The Separation of Powers and Supreme Court Agenda Setting

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan J. Owens
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Separation Of Powers

Scientific Commentary on the Review of Judicial Practice on Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Business Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
V. K. Andreev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the forms of clarification on matters of judicial practice by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, as well as in the Review of judicial practice on some issues of the application of legislation on business companies dated December 25, 2019. Clarifications of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of judicial practice are characterized as the positions of the courts identified in the course of studying and summarizing the judicial practice of the corresponding category of cases, which are acts of individual regulation of public relations. Focusing on Art. 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Section 6, Art. 12 of the APC RF shows the validity of dividing wrong into two types of wrong: the «moderate» type of «judicial law-making and the position of the court» and the «radical» type of «judicial law-making», when the court develops the rule of law, which contradicts the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When resolving corporate disputes, it is necessary to investigate whether the charter of a non-public company does not contain the rights and obligations of its participants, which they themselves created by making a unanimous decision and including them in the charter of the company (paragraph 3 of Art. 66.3 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, paragraph 3 of Art. 14 of the Law about LLC).

scholarly journals Is The Pcaob a “Heavily Controlled Component” Of The Sec?: An Essential Question In The Constitutional Controversy

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, described as “the most important separation-of-powers case regarding the President’s appointment and removal powers to reach the courts in the last 20 years.” Established by Congress as the cornerstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or the “Act”), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB” or the “Board”) was structured as “a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies.” Its principal mission was to prevent the type of auditing failures that contributed to the scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and numerous other public companies in the period leading up to the passage of the Act.

scholarly journals SEPARAÇÃO DOS PODERES E A EVOLUÇÃO DO ENTENDIMENTO DO STF SOBRE O MANDADO DE INJUNÇÃO

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 556
Author(s):  
Vidal Serrano NUNES JUNIOR ◽  
Marcio Ortiz MEINBERG
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Normative Function ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Analytical Dimension

RESUMOTrata-se de artigo cujo objetivo é identificar o entendimento do Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF sobre a Separação dos Poderes no que se refere à natureza do Mandado de Injunção, um remédio constitucional a ser concedido em caso de omissão do Poder Público em editar norma regulamentadora necessária para viabilizar o exercício dos direitos e liberdades constitucionais e das prerrogativas inerentes à nacionalidade, à soberania e à cidadania. O entendimento histórico do STF sobre o tema não é consensual e são percebidas ao menos duas grandes correntes às quais se afiliaram os ministros: Teoria Concretista e Teoria Não-Concretista (além de suas subdivisões). As duas grandes correntes diferenciam-se radicalmente, tanto no que se refere ao relacionamento entre o Judiciário e os demais Poderes, quanto aos efeitos do Mandado de Injunção. Além disso, o entendimento do STF evoluiu historicamente, não apenas quanto ao posicionamento majoritária da Corte em torno de alguma das teorias, mas também quanto ao desenvolvimento de cada uma delas. A partir da análise das principais decisões do STF sobre o tema, sistematizaremos as características centrais de cada uma das correntes (e como se diferenciam), bem como suas fundamentações e evolução. A metodologia adotada é a Dogmática Jurídica (cf. Alexy e Dreier), com foco nas dimensões empírica (pela análise das decisões do STF) e analítica (estabelecendo definições e sistematizando os conceitos utilizados pelos ministros do STF). Como conclusão, apresentaremos as características centrais de cada uma das teorias adotadas pelo STF no que se refere ao tema Separação dos Poderes.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Separação dos Poderes; Mandado de Injunção; Função Normativa. ABSTRACTThe purpose of this article is to identify how Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF (Brazilian’s Supreme Court) sees the Separation of Powers related to the nature of the Writ of Injunction, a constitutional remedy (relief) to be granted in case of Public Power’s omission in enacting a regulatory norm needed to enable the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms and the prerogatives inherent in nationality, sovereignty and citizenship. The historical opinion of the STF on this subject is not consensual, and there is at least two major currents in which the ministers-judges have joined: Concretist Theory and Non-Concretist Theory (and its subdivisions). The two major currents differ radically, either about the relationship between the Judiciary and the other Powers, as about the effects of the Writ of Injunction. Besides, the STF’s opinion has evolved historically, not only regards the majority position of the Court around one of the theories, but also as to the development of each of them. After analysing the main STF’s decisions on the subject, we systematize the central characteristics of each of the currents (and how they differ from each other), as well as their foundations and evolution. The methodology is the Legal Dogmatic (according Alexy and Dreier), with focus on the empirical dimension (the analysis of STF’s decisions) and analytical dimension (the establishment of definitions and the systematization the concepts used by the STF’s ministers-judges). In conclusion, we present the central characteristics related to Separation of Powers of each one the theories adopted by the STF.KEYWORDS: Separation of Powers; Writ of Injunction; Normative Function.

2. The Court at work (1)

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
Linda Greenhouse
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Administrative State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
Over Time

A very small percentage of cases reach the Supreme Court. “The Court at Work” explains that even if a case meets all the criteria, the justices are still at liberty to refuse it. The Court has navigated debates about the separation of powers and conflicting approaches to interpretations of the statutes. The growth of the administrative state means that the Court is now more often tasked with determining whether administrative agencies are carrying out their duties correctly. What do cases and controversies mean to the Supreme Court? Why are these terms important, and how have the Court’s interpretations of them changed over time?

scholarly journals Speaking with One Voice on the Recognition of States

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Campbell McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
The U.S

At first blush, the recent judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v Kerry (Zivotofsky II) reads as a strikingly American affair concerning the enduring force of the separation of powers under a written Constitution. Finding that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign states and their territory, the Court holds that a statute of Congress encroaches upon this power and declares it unconstitutional. The reasoning of both the Court and the minority justices is largely a narrative of U.S. Constitutional history. So one might ask: does this decision really have anything to say of significance outside the U.S. context about the scope of the executive function in foreign relations?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document