Diversity judgments: democratizing judicial legitimacy
The US Supreme Court's legitimacy-its diminishing integrity and contribution to the good of society-is being questioned today like no other time in recent memory. Criticisms reflect the perspectives of both 'insiders' (straight white males) and 'outsiders' (mainly people of...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
2022
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | BSB01 UBG01 URL des Erstveröffentlichers |
| Zusammenfassung: | The US Supreme Court's legitimacy-its diminishing integrity and contribution to the good of society-is being questioned today like no other time in recent memory. Criticisms reflect the perspectives of both 'insiders' (straight white males) and 'outsiders' (mainly people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community). Neither perspective digs deep enough to get at the root of the Court's legitimacy problem, which is one of process. The Court's process of decision-making is antiquated and out of sync with a society that looks and thinks nothing like the America of the eighteenth century, when the process was first implemented. The current process marginalizes many Americans who have a right to feel disenfranchised. Leading scholar of jurisprudence Roy L. Brooks demonstrates how the Court can modernize and democratize its deliberative process, to be more inclusive of the values and life experiences of Americans who are not straight white males |
| Beschreibung: | Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022) Introduction : the framework -- Matal v. Tam (trademarking racial slurs) -- Lau v. Nichols (bilingual education) -- Brown v. Board of Education (single race schools) -- Griggs v. Duke Power (employment discrimination) -- District of Columbia v. Heller (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) -- Roe v. Wade (Reproductive Rights) -- United States v. Virginia (single sex colleges) -- United States v. Morrison (violence against women) -- Kulko v. Superior Court (child custody or support) -- Hernandez v. Texas (equal protection) -- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (school financing) -- Plyler v. Doe (educating undocumented minors) -- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (Indian adoption) -- Obergefell v. Hodges (single-sex marriages) -- Bostock v. Clayton County (employment discrimination) -- EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgt. Solutions Co. (dreadlocks) -- Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain) -- SFFA v. Harvard (affirmative action) -- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. (employment discrimination) -- City of Atlanta v. Rolfe (law enforcement) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) -- Martin v. City of Boise (The Homeless) -- Citizens United v. FEC (campaign financing) -- Trump v. Hawaii (Middle East migrants) |
| Beschreibung: | 1 Online-Ressource (xix, 636 Seiten) |
| ISBN: | 9781108333894 |
| DOI: | 10.1017/9781108333894 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nmm a2200000zc 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV048211422 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 00000000000000.0 | ||
| 007 | cr|uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220511s2022 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d | ||
| 020 | |a 9781108333894 |c Online |9 978-1-108-33389-4 | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/9781108333894 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (ZDB-20-CBO)CR9781108333894 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)1317689313 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV048211422 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rda | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-473 | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 342.7308/5 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Brooks, Roy L. |d 1950- |0 (DE-588)140469419 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Diversity judgments |b democratizing judicial legitimacy |c Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cambridge |b Cambridge University Press |c 2022 | |
| 300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource (xix, 636 Seiten) | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022) | ||
| 500 | |a Introduction : the framework -- Matal v. Tam (trademarking racial slurs) -- Lau v. Nichols (bilingual education) -- Brown v. Board of Education (single race schools) -- Griggs v. Duke Power (employment discrimination) -- District of Columbia v. Heller (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) -- Roe v. Wade (Reproductive Rights) -- United States v. Virginia (single sex colleges) -- United States v. Morrison (violence against women) -- Kulko v. Superior Court (child custody or support) -- Hernandez v. Texas (equal protection) -- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (school financing) -- Plyler v. Doe (educating undocumented minors) -- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (Indian adoption) -- Obergefell v. Hodges (single-sex marriages) -- Bostock v. Clayton County (employment discrimination) -- EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgt. Solutions Co. (dreadlocks) -- Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain) -- SFFA v. Harvard (affirmative action) -- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. (employment discrimination) -- City of Atlanta v. Rolfe (law enforcement) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) -- Martin v. City of Boise (The Homeless) -- Citizens United v. FEC (campaign financing) -- Trump v. Hawaii (Middle East migrants) | ||
