Author's Keywords: U.S. Supreme Court, judicial review, human rights, judicial independence, constitutionalism	Convention All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41901_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

"Is Judicial Review a Likely Tool to Curb Human Rights Abuse? Two Hundred Years of Practice in the U.S. Supreme Court" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, Sep 01, 2005 <Not Available>. 2008-12-12 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41901_index.html>

, 2005-09-01 "Is Judicial Review a Likely Tool to Curb Human Rights Abuse? Two Hundred Years of Practice in the U.S. Supreme Court" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC Online <PDF>. 2008-12-12 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41901_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Universally, the power of judcial review is posited to be a substantial factor in the protection of human rights, particularly during periods of crisis or instability. However, empirically, the expectation that the courts exercising the power of judicial review would serve as guarantors of individual human rights has not materialized as predicted. And it is this failure that brings me back to the experience of the originator of this model, the United States Supreme Court. Despite the Court’s two-hundred years of experience exercising the power of judicial review political scientists have not tested systematically the question of whether in fact this power has been exercised primarily to support civil rights and civil liberties of against incursions by the majority-elected branches of government. In this paper I examine the U.S. Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review of congressional statutes over the Court’s two-hundred year history since Marbury v. Madison (1803) first established this power, and test empirically whether the exercise of the power to nullify or uphold congressional statutes, has been used to support or curb civil rights and civil liberties. I also examine trends across time and decision making patterns of the individual justices, and I discuss the implications of the U.S. experience in regard to the global expectations of this power.

Deciding to Reach the Merits: An Examination of Supreme Court and Circuit Court Judicial Power Cases

The United States Supreme Court and Judicial Review of Congress 1803-2001