{"title":"彻底根除丛林之争:第二条独立州立法观念与相关垃圾","authors":"V. Amar, A. Amar","doi":"10.1086/720128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The biggest news of October Term 2020 was what didn’t happen: In the run-up to, and aftermath of, yet another tight and hard-fought presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to double down on some of the worst aspects of the execrable Bush v. Gore opinions of twenty years ago. But a close look at the Term reveals that there was a brief moment of genuine constitutional peril, a week when it seemed quite possible that the Court might once again—as it did in 2000—besmirch itself and plunge the country into a jurisprudential abyss. In the days preceding the election of 2020, a veritable carnival of litigants—let’s call them Bush-Leaguers—teed up several cases based on a seemingly plausible but ultimately preposterous constitutional","PeriodicalId":46006,"journal":{"name":"Supreme Court Review","volume":"2021 1","pages":"1 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eradicating Bush-League Arguments Root and Branch: The Article II Independent-State-Legislature Notion and Related Rubbish\",\"authors\":\"V. Amar, A. Amar\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/720128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The biggest news of October Term 2020 was what didn’t happen: In the run-up to, and aftermath of, yet another tight and hard-fought presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to double down on some of the worst aspects of the execrable Bush v. Gore opinions of twenty years ago. But a close look at the Term reveals that there was a brief moment of genuine constitutional peril, a week when it seemed quite possible that the Court might once again—as it did in 2000—besmirch itself and plunge the country into a jurisprudential abyss. In the days preceding the election of 2020, a veritable carnival of litigants—let’s call them Bush-Leaguers—teed up several cases based on a seemingly plausible but ultimately preposterous constitutional\",\"PeriodicalId\":46006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Supreme Court Review\",\"volume\":\"2021 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Supreme Court Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/720128\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supreme Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/720128","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Eradicating Bush-League Arguments Root and Branch: The Article II Independent-State-Legislature Notion and Related Rubbish
The biggest news of October Term 2020 was what didn’t happen: In the run-up to, and aftermath of, yet another tight and hard-fought presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to double down on some of the worst aspects of the execrable Bush v. Gore opinions of twenty years ago. But a close look at the Term reveals that there was a brief moment of genuine constitutional peril, a week when it seemed quite possible that the Court might once again—as it did in 2000—besmirch itself and plunge the country into a jurisprudential abyss. In the days preceding the election of 2020, a veritable carnival of litigants—let’s call them Bush-Leaguers—teed up several cases based on a seemingly plausible but ultimately preposterous constitutional
期刊介绍:
Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court"s most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.