Book The Supreme Court and Election Law : Judging Equality from Baker V. Carr to Bush V. Gore by Richard L. Hasen TXT, PDF, FB2
9780814736913 English 0814736912 Charles Robert Darwin (18091882) has been widely recognized since his own time as one of the most influential writers in the history of Western thought. His books were widely read by specialists and the general public, and his influence had been extended by almost continuous public debate over the past 150 years. New York University Press's new paperback edition makes it possible to review Darwin's public literary output as a whole, plus his scientific journal articles, his private notebooks, and his correspondence. This is complete edition contains all of Darwin's published books, featuring definitive texts recording original pagination with Darwin's indexes retained. The set also features a general introduction and index, and introductions to each volume., In the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided "Bush v. Gore," Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed "core" of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., In the wake of the 2000 Florida election controversy, many Americans have questioned whether and how the Supreme Court should decide election law disputes., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction. oA must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics. . . . [Hasen's] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come.o -Michigan Law Review Hasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. -The Law and Politics Book Review A major contribution to the field of election law. -Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings Institution In the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process. The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction."A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics. . . . [Hasen's] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come." --Michigan Law ReviewHasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. --The Law and Politics Book ReviewA major contribution to the field of election law. --Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings InstitutionIn the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction.�A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics.... [Hasen�s] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come.� --Michigan Law ReviewHasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. --The Law and Politics Book ReviewA major contribution to the field of election law. --Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings InstitutionIn the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided.
9780814736913 English 0814736912 Charles Robert Darwin (18091882) has been widely recognized since his own time as one of the most influential writers in the history of Western thought. His books were widely read by specialists and the general public, and his influence had been extended by almost continuous public debate over the past 150 years. New York University Press's new paperback edition makes it possible to review Darwin's public literary output as a whole, plus his scientific journal articles, his private notebooks, and his correspondence. This is complete edition contains all of Darwin's published books, featuring definitive texts recording original pagination with Darwin's indexes retained. The set also features a general introduction and index, and introductions to each volume., In the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided "Bush v. Gore," Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed "core" of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., In the wake of the 2000 Florida election controversy, many Americans have questioned whether and how the Supreme Court should decide election law disputes., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction. oA must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics. . . . [Hasen's] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come.o -Michigan Law Review Hasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. -The Law and Politics Book Review A major contribution to the field of election law. -Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings Institution In the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process. The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction."A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics. . . . [Hasen's] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come." --Michigan Law ReviewHasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. --The Law and Politics Book ReviewA major contribution to the field of election law. --Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings InstitutionIn the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided., View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction.�A must-read for anyone interested in the intersection of law and politics.... [Hasen�s] is an important framework against which election law scholars will react and upon which they will build for some time to come.� --Michigan Law ReviewHasen wrote this concise but substantive volume to assess the history, at least since 1901, of the Supreme Court's intervention in the political process. --The Law and Politics Book ReviewA major contribution to the field of election law. --Thomas E. Mann, The Brookings InstitutionIn the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore, Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed core of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided.