LIABILITY OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE EU LAW

European Justice Court in Kobler and Traghetti decision defined principles of EU Member State compensatory liability in relation to civil law subjects due to damages caused by judicial authorities＇ acts breaching EU regulations. Due to lack of proper EU procedural norms, claims against such acts, which in fact are serious errors of Member State＇s judicial authorities, follow on the base of Member State＇s rules,     

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPREME COURT AS A NATIONAL POLICYMAKER

The most frequent explanations for the endurance of the Supreme Court's policies and of its power as a national policymaker assume public reverence for the Court, widespread support for it as an institution, or broad-based agreement with its policies. Public opinion studies refute most of these assumptions. Our research confirms those studies and shows, in addition, that the Court cannot claim strong support among occasional political activists. It does, however, have a strong constituency among liberal activists and liberal position-holders. We hypothesize, therefore, that the Court's endurance as a national policymaker is explained by special support from one wing of the dominant party coalition that, because of its strategic location in the complex national policy process, is able to obstruct broadly-based attacks on the Court's authority and policy. Such attacks gain force, however, when critical elections alter the dominant party coalition and therefore weaken the hold of the Court's ideological allies. Yet even then—or at least so far—the Court and its policies have prevailed against various court curbing efforts.     

南北分裂时期之广州大理院(1919-1925)

<正>作为清末法制变革的产物,大理院在近代中国存在22年(1906-1928)。随着近年来愈来愈多的学者开始关注中国法制近代化的历史进程,对大理院的研究也成为时下的一个热点,海峡两岸都取得了一些成果。然而对于民初(1912-1928)大理院的研究仍然存在一些问题,没有得以深化,例如,清末民初有没有设立大理分院?如果设立,何时何地设立?关于设立大理分院,曾经有过什么样的主张?结果如何?南方军政府是否单独设立了自己的最高司法     

SUPREME COURT OPINIONS: Getting the Message

The true significance of policy articulations by appellate courts lies in the behavioral responses of relevant parties below. Actions consistent with the intent of appellate sources is dependant on effective communication between message source and message recipient. Limiting focus to the U.S. Supreme Court as an appellate source, two measures of effective communications are developed. These measures incorporate two dimensions of comprehension difficulty: message structure and the familiarity of the reader with constitutional language. The article also suggests 13 hypotheses pertaining to relative communicative success or failure, several of which are tested briefly.     

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND FAMILY COURT REFORM

Creating a unified family court, or any type of family court reform, may have only a minimal impact if it simply changes the structure of how judges do business rather than addresses the structure of the child welfare system itself. The authors argue that family court reform must place social justice at its center. First, they discuss profound flaws in the child welfare system that make poor and minority families especially vulnerable to coercive state intervention. Second, they describe two approaches to child welfare cases–family systems theory and therapeutic justice–that can help to guide reform efforts directed at addressing these structural flaws. Finally, they suggest ways in which family law scholarship can assist in creating a social justice agenda for family court reform.     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.     

KENT V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUVENILE CASE

As we went to press the decision was issued. Because of its significance the Journal will treat the case in two phases. The article that follows concerns itself with the facts and issues presented; the next issue will interpret the decision. This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on the legality of juvenile court procedures.     

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AND SCREENING DECISIONS ON JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS

Research on race, sex, and social class discrimination in the juvenile justice process has yielded mixed results. These conflicting findings have been attributed to the use of diverse research strategies and various methodological shortcomings. There are, however, two potentially important issues that have not been previously addressed: the need to examine the juvenile justice system as a process, rather than as a series of separate and unrelated decision points, and the failure to control for the impact of administrative factors such as pretrial detention. The purpose of the research reported here is to examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions while controlling for pretrial detention and appropriate legal factors. The analytical strategy employed permits an examination of the impact of these factors over three stages of the juvenile justice process: referral, adjudication, and disposition.
Findings indicate that while legal factors and pretrial detention decline in importance as predictors of disposition as one moves from an examination of all referred to adjudicated youth, race and social class become more important. These results are discussed in terms of their methodological significance and their implications for the conceptualization of discrimination in the juvenile justice process.     

STATE SUPREME COURT APPLICATIONS OF TROXEL v. GRANVILLE AND THE COURTS' RELUCTANCE TO DECLARE GRANDPARENT VISITATION STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In this article, the author reviews state supreme court applications of Troxel v. Granville , analyzing the impact of the decision on the courts' ongoing efforts to adjudicate visitation disputes between parents and grandparents. Set against a background of legislative recognition of grandparents' rights and judicial uncertainty regarding the appropriate role of nonparents in children's lives, Troxel reaffirmed the constitutional right of parents to direct their children's upbringing. The author argues that state supreme courts evaluating gradparent visitation statutes and seeking to enforce Troxel 's presumption in favor of parents should be more willing to strike down overly broad statutes. Such an approach would be a positive step toward addressing the excessive judicial discretion that the Troxel Court found so problematic, and would signal to state legislatures the need for statutes that both provide for the needs of children and protect parental rights.     

RESEARCHING THE SUPREME COURT IN A DEMOCRATIC PLURALIST SYSTEM: Some Thoughts on New Directions

The political processes which invite research and the investment of associated resources are those identified as signiscant by the political theories to which we give credence. Though Democratic Pluralism is the most popular explanation of the political system in the United States, its ability to explain Supreme Court behavior cannot be evaluated, for observation of the processes by which Court agendas for national policy making purposes are constructed is not encouraged. The remedy lies in a new and broader perspective which directs attention to a number of institutional actions and incumbent behaviors until now slighted, if not ignored.