{"title":"结论","authors":"James E. Pfander","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"So far, in the cases surveyed in this book, the Court has mostly deferred to Congress and to long-standing tradition, even in circumstances where tradition conflicts with some modern conceptions of the judicial power. Indeed, in many of the most interesting decisions upholding non-contentious jurisdiction, the challenge to the federal judicial role was based on the perceived demands of modern case-or-controversy rules. The pattern was set in ...","PeriodicalId":394146,"journal":{"name":"Cases Without Controversies","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conclusion\",\"authors\":\"James E. Pfander\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"So far, in the cases surveyed in this book, the Court has mostly deferred to Congress and to long-standing tradition, even in circumstances where tradition conflicts with some modern conceptions of the judicial power. Indeed, in many of the most interesting decisions upholding non-contentious jurisdiction, the challenge to the federal judicial role was based on the perceived demands of modern case-or-controversy rules. The pattern was set in ...\",\"PeriodicalId\":394146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cases Without Controversies\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cases Without Controversies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cases Without Controversies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197571408.003.0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
So far, in the cases surveyed in this book, the Court has mostly deferred to Congress and to long-standing tradition, even in circumstances where tradition conflicts with some modern conceptions of the judicial power. Indeed, in many of the most interesting decisions upholding non-contentious jurisdiction, the challenge to the federal judicial role was based on the perceived demands of modern case-or-controversy rules. The pattern was set in ...