Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Some Myths about the Jury System from the Perspective of American Cinematography

100%

Laidler P.

Ad Americam

|

2014

|

nr 15

141-156

EN

The popularity of the jury in the US legal system makes it, on the one hand, an attractive research subject for many specialists in American Studies, and, on the other, a source of inspiration for Cultural Studies. Many films and TV series create general myths about the structure, operation and character of jury trials in the United States. Among the most typical myths are: the 12-member requirement, the necessity to achieve unanimous verdicts, and vast politicization of the voir dire procedure. The topic of law and culture is very attractive among American scholars, as both areas have a significant impact on the everyday life of not only American society, but also other societies around the world. Facing the complexity of popular legal culture, the purpose of the article is to confront the most popular myths of jury trials shaped by specific works of American cinematography, such as 12 Angry Men, The Verdict, Runaway Jury, Murder One, and Law and Order. The most common misunderstandings of how the jury system works shall be revealed by a brief analysis of Supreme Court precedents referring to jury functioning in the contemporary US legal system.

2

When Politics and Law Collide: Ranking American Presidents from the Perspective of Their Policy towards the United States Supreme Court

100%

Laidler P.

Ad Americam

|

2013

|

nr 14

81-98

EN

Most scholars conducting research on the U.S. presidency analyze a particular presidency, ranking the ideology and political role of the chief executive, his rhetoric, interior policy program, foreign policy activity, and impact on the economy, as well as the role of the president as national commander of the armed forces. My main field of research is not the presidency, but the American judiciary. However, careful analysis of the theoretical and practical aspects of the functioning of American courts, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals the enormous impact of presidents on justice. Presidents nominate judges (and Supreme Court Justices), they may determine the scope of legal briefs presented in cases where the government is the party, and they can influence governmental participation as amicus curiae before the Court, which has become a vital tool of the United States in recent years. The growing political role of the Supreme Court, its enormous activity in applying judicial review, and its high position within the U.S. governmental structure have not only caused changes to the checks‑and‑balances system, but, above all, have resulted in the increased political activity of various presidents towards the tribunal. As a result, many chief executives consider their ‘judicial policy’ as one of the most important elements of their legacy. From this perspective, we may rank presidents who had the greatest (or the least) impact on the membership and operation of the Court (i.e. Washington, F.D.R., Lincoln versus Taylor, Harrison, Carter), as well as presidents who were willing to impose revolutionary changes in American constitutional law and succeeded (F.D.R., J.F.K.) or failed (Reagan). Analysis of the amicus curiae participation of the U.S. Solicitor General before the Supreme Court can also rank presidents as more or less active in their judicial politics. The aim of this paper is to show certain ranks of presidents with regard to their policy towards the Supreme Court, and also to present the ideological model which governed the majority of presidents in their politics towards the judiciary throughout U.S. history, leading to an ongoing clash of law and politics.

3

Does the U.S. Campaign Finance System Favor Republicans?

100%

Laidler P.

Political Preferences

|

2017

|

nr 14

115-136

EN

There is a common belief that the pro-regulatory approach of Democrats, makes them more determined in the fight against big money in campaign elections, whereas Republicans, supporting recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and McCutcheon v. F.E.C., benefit from the system more than their political counterparts. The aim of the article is to analyze the real character of the U.S. campaign finance regulations, both from legislative and judicial perspective, and to determine which political party benefits from the system: Republican or Democratic? By underlining the Buckley rule that ‘money is speech’ the Author suggests that campaign contributions and spending are deeply rooted in the character of American political system determining the political future of candidates of both political parties. The article refers to election cycles since 1970s, but it mainly focuses on recent election cycles, including the 2016 presidential election.