution from guardian to bifurcated review on the Court and matches it to changes in the Court’s internal decision-making protocols from the 1940s through to the 1970s.","PeriodicalId":283594,"journal":{"name":"Law in American History, Volume III","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review I\",\"authors\":\"G. White\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Volume 2 of this series devoted several chapters to the emergence of what it called “guardian review” on the Supreme Court, a posture in which justices acted as guardians of individual rights against restrictions by the state. This volume contains several chapters exploring the replacement of that posture with “bifurcated review,” featuring a deferential attitude toward some restriction of individual rights and aggressive scrutiny of others. This chapter describes the evolution from guardian to bifurcated review on the Court and matches it to changes in the Court’s internal decision-making protocols from the 1940s through to the 1970s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law in American History, Volume III\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law in American History, Volume III","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190634940.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系列的第二卷用了几章的篇幅来介绍最高法院所谓的“监护人审查”的出现,在这种情况下,法官充当个人权利的监护人,反对国家的限制。这本书包含了几个章节,探索用“分岔审查”取代那种态度,以对个人权利的某些限制和对他人的积极审查的恭敬态度为特征。本章描述了最高法院从监护人制度到分岔审查制度的演变,并将其与20世纪40年代至70年代最高法院内部决策程序的变化联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Supreme Court in the Era of Bifurcated Review I
Volume 2 of this series devoted several chapters to the emergence of what it called “guardian review” on the Supreme Court, a posture in which justices acted as guardians of individual rights against restrictions by the state. This volume contains several chapters exploring the replacement of that posture with “bifurcated review,” featuring a deferential attitude toward some restriction of individual rights and aggressive scrutiny of others. This chapter describes the evolution from guardian to bifurcated review on the Court and matches it to changes in the Court’s internal decision-making protocols from the 1940s through to the 1970s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信