Acceso abierto

The Curious Incident of Trump and the Courts: Interbranch Deference in an Age of Populism

Bruce G. Peabody

Bruce G. Peabody

Buscar este autor en
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Peabody, Bruce G.
  
31 dic 2018
The Curious Incident of Trump and the Courts: Interbranch Deference in an Age of Populism's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Descargar portada
Publicado en línea: 31 dic 2018
Páginas: 237 - 256
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2018-0011
Palabras clave
© 2018 Bruce G. Peabody, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1

Percentage of President’s nominees who were appointed (District Court and Circuit Court judges): 95th through 114th Congresses (1977-2017).Source: Slotnick, Schiavoni, & Goldman, supra note 18.
Percentage of President’s nominees who were appointed (District Court and Circuit Court judges): 95th through 114th Congresses (1977-2017).Source: Slotnick, Schiavoni, & Goldman, supra note 18.

Figure 2

Negative and Positive Statements about Courts in Major Party Platforms (1948-2016).Source: The American Presidency Project ( http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/)
Negative and Positive Statements about Courts in Major Party Platforms (1948-2016).Source: The American Presidency Project ( http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/)

Trump Twitter References to Courts and Congress (January 20, 2017-March 15, 2018)_

Search Terms:Neutral/Descriptive referencesPositive referencesNegative [without references travel ban references]Total
“court;” “judge;”47%18%35% [14%]100%
“justice”n=23n=9n=17 [n=7]n=49
“Congress;”
“Senate;”32%35%32%99%
“Representative;”n=75n=81n=75n=231
“Sen.;” “Rep.;”

Party Platforms Highlighting Judicial Issues and Cases (2000-2016)_

YearDemocratic PlatformRepublican Platform
- criticism of Supreme Court ruling on partial birth
abortion
- “right to privacy” and abortion- Communications Workers of America v. Beck
2000- Olmstead v. L.C.- criticism of “exclusionary rule”
- Utah v. Evans
- support for student initiated prayer
- criticism of “judicial activism”
- Elk Grove Unified v. Newdow
- Van Orden v. Perry
2004- protecting Defense of Marriage Act from courts
- partial birth abortion
- student initiated prayer
- immigration decisions making “deportation so difficult”
- Kelo v. City of New London
- Boumediene v. Bush
2008- Boumediene v. Bush- death penalty
- abortion
- D.C. v. Heller
- ROTC access case
- Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local
1000
- gay marriage/DOMA
- Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC
- public display of Ten Commandments
- student prayer
- BSA v. Dale
- Citizens United v. FEC
2012- using courts to protect- Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission
immigration rights- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- No regulation of internet speech
- DC v. Heller
- McDonald v. Chicago
- Kelo
- abortion
- criticism of using foreign law in the courts
- NFIB v. Sebelius
- criticism of courts’ role in- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
mass incarceration- United States v. Windsor
- praise for drug courts and- criticism of judicial activism
veterans’ courts- reliance on foreign law
2016- praise for Obergefell v.- support for Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC
Hodges- Kelo
- criticism of Shelby County- support for State of Wyoming v. Jewell
v. Holder; Citizens United;- Sebelius
Buckley v. Valeo- criticism of Obergefell
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
2 veces al año
Temas de la revista:
Derecho, Derecho público, Derecho público, otros, Historia, filosofía y sociología del derecho, Derecho internacional, derecho extranjero, derecho comparado, Derecho internacional, derecho extranjero, derecho comparado, otros
RSS Feed de revista