| 520 | |a The US Supreme Court's legitimacy-its diminishing integrity and contribution to the good of society-is being questioned today like no other time in recent memory. Criticisms reflect the perspectives of both 'insiders' (straight white males) and 'outsiders' (mainly people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community). Neither perspective digs deep enough to get at the root of the Court's legitimacy problem, which is one of process. The Court's process of decision-making is antiquated and out of sync with a society that looks and thinks nothing like the America of the eighteenth century, when the process was first implemented. The current process marginalizes many Americans who have a right to feel disenfranchised. Leading scholar of jurisprudence Roy L. Brooks demonstrates how the Court can modernize and democratize its deliberative process, to be more inclusive of the values and life experiences of Americans who are not straight white males | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Social justice / United States / Cases | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i Erscheint auch als |n Druck-Ausgabe |z 978-1-108-42432-5 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894 |x Verlag |z URL des Erstveröffentlichers |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a ZDB-20-CBO | ||
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033592265 | ||
| 966 | e | |u https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894 |l BSB01 |p ZDB-20-CBO |q BSB_PDA_CBO |x Verlag |3 Volltext | |
| 966 | e | |u https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894 |l UBG01 |p ZDB-20-CBO |q UBG_PDA_CBO |x Verlag |3 Volltext | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804183984420159489 |
|---|---|
| adam_txt | |
| any_adam_object | |
| any_adam_object_boolean | |
| author | Brooks, Roy L. 1950- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)140469419 |
| author_facet | Brooks, Roy L. 1950- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Brooks, Roy L. 1950- |
| author_variant | r l b rl rlb |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV048211422 |
| collection | ZDB-20-CBO |
| ctrlnum | (ZDB-20-CBO)CR9781108333894 (OCoLC)1317689313 (DE-599)BVBBV048211422 |
| dewey-full | 342.7308/5 |
| dewey-hundreds | 300 - Social sciences |
| dewey-ones | 342 - Constitutional and administrative law |
| dewey-raw | 342.7308/5 |
| dewey-search | 342.7308/5 |
| dewey-sort | 3342.7308 15 |
| dewey-tens | 340 - Law |
| discipline | Rechtswissenschaft |
| discipline_str_mv | Rechtswissenschaft |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/9781108333894 |
| format | Electronic eBook |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>03854nmm a2200421zc 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV048211422</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">00000000000000.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr|uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220511s2022 |||| o||u| ||||||eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9781108333894</subfield><subfield code="c">Online</subfield><subfield code="9">978-1-108-33389-4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1017/9781108333894</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ZDB-20-CBO)CR9781108333894</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1317689313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV048211422</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-473</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">342.7308/5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brooks, Roy L.</subfield><subfield code="d">1950-</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)140469419</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diversity judgments</subfield><subfield code="b">democratizing judicial legitimacy</subfield><subfield code="c">Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cambridge</subfield><subfield code="b">Cambridge University Press</subfield><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 Online-Ressource (xix, 636 Seiten)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Introduction : the framework -- Matal v. Tam (trademarking racial slurs) -- Lau v. Nichols (bilingual education) -- Brown v. Board of Education (single race schools) -- Griggs v. Duke Power (employment discrimination) -- District of Columbia v. Heller (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) -- Roe v. Wade (Reproductive Rights) -- United States v. Virginia (single sex colleges) -- United States v. Morrison (violence against women) -- Kulko v. Superior Court (child custody or support) -- Hernandez v. Texas (equal protection) -- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (school financing) -- Plyler v. Doe (educating undocumented minors) -- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (Indian adoption) -- Obergefell v. Hodges (single-sex marriages) -- Bostock v. Clayton County (employment discrimination) -- EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgt. Solutions Co. (dreadlocks) -- Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain) -- SFFA v. Harvard (affirmative action) -- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. (employment discrimination) -- City of Atlanta v. Rolfe (law enforcement) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) -- Martin v. City of Boise (The Homeless) -- Citizens United v. FEC (campaign financing) -- Trump v. Hawaii (Middle East migrants)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The US Supreme Court's legitimacy-its diminishing integrity and contribution to the good of society-is being questioned today like no other time in recent memory. Criticisms reflect the perspectives of both 'insiders' (straight white males) and 'outsiders' (mainly people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community). Neither perspective digs deep enough to get at the root of the Court's legitimacy problem, which is one of process. The Court's process of decision-making is antiquated and out of sync with a society that looks and thinks nothing like the America of the eighteenth century, when the process was first implemented. The current process marginalizes many Americans who have a right to feel disenfranchised. Leading scholar of jurisprudence Roy L. Brooks