Lasting stigma: affirmative action and Clarence Thomas's prisoners' rights jurisprudence
Article Abstract:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' lack of sympathy toward claims of hardship raised by prisoners is explained by his insistence on self-reliance and individual accountability. Thomas' prisoner rights jurisprudence may also be linked to his anger at being seen as benefiting personally from racial preferences while opposing affirmative action in principle, and in his need to distance himself ideologically from the beliefs of his predecessor on the court, Justice Thurgood Marshall with respect to expanding the scope of the Eighth Amendment.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
An evidentiary framework for diversity as a compelling interest in higher education
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court should treat diversity in higher education as a compelling government interest as a matter of law without requiring universities and colleges to make an evidentiary showing of historical discrimination. Greater student body diversity has been shown to promote the learning experience of all college students. The Court's insistence on showings that affirmative action programs are adopted to remedy past discrimination at specific institutions undermines attempts to promote diversity in higher education.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Criminal trials - subpoenas - Connecticut adopts a "compelling need" test to limit the ability of prosecutors to subpoena defense attorneys
Article Abstract:
The Connecticut Supreme Court failed to protect the interests of criminal defendants when it adopted a 'compelling need' test for issuing subpoenas to defense attorneys in Ullmann v. State. The compelling need test was originally designed to limit subpoenas of prosecutors by defense attorneys, and thus does not adequately protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. The possibility of subpoena could damage the criminal defendant's ability to obtain adequate representation.
Publication Name: Harvard Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0017-811X
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Infiltration of enterprise theory into environmental jurisprudence. Environmental law - FIFRA after Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier: what next?
- Abstracts: Austria's affirmative action for women workers versus protective legislation for the "weaker sex": incongruous concepts?
- Abstracts: Analysing worker activity: a new approach to risk assessment? Safety partnership takes off at British Aerospace
- Abstracts: The Working Time Directive. The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill
- Abstracts: Remedial actions limit an employer's liability; corrective action can absolve a company of a supervisor's harassment in many circuits