The Supreme Court of the United States : legitimate law-maker and constitutional interpreter

The Supreme Court plays a significant role in the American legal system as one of the three branches of federal government, serving as a "national policy-maker" and the final instance in all criminal, civil, and constitutional cases. As a common law court, it creates binding legal norms and exercises the power of judicial review, having the potential to interpret the constitution and create constitutional precedents. The core idea of the common law system, rooted in case-based legal reasoning, suggests that the Court strongly relies on its own earlier decisions. However, the analysis of its recent jurisprudence proves a diminishing adherence to former precedents on the part of the justices, which may be caused by the impact of ideology on their adjudications. On the other hand, the justices tend to refer to the national rather than international adjudication, strengthening the meaning of earlier Courts’ judgments more often in the context of issues which relate to the justices’ ideologies. The chapter presents the theory and practice of the Court’s jurisprudence, defining the real character of its precedents and including their position in the hierarchy of sources of law, and the relations between the Court and lower judicial institutions, as well as the attitude of the justices towards international law. The analysis may lead to surprising conclusions, showing that the members of "the most active judicial institution in the world" are now more likely to focus on ideological and political factors instead of applying a concrete legal methodology in the process of establishing binding precedents

"Good law" versus "bad law" : civil disobedience during the desegregation process in the United States of America

In 1954, after almost sixty years of tolerating the separate-but-equal doctrine shaped in Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to reject the unequal policy of the government in educational system, and thus to initiate changes in the status of racial segregation. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision ignited both positive and negative feelings and emotions of Americans, who began to show two types of civil disobedience. The first type of disobedience was addressed against the Court and its controversial precedent, and could be visible mainly in Southern states among white citizens and some state authorities. Despite the fact that the Court’s decision was binding, Southern judges, politicians as well as ordinary people showed their disobedience towards the highest judicial institution in the country and its notion of desegregation. The second type of civil disobedience was addressed towards these institutions which neglected the necessity of social change and promotion of equality, and could be observed in actions undertaken by various individuals and organizations aiming at broadening the constitutional protection of black Americans. The purpose of the article is to analyze both types of civil disobedience which were initiated by the same source - a judicial precedent, and had an enormous impact on American society of the late 1950s and early 1960s, leading to final change in the perception of the equality principle as well as the status of civil rights. The article proposes a thesis that the scope and character of civil disobedience may depend on the ideology of certain social groups and therefore influence their attitude to the direction of changes in law

Does the U.S. campaign finance system favor Republicans?

There is a common belief that the pro-regulatory approach of Democrats, makes them more determined in the fight against big money in campaign elections, whereas Republicans, supporting recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and McCutcheon v. F.E.C., benefit from the system more than their political counterparts. The aim of the article is to analyze the real character of the U.S. campaign finance regulations, both from legislative and judicial perspective, and to determine which political party benefits from the system: Republican or Democratic? By underlining the Buckley rule that ‘money is speech’ the Author suggests that campaign contributions and spending are deeply rooted in the character of American political system determining the political future of candidates of both political parties. The article refers to election cycles since 1970s, but it mainly focuses on recent election cycles, including the 2016 presidential election

It's all about the court(s) : general remarks on the american idea of judical impact on the scope of civil rights

Different legal systems provide different concepts of civil rights protection. In most countries the law is created by the legislative and is enforced by the executive, making the two powers dominating actors in the process of shaping the scope of the rights of the people. From time to time, such regulations are found unconstitutional by special Courts (Tribunals), which adapt them to constitutional reality. However, in common law countries, and especially in the United States of America, the concept of power of the legislative over civil rights is undermined by active judicial review undertaken by federal courts with the Supreme Court at the top. The lawmaking ability of the judges, their position within the branches of government, as well as the power of judicial review, leads to the dominating position of court-shaped principles and regulations over various social and political issues. Civil rights cases belong today to the most valuable legacy of the Supreme Court, in which precedents have enormous impact on the scope of protection of constitutional rights and freedoms

Separate, Equal, or Separate-But-Equal : the changing image of race in the U.S. Supreme Court

There is no doubt that the United States were not created as a purely democratic state. On the one hand, it established basic rules and principles of democratic government such as free elections, sovereignty of the nation, fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals or independent judiciary. All of these principles were, however, enjoyed only by the part of American society: free elections were guaranteed for white men, excluding women and blacks; sovereignty belonged to the nation, i.e. white women and men, because slaves were not considered citizens; fundamental rights and freedoms were guaranteed only for whites; institutional independence of the judicial branch did not prevent the system from injustice towards the blacks. Furthermore, one of the most important values of democratic society, equal protection of law, was absent in the original constitutional document of 1787, as well as the provisions of Bill of Rights. The clause became part of U.S. constitutional reality yet in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, as a direct result of social and political changes caused by the civil war. After introducing the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, which abolished slavery, the government took a step forward by making all citizens equal in 1868 and by providing black Americans with suffrage rights in 1870. For former slaves it meant a milestone step in their fight to destroy the social and political boundaries which limited their basic rights and freedoms. However, before the above mentioned events took place, the period of injustice and exploitation occurred with the U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of social and political tensions. The main purpose of the article is to show the changing attitude of the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the social and political status of African??Americans. This attitude influenced historical and contemporary social relations among the American society proving one of the most controversial aspects of U.S. democracy

Secrecy versus transparency in the US national security surveillance state

In the modern world, surveillance is one of the most common and effective tools of data collection, promising governments security from internal and external dangers. Since the Snowden affair, the issue of the true scope of governmental surveillance has become a serious concern of American society, raising institutional, systemic, and functional questions and highlighting the critical conflict between transparency and secrecy. Contemporary political science approaches the role of government surveillance from two perspectives: the expectation that democratic governments should conduct their politics with openness, providing citizens with access to information, protecting their basic rights and freedoms, and strengthening trust and accountability; and the acknowledgment that the need to preserve the effectiveness and efficiency of governance precludes the possibility of sharing vulnerable national security information with the public. This chapter analyzes the historical and contemporary relationship between secrecy and transparency in government surveillance in the United States, aiming to determine whether their coexistence is possible, particularly in light of the Snowden leaks. The analysis of the legal and political aspects of the politics of surveillance may help to answer the question of whether achieving transparency of surveillance practices is possible or, rather, is just a myth