demonstrates how the Court can modernize and democratize its deliberative process, to be more inclusive of the values and life experiences of Americans who are not straight white males</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Social justice / United States / Cases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="776" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Erscheint auch als</subfield><subfield code="n">Druck-Ausgabe</subfield><subfield code="z">978-1-108-42432-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">URL des Erstveröffentlichers</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-20-CBO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033592265</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="966" ind1="e" ind2=" "><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894</subfield><subfield code="l">BSB01</subfield><subfield code="p">ZDB-20-CBO</subfield><subfield code="q">BSB_PDA_CBO</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="966" ind1="e" ind2=" "><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894</subfield><subfield code="l">UBG01</subfield><subfield code="p">ZDB-20-CBO</subfield><subfield code="q">UBG_PDA_CBO</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV048211422 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-03T19:48:38Z |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T09:32:07Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9781108333894 |
| language | English |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033592265 |
| oclc_num | 1317689313 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-473 DE-BY-UBG |
| physical | 1 Online-Ressource (xix, 636 Seiten) |
| psigel | ZDB-20-CBO ZDB-20-CBO BSB_PDA_CBO ZDB-20-CBO UBG_PDA_CBO |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publishDateSearch | 2022 |
| publishDateSort | 2022 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Brooks, Roy L. 1950- (DE-588)140469419 aut Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2022 1 Online-Ressource (xix, 636 Seiten) txt rdacontent c rdamedia cr rdacarrier Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022) Introduction : the framework -- Matal v. Tam (trademarking racial slurs) -- Lau v. Nichols (bilingual education) -- Brown v. Board of Education (single race schools) -- Griggs v. Duke Power (employment discrimination) -- District of Columbia v. Heller (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms) -- Roe v. Wade (Reproductive Rights) -- United States v. Virginia (single sex colleges) -- United States v. Morrison (violence against women) -- Kulko v. Superior Court (child custody or support) -- Hernandez v. Texas (equal protection) -- San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (school financing) -- Plyler v. Doe (educating undocumented minors) -- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (Indian adoption) -- Obergefell v. Hodges (single-sex marriages) -- Bostock v. Clayton County (employment discrimination) -- EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgt. Solutions Co. (dreadlocks) -- Kelo v. City of New London (eminent domain) -- SFFA v. Harvard (affirmative action) -- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans. Co. (employment discrimination) -- City of Atlanta v. Rolfe (law enforcement) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) -- Martin v. City of Boise (The Homeless) -- Citizens United v. FEC (campaign financing) -- Trump v. Hawaii (Middle East migrants) The US Supreme Court's legitimacy-its diminishing integrity and contribution to the good of society-is being questioned today like no other time in recent memory. Criticisms reflect the perspectives of both 'insiders' (straight white males) and 'outsiders' (mainly people of color, women, and the LGBTQ community). Neither perspective digs deep enough to get at the root of the Court's legitimacy problem, which is one of process. The Court's process of decision-making is antiquated and out of sync with a society that looks and thinks nothing like the America of the eighteenth century, when the process was first implemented. The current process marginalizes many Americans who have a right to feel disenfranchised. Leading scholar of jurisprudence Roy L. Brooks demonstrates how the Court can modernize and democratize its deliberative process, to be more inclusive of the values and life experiences of Americans who are not straight white males Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases Social justice / United States / Cases Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases Erscheint auch als Druck-Ausgabe 978-1-108-42432-5 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894 Verlag URL des Erstveröffentlichers Volltext |
| spellingShingle | Brooks, Roy L. 1950- Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases Social justice / United States / Cases Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases |
| title | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| title_auth | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| title_exact_search | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| title_full | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law |
| title_fullStr | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law |
| title_full_unstemmed | Diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law |
| title_short | Diversity judgments |
| title_sort | diversity judgments democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| title_sub | democratizing judicial legitimacy |
| topic | Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases Social justice / United States / Cases Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases |
| topic_facet | Discrimination / Law and legislation / United States / Cases Social justice / United States / Cases Minorities / Legal status, laws, etc / United States / Cases |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT brooksroyl diversityjudgmentsdemocratizingjudiciallegitimacy |