大葉大學圖書館 |

Diversity judgments[electronic resource] :democratizing judicial legitimacy /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
杜威分類號:	342.73085
書名/作者:	Diversity judgments : democratizing judicial legitimacy // Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law.
作者:	Brooks, Roy L.
出版者:	Cambridge : : Cambridge University Press,, 2022.
面頁冊數:	xix, 636 p. : : ill., digital ;; 24 cm.
附註:	Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022).
標題:	Discrimination - Law and legislation - United States
標題:	Social justice - Cases. - United States
標題:	Minorities - Legal status, laws, etc. - United States
ISBN:	9781108333894
ISBN:	9781108424325
ISBN:	9781108440066
內容註:	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).
摘要、提要註:	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.
電子資源:	https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894

Diversity judgments[electronic resource] :democratizing judicial legitimacy /
Brooks, Roy L.

Diversity judgmentsdemocratizing judicial legitimacy /[electronic resource] :Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law. - Cambridge :Cambridge University Press,2022. - xix, 636 p. :ill., digital ;24 cm.

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.

ISBN: 9781108333894Subjects--Topical Terms:

767764
Discrimination
--Law and legislation--United States

LC Class. No.: KF4755 / .B7577 2022

Dewey Class. No.: 342.73085

Diversity judgments[electronic resource] :democratizing judicial legitimacy /
LDR:03081nmm a2200265 a 4500 001 539281
003 UkCbUP
005 20220331180623.0
006 m d
007 cr nn 008maaau
008 231121s2022 enk o 1 0 eng d
020 $a 9781108333894 $q (electronic bk.)
020 $a 9781108424325 $q (hardback)
020 $a 9781108440066 $q (paperback)
035 $a CR9781108333894
040 $a UkCbUP $b eng $c UkCbUP $d GP
050 0 0 $a KF4755 $b .B7577 2022
082 0 0 $a 342.73085 $2 23
090 $a KF4755 $b .B873 2022
100 1 $a Brooks, Roy L. $3 767763
245 1 0 $a Diversity judgments $h [electronic resource] : $b democratizing judicial legitimacy / $c Roy L. Brooks, University of San Diego School of Law.
260 $a Cambridge : $b Cambridge University Press, $c 2022.
300 $a xix, 636 p. : $b ill., digital ; $c 24 cm.
500 $a Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 11 Mar 2022).
505 0 $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 0 $a Discrimination $x Law and legislation $z United States $x Cases. $3 767764
650 0 $a Social justice $z United States $x Cases. $3 767765
650 0 $a Minorities $x Legal status, laws, etc. $z United States $x Cases. $3 767766
856 4 0 $u https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333894