A Common Law Perspective on the Supreme Court and its Functions
2019, 81, No. 1
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Publication date
Publishing model
License type
Field
Discipline
Language of publication
Downloads
PDF 512 KB
Number of views:228
Number of downloads:60
Crossref citations:0
Altmetric score:0
Abstract
The text presents different attributes of the Supreme Court in common law and civil law systems. The author claims that the question of design and function of a supreme court, while important, is no more significant than the issue of its institutional status and evolution, i.e. something one could refer to as “legal culture”. Neither the “common law camp”, nor the “civil law camp” turns out to be monolithic in this regard. The distinctive history of the US Supreme Court is presented through the perspective of its statutory and procedural supremacy, as well as its power of constitutional adjudication. The author indicates that the supremacy of the US Supreme Court depends on many factors. Arguably, the most important attribute of the US Supreme Court’s supremacy is linked with the latitude offered to judges in common law system to “make law”, which stands in contrast to a limited judicial function in many civil law countries. The author argues that being a court in a common law system carries with it much broader authority. A supreme court in such a system is, as a result, much more supreme. The author concludes his comparative remarks by saying that it is not possible to proclaim the superiority of one specific system because there are too many variables that come into play with regard to respective nations.
Keywords:
Bibliography
Alexander J. C., Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 “Stanford Law Review” 1991
Andrews N., The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court: Three Skeptical Reflections Concerning the New Court, 9 “Utah Law Review” 2011
Baker T., Griffith S., How the Merits Matter: Directors’ and Officers’ Insurance and Securities Settlements, 157 “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 2008
Bhagwati P. N., Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation, 23 “Columbia Journal of Transnational Law” 1985
Brennan W., The National Court of Appeals: Another Dissent, 40 “University of Chicago Law Review” 1973
Burbank S., The Rules Enabling Act of 1934, 130 “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1982
Cappelletti M., Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, 1971
Carrington P., Aponovich D., The Constitutional Limits of Judicial Rulemaking: The Illegitimacy of Mass-Torts Settlements Negotiated Under Rule 23, 39 “Arizona Law Review” 1997
Chayes A., The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 “Harvard Law Review” 1976
Coffee J., Reforming the Securities Class Action: An Essay on Deterrence and Its Implementation, 106 “Columbia Law Review” 2006
Cohen J. C., The European Preliminary Reference and US Supreme Court Review of State Court Judgments: A Study in Comparative Federalism, 44 Am. J. Comp. Law “American Journal of Comparative Law” 1996
Crowe J., Building the Judiciary, 2011
Dalton H., Taking the Right to Appeal (More or Less) Seriously, 95 Yale L.J. “The Yale Law Journal” 1985
Dorf M. C., Abstract and Concrete Review, (in:) V. Amar, M. Tushnet (eds.), Global Perspectives on Constitutional Law, 2009
Fennell M., Emergent Identity. A Comparative Analysis of the New Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the Supreme Court of the United States, 22 “Temple International and Comparative Law Journal” 2008
Gamper A., Palermo F., The Constitutional Court of Austria: Modern Profiles of an Archetype of Constitutional Review in Comparative Perspective, (in:) A. Harding, P. Leyland (eds.), Constitutional Courts: A Comparative Study, 2009
Harding A., Leyland P., Groppi T., Constitutional Courts: Forms, Functions and Practice in Comparative Perspective, (in:) Harding & Leyland
Harris G., Beijing’s Bad Air Would Be A Step Up for Smoggy Delhi, “New York Times”, Jan. 26, 2014
Hellman A., Caseload, Conflicts, and Decisional Capacity: Does the Supreme Court Need Help?, 67 “Judicature” 1983
Hogg P. W., Constitutional Law in Canada, 4th ed., 2002
Horwitz M. J., The Transformation of American Law 1780–1860, 1977
Issacharoff S., Class Actions and State Authority, 44 “Loyola University of Chicago Law Review” 2012
Kagan R., Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, 2001
Lach K., Sadurski W., Constitutional Courts of Central and Eastern Europe: Between Adolescence and Maturity, (in:) Harding & Leyland
Leo Levin A., Amsterdam A. G., Legislative Control Over Judicial Rule-Making: A Problem of Constitutional Revision, 107 “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 1958
Livingston D. L., The Civil Rights Act of 1991 and EEOC Enforcement, 23 “Stetson Law Review” 1993
Lollini A., The South African Constitutional Court Experience: Reasoning Patterns Based on Foreign Law, 8 “Utrecht Law Review” 2012
Marcus R. L., Appellate Review in the Reactive Model: The Example of the American Federal Courts, (in:) A. Uzelac, C. H. van Rhee (eds.), Nobody’s Perfect: Comparative Essays in Appeals and Other Means of Recourse Against Judicial Decisions in Civil Matters, 2014
Marcus R., Exceptionalism and Convergence: Form versus Content and Categorical Views of Procedure, (in:) J. Walker, O. G. Chase (eds.), Common Law, Civil Law, and the Future of Categories, 2010
Marcus R., They Can’t Do That, Can They? Tort Reform Via Rule 23, 80 “Cornell Law Review” 1995
Martin M. M., Inherent Judicial Power: Flexibility Congress Did not Write Into the Federal Rules of Evidence, 57 “Texas Law Review” 1979
Merrill T., The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts, 52 “University of Chicago Law Review” 1985
Nelson Moore K., The Supreme Court’s Role in Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 44 “Hastings Law Journal” 1993
Oakley J., Coon A., The Federal Rules in State Courts: A Survey of State Court Systems of Civil Procedure, 61 “Washington Law Review” 1986
Ponthoreau M.-C., Hourquebie F., The French Conseil Constitutionnel: An Evolving Form of Constitutional Justice, (in:) Harding & Leyland
Seligman J., The Merits Do Matter, 108 “Harvard Law Review” 1994
Sherman E., The MDL Model For Resolving Complex Litigation If A Class Action is Not Possible, 82 “Tulane Law Review” 2008
Stephens B., The Curious History of the Alien Tort Statute, 89 “Notre Dame Law Review” 2014
Stevens T., Williams G., A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom? A View from the High Court of Australia, 24 “Legal Studies” 2004
Stone A., Abstract Constitutional Review and Policy Making, (in:) D. W. Jackson, C. Neal Tate (eds.), Comparative Judicial Review and Public Policy, 1992
Struve C. T., The Paradox of Delegation: Interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 150 “University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 2002
Sunderland E., The English Struggle for Procedural Reform, 39 “Harvard Law Review” 1926
Sutton J. S., Courts As Change Agents: Do We Want More or Less?, 127 “Harvard Law Review” 2014
Tocqueville A. de, Democracy in America 93, H. C. Mansfield, D. Winthrop translation, University of Chicago Press (2000) (originally published in 1835)