Trying to Make Peace With Bush v. Gore

eroG .v hsuB and Its Disguises: Freeing Bush v. Gore from Its Hall of Mirrors

Roe v Wade, Dobbs, and the Future of Graduate Medical Education.

The California Recall Punch Card Litigation: Why Bush v. Gore Does Not Suck

There are five major Supreme Court precedents related to inheritance and gift taxes for 2022. In this article, the above five precedents were divided into facts, issues, the position of the Supreme Court, and the significance and evaluation of the judgment in chronological order.
 First of all, the Supreme Court's ruling on March 11, 2022, on whether to invalidate the enforcement ordinance related to Article 41 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, reaffirmed the position of the Supreme Court's ruling of 2015Du45700 on April 20, 2017 and the Supreme Court's decision of 2019Du35695 on September 9, 2021. The above judgment is valid in that the scope of gifts through corporations is limited through interpretation. However, it is necessary to review whether it is right to follow the materiality and clarity test of the illegality of administrative disposition.
 Second, the Supreme Court's ruling on the taxation and additional tax on the deeming property registered in name of another person to have been donated related to the acquisition of new stocks on September 15, 2022 is about the legal interpretation of the old tax and gift tax law in which the gift tax payer was in principle a trustee at the time of title trust. The target judgment judged that the case in which the title truster acquired new shares as collateral and transferred them under the same person's name, but before the transfer was made, the case in which the loan was repaid with the sale price of the existing title trust shares was not different. From the perspective of sanctions on the total amount of property that is difficult to grasp by title trust, it must be judged as the subject judgment. In addition, it was confirmed for the first time that the subject judgment should be based on the name trustee to determine whether the additional tax is imposed based on the taxpayer. If the above logic is applied to the current tax increase law, it should be judged based on the title truster who is liable for tax payment.
 Third, the Supreme Court's 2022Du33712 ruling on the scope of cancellation of disposition on May 26, 2022 reaffirms the previous precedent (Supreme Court March 28, 1997) that only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount should be canceled if the lawsuit for cancellation of the tax disposition exists. It is reasonable in that there is no need to appeal again for parts that exceed the legitimate tax amount.
 Fourth, the Supreme Court's ruling on November 10, 2022, 2020Du52214 is a precedent on whether to recognize self-gifts related to Article 45-3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (before amended by Act No. 13557 on December 15, 2015). The above ruling is the first case in which the donor and the recipient cannot be said to be the same, even though the controlling shareholders of the beneficiary corporation are shareholders of a related corporation at the same time. Given that agenda regulations that are disadvantageous to taxpayers need to be interpreted in a limited way, it is necessary to review whether the above judgment is correct.
 Finally, the Supreme Court's decision on December 29, 2022 on the method of calculating gift profits according to the comprehensive exchange of stocks followed the previous precedent (the Supreme Court's decision on March 29, 2018) that gift taxes should be levied by applying Article 42 (1) 3 of the former Inheritance Tax Act. In addition, the target judgment clarified the application of Article 31-9(2)5(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax Act (before amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621 on February 22, 2008), which is the basis for calculating the gift property value of a company that becomes a full subsidiary due to stock exchange.

The Rule of Law, Freedom, and Prosperity

Since 1981, when Joseph M. Bessette and Jeffrey K. Tulis first published The Presidency in the Constitutional Order, the study of the constitutional powers of the presidency has advanced considerably. Bessette and Tulis continue the conversation almost 30 years later, presenting original research on the most significant issues regarding presidential power and the Constitution. After introducing and identifying the main approaches to the study of the constitutional presidency and the nature of executive power, Bessette and Tulis, along with other constitutional scholars, cover a wide range of topics. These include the logic and meaning of Article II of the Constitution; the constitutional and political debate over Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; the contribution of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft to the constitutional foundations of the modern presidency; the controversy over the presidential election of 2000 and the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore; military tribunals and the war on terrorism; executive orders; growing presidential influence over the budgeting process; executive privilege; impeachment; and demagoguery in democratic regimes. The book conjoins political and legal modes of analysis and shows how constitutional interpretation is indispensable to an adequate description of political behavior and serves as the source of standards for evaluating presidential conduct. The contributors offer new and distinctive arguments, especially in light of the renewed debate over executive power during the George W. Bush administration.

