Satversmes tiesas loma leģisprudences attīstībā

Concurrently with the increase in case throughput in the last four years, a transformation can be observed in the methodology of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia (Satversmes tiesa), specifically pertaining to assessing the quality of lawmaking, which leads to further understanding of the principle of good legislation. Without a doubt, such changes, including the processualization of encroachment on fundamental rights, have impacted the interaction and joint functioning of two constitutional bodies – parliament (Saeima) and ­Satversmes tiesa – as well as the content of the principle of inter-institutional ­loyalty. This article emphasizes the impact of such reasonably dynamic (and, arguably, evolutionary or even revolutionary) changes on the process of new lawmaking. Additionally, within the context of the power of Satversmes tiesa, its role in the development of legisprudence is examined.

The Method of Selecting Academic Leaders at Emerging Saudi Universities and its Relationship to Some Variables

The study aimed to identify the current method used for selecting academic leaders at emerging Saudi universities from the viewpoint of faculty members working there, and whether there is a correlation between the method used and the following variables: job satisfaction, organizational justice, organizational commitment, productivity motivation, and institutional loyalty and affiliation. In order to achieve the goals of the study, the researcher designed a questionnaire that included identifying the method used. The questionnaire consisted of (31) items divided according to the variables mentioned, and it was distributed to the study sample (300 faculty members), randomly chosen from the study community (2382 members). The results showed that there is a correlation between the method used and the variables mentioned which were at an intermediate level, with the exception of the productivity motivation that was at a high level for university professors, despite the fact that the foregoing variables were lower than expected. This made the researcher recommend that the university and the Ministry of Education would review that mechanism and hold conferences and workshops in order to address it before these positive professors suffer from disappointment and job burnout. The study also revealed that there were statistically significant differences at the level of (α = 0.05) in experience in favor of (10) years or more, in the academic rank in favor of (Assistant Professor), and in officiality and contracting in favor of the contracting parties.

Save this Honorable Court: Shaping Public Perceptions of the Supreme Court Off the Bench

Scholars believe that justices on the U.S. Supreme Court strategically respond to—but rarely shape—public opinion. This article provides a new perspective on judicial behavior. Looking “off the bench,” I find evidence that justices actively shape perceptions of the Court through their public speeches. In particular, I employed a randomized field experiment and a randomized survey experiment to analyze the causal effects of attending a speech and reading about it in the news. For the field experiment, I assigned law students with reservations to a public speech by Justice Sotomayor to take a survey just before or just after the event. For the separate survey experiment, I assigned individuals in a treatment group to read news coverage of the speech before responding to survey questions. I find that, among attendees, justices improve their own favorability and change beliefs about the importance of law in judicial decision making. Among those who read of the speech, justices also change perceptions of the politicization of the Court and strengthen institutional loyalty. These findings have important implications for our understanding of judicial behavior and public perceptions of the Court.

Extra-judicial Actor Induced Change in Supreme Court Legitimacy

Although public support for the U.S. Supreme Court is generally stable, various cues and heuristics affect how individuals derive political opinions. And while the Court is capable of conferring support on its own decisions, information from extra-judicial sources—such as presidential candidates—may have a potentially (de)legitimizing influence on individuals and their attitudes. Using a survey experimental design, I manipulate the source of negative statements about the judiciary to determine whether extra-judicial actors are capable of altering support for the Court and, if so, whether it is via ideological updating or is a purely affective response. I find that political actors unrelated to the Court are capable of producing change in attitudes and that those changes are affective. Those positive toward the cue source decrease their level of support upon hearing indicting statements, and vice versa, but individuals do not alter their perceived ideological distance from the Court. This finding has implications for the stability of the support on which the Court relies to expect compliance with its rulings, as well as how affective attachments to groups and their representatives influence institutional loyalty.

Faculty Perceptions of Government and Management

A model of higher education decision-making was prevalent with shared governance. To assess faculty perceptions of the current state of higher educational governance and management, the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) project went to the field in 2007 in 18 countries. In most of the countries, faculty were more likely to perceive they have authority individually or through academic committees and boards. There is a decline in the institutional loyalty of academics from a similar survey conducted in 1992.

Social Legitimacy and the Court of Justice of the EU: Some Reflections on the Role of the Advocate General

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court of Justice or Court, for short) operates in circumstances that are similar to those of a national constitutional court; at the same time, some significant features set it apart and make it more difficult for the Court of Justice to command the institutional loyalty or public support that national constitutional courts seem to enjoy in Europe. This chapter will, first, offer a brief overview of how and why the Court acquired a markedly political, and problematic, role within the judicial and legal system of the Union (Section II). Section III will then examine the different concepts of legitimacy that may be applied to courts and their decisions, focusing more specifically on the social dimension of legitimacy. This chapter will argue that the fact that the Court of Justice has to operate in a transnational context leads to a shortfall in its social legitimacy, at least when compared to national constitutional courts in Europe. Finally, Section IV will focus on the figure of the Advocate General as a mechanism that may lend some extra social legitimacy to the Court and its decisions—obviously without solving the problem completely—and that, more generally, may foster dialogue, debate and deliberative democracy in the Union.