Isbn: 9781108493185 - reconstructing rights: courts, parties, and equality rights in india, south africa, and the united states (comparative constitutional law and policy) (6 Ergebnisse)

Hardcover. Zustand: Like New. First Edition. A firm and square hardback with sharp corners and strong joints, just showing a few very minor cosmetic rubs. Hence a non-text page has a small 'damaged' stamp. Despite such this book is actually in nearly new condition and appears unread. Thus the contents are crisp, fresh and tight; no pen-marks. Now offered for sale at a very sensible price.Firm, square and tight with sturdy hinges, just showing a few minor rubs and some mild cosmetic wear. Hence a non-text page is stamped 'damaged'. Despite such this book is in nearly new condition. Thus the contents are crisp, fresh and clean. Offered for sale at a very sensible price.…

Zustand: New. pp. 280.

Zustand: New. In English.

Zustand: New. 2019. Hardcover. . . . . . Books ship from the US and Ireland.

Hardcover. Zustand: Brand New. 264 pages. 9.25x6.25x0.75 inches. In Stock.

Buch. Zustand: Neu. Druck auf Anfrage Neuware - Printed after ordering - Judges often behave in surprising ways when they re-interpret laws and constitutions. Contrary to existing expectations, judges regularly abandon their own established interpretations in favor of new understandings. In Reconstructing Rights, Stephan Stohler offers a new theory of judicial behavior which demonstrates that judges do not act alone. Instead, Stohler shows that judges work in a deliberative fashion with aligned partisans in the elected branches to articulate evolving interpretations of major statutes and constitutions. Reconstructing Rights draws on legislative debates, legal briefs, and hundreds of judicial opinions issued from high courts in India, South Africa, and the United States in the area of discrimination and affirmative action. These materials demonstrate judges' willingness to provide interpretative leadership. But they also demonstrate how judges relinquish their leadership roles when their aligned counterparts disagree. This pattern of behavior indicates that judges do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional interpretation. Rather, that task is subject to greater democratic influence than is often acknowledged.…