INTRODUCTION In November 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Whole Woman 's Health v. Cole (1) the first reproductive rights case to reach the court since Gonzales v. Carhart (2) eight years before. In the intervening time, states have passed an astonishing number of laws and regulations that encroach on women's access to abortion. Many such laws ostensibly aim to protect the woman and her fetus. Yet these same laws do so by imposing medically unnecessary and onerous procedural requirements on women, (3) which can erect massive barriers to abortion access for individuals. Other state laws aim to regulate not the activities of women, but those of abortion providers, who are not a protected class. The reproductive rights movement terms these laws Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws. (4) State legislatures' passage of TRAP laws accelerated after the Supreme Court's decision in Carhart, which was taken to signal judicial willingness to uphold state laws that aim to protect an unborn fetus at the expense of reducing a woman's ability to choose. (5) This Note focuses on admitting-privileges laws, a type of TRAP law that requires physicians who provide abortions to obtain staff privileges at a hospital within a certain distance from their clinics. Without these required privileges, physicians performing abortions risk civil and criminal penalties. These laws are especially concerning because they give area hospitals an effective veto over a clinic's operations, effectively outsourcing the power to deny licenses to private entities. Admitting-privileges decisions are often discretionary for hospital administrators; a hospital's denial of admitting privileges also lacks state oversight or external appeals. Admitting-privileges laws are being ratified throughout many states, but have proven resistant to traditional substantive due process challenges. In addition to traditional undue burden analysis, a multipronged approach to reproductive rights litigation and advocacy is necessary. Part I of this Note sets forth a brief history of the right to choose an abortion and the current federal legal framework. Then, it details recent state legislative and ballot initiatives aimed at regulating abortion providers. Part II explains the complications of using the undue burden doctrine in constitutional challenges to state action, as illuminated by recent cases litigating admitting-privileges laws. It further introduces private-delegation challenges as an alternative method to examine the constitutionality of these laws. Part III looks at the history of private-delegation challenges with respect to admitting- privileges laws and touches on other possible avenues to challenge admitting-privileges regulations. I. Abortion in the Post-Roe Era In 1973, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, which recognized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to privacy that extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. (6) Roe's effect was remarkable. Before Roe, each individual state regulated abortions and the accessibility thereof with their traditional police powers. At the time of the decision, four states had repealed anti-abortion laws, while thirteen had begun reforms of their abortion laws. (7) Almost all the rest banned abortion in most cases. (8) After the Supreme Court identified a right to choose an abortion grounded in the federal Constitution, the annual number of legal abortions rose through the 1970s, leveling off in the 1980s. (9) After Roe, the Supreme Court also decided Doe v. Bolton, (10) which assessed the elaborate procedural barriers to abortion erected by the state of Georgia and invalidated some of them for being not reasonably related to the state interest (11) or redundant. (12) Doe has been interpreted to signal that just as states may not prevent abortion by making the performance a crime, states may not make abortions unreasonably difficult to obtain by prescribing elaborate procedural barriers. …

Do Supreme Court decisions matter? In 1896 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that railroad segregation laws were permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1954 the Court's decision in Brown v. the Board of Education held that the same constitutional provision invalidated statutes segregating public schools How great an impact did judicial rulings such as Plessy and Brown have? How much did such Court decisions influence the larger world of race relations? In From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, Michael J. Klarman examines the social and political impact of the Supreme Court's decisions involving race relations from Plessy, the Progressive Era, and the Interwar Period to World Wars I and II, Brown and the Civil Rights Movement. He explores the wide variety of consequences that Brown may have had--raising the salience of race issues, educating opinion, mobilizing supporters, energizing opponents of racial change. He concludes that Brown was ultimately more important for mobilizing southern white opposition to racial change than for encouraging direct-action protest. The decision created concrete occasions for violent confrontation--court ordered school desegregation and radicalized southern politics, leading to the election of politicians who calculated that violent suppression of civil rights demonstrations would win votes. It was such violence--vividly captured on television--that ultimately transformed northern opinion on race, leading to the enactment of landmark civil rights legislation in the mid 1960s. A fascinating investigation of the Supreme Court's rulings on race, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, spells out in exhaustive detail the political and social context against which the Supreme Court Justices operate and the consequences of those decisions on the civil rights movement and beyond.

Issuance of a State Administrative Decree by the Regional Secretariat of Central Java Province to people with disabilities on behalf of M. Baihaqi who was considered discriminatory during the 2019 Central Java National Civil Service Candidate selection who was declared not to have passed due to the requirements for the type of disability and educational qualifications being inappropriate. Administrative efforts have been taken to regain his rights but have been unsuccessful. Until finally resorting to litigation by filing a lawsuit with PTUN Semarang and an appeal to PT TUN Surabaya but it was declared not accepted. Then in the cassation the Supreme Court granted all the claims and asked the defendant to revoke the issued State Administrative Decree and process M. Baihaqi's in the Central Java National Civil Service Candidate selection 2019. The research method used is normative juridical with statutory, conceptual and case approaches. The research results show that the fulfillment of the constitutional rights of persons with disabilities in the 2019 Central Java Civil Servant Candidate Selection is considered not optimal because the solution provided by the defendant as an implementation of the Supreme Court's decision is not in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

This paper was originally delivered in July of 1975, within a few weeks of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody. The law, of course, does not stand still. Less than a year after the Albemarle decision, the Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Davis appeared to turn sharply away from the proposition that the EEOC guidelines are to be applied mechanically as the only legal touchstone of the job relatedness of a test. The Washington decision contains many obscurities and ambiguities, and at the time of writing (October 1976) it appears that at least one more Supreme Court case will be necessary in order to clarify this question. Though the present paper is outdated in some respects because of the Washington decision, it is hoped that it will continue to be of interest for the light it may shed on the interrelationship between the practice of industrial psychology and the judicial process in operation.

The Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the cassation and imposed a fine of IDR 199 billion on PT. Rambang Agro Jaya (RAJ), a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Kulim Berhad, for a 500-hectare forest and land fire case in Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatra. This study aims to conduct a normative juridical analysis of the courts’ decision, holding PT. Rambang Agro Jaya was strictly liable for the environmental damage caused by the fire. The research reveals: (1) Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 445/Pdt.G/2019/PN Jkt.Pst establishes strict liability and orders the Defendant to pay material losses totaling IDR 137.57 billion. (2) Jakarta High Court Decision No. 398/PDT/2021/PT DKI upholds the Central Jakarta District Court’s decision, reinforcing strict liability and increasing the total compensation to IDR 199.57 billion. (3) Supreme Court Decision No. 2196 K/PDT/2022 rejects PT. Rambang Agro Jaya’s cassation confirmed the Defendant’s unlawful actions and strict liability and imposed a material loss compensation of IDR 199.57 billion. The rulings signify a progressive step in enforcing environmental responsibility, with the substantial fine signaling a strict stance against ecological violations. The Supreme Court’s consistent rejection of cassation strengthens legal certainty and establishes a robust legal precedent for similar future cases, and underscores the significance of corporate accountability in promoting environmental sustainability.

The perception that a high court's decision is binding and final is a crucial prerequisite for its ability to settle political conflicts. Under what conditions are citizens more likely to accept controversial judicial rulings? Mass acceptance is determined, in part, by how rulings are framed during public debate. This paper takes a broad view of the strategies and actors that influence the discursive environment surrounding judgments, calling attention to hitherto unexamined determinants of mass acceptance. We theorize that third parties can boost acceptance by pledging compliance, and that courts can moderate opposition by compensating losers. We also look at how populist attacks on judiciaries, common in contemporary democracies, affect acceptance. We test these propositions using a survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court's Brexit decision, the most salient judgment handed down by this court to date. The paper moves the literature on courts and public opinion beyond the United States, and presents evidence backing largely untested assumptions at the heart of models of judicial behavior regarding the benefits of crafting rulings with an eye on the preferences of key audiences.

This study analyzes the criminal case process of medical malpractice based on the Supreme Court (MA) Decision Number 1110K/Pid.Sus/2012, with a focus on the implications for legal certainty in Indonesia. The case study highlights the 1 year 6 months prison sentence against Dr. Bambang Suprapto for violating Article 76 and 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practice, due to surgery without a valid practice permit and not in accordance with standard procedures, which caused the death of dvearofn, a patient. This study uses a normative research type with a legislative approach, a conceptual approach and a case approach. Data collection techniques are carried out by means of literature studies and studies of court decision documents. In this case, the disciplinary enforcement process that should have been carried out first through the Indonesian Medical Disciplinary Council (MKDKI) is a medical discipline authority that has the authority to determine whether or not there is a mistake made by a doctor or dentist in the implementation of medical and dental disciplines, and to determine sanctions, before the legal enforcement process enters the criminal realm. The defendant was proven to have caused the death of the patient. The Supreme Court issued a decision that contradicts the Constitutional Court 's decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007 which removed the prison sentence in Article 79, thus creating legal uncertainty and violating the principle of the rule of law.

Clinical Practice Guidelines and Recommendations: Room for Dissent?

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legal justification for physical punishment of children, but limited its protection to minor force applied by non-frustrated parents, with the hand, to children between the ages of 2 and 12. This double message – that physical punishment is justifiable but only under limited conditions – is potentially confusing to the Canadian public. We attempted to answer the question of whether this decision was understood as restricting the use of physical punishment or whether it was understood as giving a "green light" to this practice. We analyzed the first 420 responses to the decision that were posted to the website of a national newspaper in the days immediately following the release of the Court's decision. The postings were coded according to writers' awareness of and agreement with various aspects of the decision, as well as their conceptualizations of physical punishment. The findings demonstrate that the majority of writers understood the ruling as giving parents permission to use corporal punishment. Only 11% referred to the limitations placed on its use. The findings are discussed in terms of the policy implications of the Supreme Court's decision and the public's limited understanding of it.