结论

James E. Pfander
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

到目前为止,在本书调查的案件中,法院大多服从国会和长期的传统,即使在传统与某些现代司法权概念相冲突的情况下也是如此。事实上,在许多支持无争议管辖权的最有趣的判决中,对联邦司法角色的挑战是基于对现代案件或争议规则的感知需求。这种模式是在……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conclusion
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 ...
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信