Search

Land Rights champions the protection of property rights of individual landholders. Sponsored by the Political Economy Research Center (PERC), this book is the most recent in a series of edited [...]

The effective operation of the American judicial system requires the public's confidence and support. High-profile events, most notably the Rodney King incident and O.J. Simpson trials, have called into question the confidence that black and white Americans have in the courts. Contemporary cases (e.g., Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson) may continue the trend. While there is abundant anecdotal evidence, rigorous empirical analysis has been limited to studies of the U.S. Supreme Court. In this article, we explore black-white differences in assessments of a state judicial system. Our findings suggest that while black and white citizens agree on many `matters, there are strong differences related to the overall fairness, and the impartiality of important actors, in the judicial system. That these discrepancies remain even after controlling for other important factors suggests that there are significant, racially based differences in how blacks and whites evaluate the dispensation of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Certification is a procedure whereby federal courts m y ask state courts of last resort to clarify an ambiguous provision of state law. This increasingly popular device of deference operates as an alternative to abstention and to the casual prediction of the meaning of state law. Certification is a permissive and discretionary mechanism; as such, it is neither universal in its usage nor uniform in its application. The thirty-eight stares that authorize the procedure differ on which federal courts may participate and whether the answer to the certified question must determine, or resolve, the lawsuit. Our survey results indicate that federal and state judges alike praise certification for its contributions to intersystem harmony. It conserves judicial resources, advances litigant interests, minimizes interpretive misguesses, and avoids repetitive litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addresses the executive-legislative relations and the nomination-confirmation controversy in the system of governance in the United States (US). Information on the procedure for the selection of all federal judges; How US President Bill Clinton accelerated the process of presidential appointments.

This article focuses on intergovernmental relations in criminal justice. To reduce crime and to improve the quality of justice are fundamental goals of U.S. criminal justice policy. Yet the increasing inability to achieve these objectives has caused widespread concern. The feasibility of intergovernmental cooperation centers around two basic issues, demarcation of responsibilities in a federal system, and allocation of resources. While exchange opportunities are more numerous at the investigation and apprehension stages, there are other transfers possible in prosecution, adjudication, and corrections.