Is the Roberts Court Really a Court?
Georgia State University College of Law
Stetson Law Review, Vol. 40, p. 1, 2011
Georgia State University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-10
When facing a question that the law does not clearly answer, courts are generally obligated to resolve legal disputes by examining, interpreting, and applying prior positive law such as text and precedent. This Article argues that three cases decided by the Roberts Court – Gonzales v. Carhart, District of Columbia v. Heller, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – exemplify the Supreme Court’s propensity for disregarding prior positive law when deciding cases. The Author contends that the Roberts Court, quite possibly like all the Supreme Courts before it, is not a “court” at all because it does not take prior law seriously and does not transparently provide true justifications for its conclusions.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 16
Keywords: Supreme Court, SCOTUS, Citizens United, John Robets, Precedent, Stare Decisis, Judicial Review
JEL Classification: K00, K30, K40Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 2, 2011
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.312 seconds