Showing titles in Judicial Systems

Riforma giustizia, lavori in corso: Giustizia, trattativa in salita coi Cinquestelle. Il voto sulla riforma prima delle ferie e Draghi pensa alla fiducia, di Tommaso Ciriaco; Giustizia, la riforma slitta: gelo tra Cartabia e M5S. Torna l'ipotesi fiducia, di Tommaso Ciriaco e Liana Milella; Riforma della giustizia, il governo chiede il voto fiducia: "Evitiamo zone di impunità", di Liana Milella; Giustizia, Draghi congela la trattativa. Tensione tra i 5 Stelle, di Tommaso Ciriaco e Liana Milella.

Nomine, spartizioni, accordi sottobanco fra le correnti. Tutto avvilente, per carità. Ma c'è ben altro, ben altre infezioni, nel corpo malato della corporazione togata. Comportamenti e azioni davanti a cui si resta interdetti e si fatica a trovare parole adeguate. Ci sono giudici che hanno depositato sentenze con mesi e mesi di ritardo e altri che hanno dimenticato in cella gli imputati per 51 giorni. Ci sono giudici che hanno chiamato i carabinieri per non pagare il conto al ristorante e altri che hanno smarrito pratiche e fascicoli, vanificando anni di processi.

If you can imagine it, somewhere there’s probably a law against it. Laugh out loud over some of Canada’s strangest laws - but not too loudly, or you might get a ticket: until 2002 in BC, you couldn’t stand up while having a drink in a restaurant; in Halifax, cabbies are required to wear socks; you’re not allowed to dogsled on the sidewalks in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; and much more.

Presumed Guilty reveals how the Supreme Court allows the perpetuation of racist policing by presuming that suspects, especially people of color, are guilty.

Few at the founding could have ever imagined the Supreme Court becoming one of the most powerful policymaking institutions in the United States. Yet today, the Court has the power to sidestep public opinion, upend federal legislation, constrain state governance and even bring down the president. Professor Alison Gash will take us back to the Court's humble beginnings, charting how the Court amassed its power under Justice Marshall's leadership.

One promise of democracy is the right of every citizen to vote. And yet, from our founding, strong political forces were determined to limit that right. The Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton wrote, would protect the weak against this very sort of tyranny. Still, as On Account of Race forcefully demonstrates, through the better part of American history the Court has instead been a protector of white rule. And complex threats against the right to vote persist even today.

Indu Bhan’s Legal Eagles: Stories of Top Seven Indian Lawyers’ traces the story of the top seven lawyers in India. Lawyers, as we commonly perceive, are not just shrewd intellectuals but much more. It takes more than just intelligence to become a successful lawyer. It takes years of practice, extensive studies and professionalism which set the absolutely outstanding lawyers from the general ones. Their life and career graph is full of crusts and troughs and this book gives an insight into it.

The Indian Penal Code was formulated in 1860, three years after the first Indian revolt for independence. But it was only in 1870 that Section 124A was slipped into Chapter VI, defining the offense of Sedition in a statute for the first time in the history of common law. When India became independent in 1947, the Constituent Assembly expressed strong reservations against sedition as a restriction on free speech as it had been used as a weapon against freedom fighters, many of whom were a part of the Assembly. And yet it has survived....

Hay historias que mejoran con el tiempo. Sobre todo si suceden en Italia, porque allí las ondas expansivas de las investigaciones judiciales son interestelares: rascas un poco y aparecen conspiraciones de película de serie B en las que no falta ningún elemento, desde grupos terroristas a tramas vaticanas. Parece muy sofisticado, pero no se engañen: la mafia es una fábula estúpida sin ningún glamour.

Over the last 30 years, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has grown from a small group of disaffected conservative law students into an organization with extraordinary influence over American law and politics. Although the organization is unknown to the average citizen, this group of intellectuals has managed to monopolize the selection of federal judges, take over the Department of Justice, and control legal policy in the White House.

Punishment Without Crime offers an urgent new interpretation of inequality and injustice in America by examining the paradigmatic American offense: the lowly misdemeanor. Based on extensive original research, legal scholar Alexandra Natapoff reveals the inner workings of a massive petty offense system that produces over 13 million cases each year.

"Fare giustizia" significa risolvere i conflitti che insorgono tra le persone, secondo i principi della legge e del diritto, attraverso l'intervento di un terzo che giudichi al di sopra delle parti. Detto così funziona egregiamente, ma in concreto cosa succede nelle aule giudiziarie? L'Italia è il paese europeo dove i processi durano di più mentre il conflitto tra magistratura e politica ha raggiunto livelli mai visti.

In The Court and the Cross, legal journalist Frederick Lane reveals how one political movement, the religious right, has dedicated much of the last 30 years to molding the federal judiciary, always with an eye toward getting their choices onto the Supreme Court.

“Better dead than divorced", responds a young wife to those who urge her to divorce her adulterous, manipulative, and abusing husband, who plans to kill her. She knows about his evil intentions, and she is urged to leave him and save her life, but her love, her devotion, and societal prejudice against divorced women make her stay. And dead she ends up by a commissioned assassin. Her cousin, a principled man, fights beyond his modest means in a corrupt system to have justice for her loss served.

Best-selling author Ted Stewart explains how the Supreme Court and its nine appointed members now stand at a crucial point in their power to hand down momentous and far-ranging decisions. Today's Court affects every major area of American life, from health care to civil rights, from abortion to marriage. This fascinating book reveals the complex history of the Court as told through seven pivotal decisions.

John Marshall (1755 - 1835) was arguably the most important judicial figure in American history. As the fourth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1801 to 1835, he helped move the Court from the fringes of power to the epicenter of constitutional government. His great opinions in cases like Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland are still part of the working discourse of constitutional law in America.

This book examines, in our own Quick and Dirty way, the responsibilities and history of the Court. The Court began as a body that mostly considered procedural issues and has grown into the organ of government that has expanded marriage rights to homosexuals, deliberates on the rights of citizens to own deadly weapons, and even chose the president in 2000.

In their timely and topical book, Reimagining Courts, Victor Flango and Thomas Clarke argue that courts are a victim of their own success. Disputes that once were resolved either informally in the family or within the community are now handled mainly by courts, which strains government agency resources. The authors offer provocative suggestions for a thorough overhaul of American state and local courts, one that better fits the needs of a twenty-first century legal system.

Walter Frank tackles, in a comprehensive but lively manner, subjects rarely treated in one volume. Aiming at both the general listener and students of political science, law, or history, Frank begins with a brief discussion of the nature of constitutional law and why the Court divides so closely on many issues. He then proceeds to an analysis of the Constitution and subsequent amendments, placing them in their historical context.

An examination of the initial years of the Roberts Court and the intellectual battle between Roberts and Kagan for leadership. When John Roberts was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court, he said he would act as an umpire. Instead, his Court is reshaping legal precedent through decisions unmistakably - though not always predictably - determined by politics as much as by law, on a Court almost perfectly politically divided.