Die administrative Autonomie der Insel Samos

Bruno Blau

Religion as Culture? How European and American High Courts Endorse Majority Religion

This paper examines a trend in European and American High Courts to endorse majority religion by transforming it into “culture”, and thus by secularizing it. To dissociate religion and state is the hallmark of the liberal state. However, no state has ever managed a perfect separation, not even the American. Under conditions of mounting religious pluralism and ongoing secularization, there is pressure on the state to live up to its “neutrality”. A main strategy to square the circle of neutrality and incomplete dissociation from religion is to declare it “culture”, which gives the state the license to associate or even identify with it (as guardian of nationhood). The paper compares recent American and European High Court rules on religious symbols (especially crucifixes) that exhibits this strategy, addressing similarities and differences as well as the limits and pitfalls of “culturalizing” religion.

Annual Report Central Administrative Services 2006/2007

University of Connecticut Health Center, Central Administrative Services, Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2006-2007; Submitted by Barry Feldman, Vice President & Chief Operation Officer, University of Connecticut, and Susan Whetstone, Chief Administrative Officer, UConn Health Center, August 2007

Eficácia temporal da revogação da jurisprudência consolidada dos Tribunais Superiores = Temporal effectiveness of revocation of consolidated jurisprudence of the Superior Courts

Número dedicado ao Novo Código de Processo Civil.

Direito fundamental à saúde: a questão de sua exigibilidade

Esta dissertação tem como objetivo discutir a questão da exigibilidade do direito à saúde no Brasil e seu impacto sobre a formulação e implementação de políticas públicas (mínimo existencial x reserva do possível). Aborda-se a evolução histórica da saúde até sua consagração como direito fundamental na Constituição Brasileira de 1988. Por meio da jurisprudência formada favoravelmente à saúde, os tribunais pátrios têm assumido papel ativo na interpretação e na proteção desse direito. Várias vezes, as decisões judiciais determinam, na prática, uma redefinição das políticas públicas do Executivo. Trata-se de um contexto que vem incentivando as pessoas ao ajuizamento de ações para exigir a concretização do direito à saúde, fenômeno também conhecido como judicialização do direito à saúde. Tal ativismo se explica pelo fato de o Judiciário considerar que a ineficiência administrativa e o método de priorização da atenção à saúde revelam falhas que interferem na proteção do acesso à saúde, reconhecendo-os como verdadeiro descumprimento do dever estatal em relação a tal direito.

Setting Congress Up to Fail

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 based on Congress’s failure to justify the formula used to determine which jurisdictions would be subject to the Act’s pre-clearance requirement of submitting all changes to voting procedures to the Justice Department for prior approval. This short essay explores one problematic feature of the Court’s analysis: its refusal to consider the legislative record as adequate because it was created to justify the coverage formula after the fact, rather than to facilitate deliberation on the coverage formula before a decision had been made. This reasoning essentially imports from administrative law a rule called the Chenery principle, and as this essay explains, it does so without justification. The differences between administrative and legislative decision making processes compel different treatment by the courts, and treating legislative records like administrative ones, in essence, asks of Congress something it is institutionally ill-equipped to perform. It sets Congress up to fail.

Women in the factory: an administrative adventure, 1893 to 1921

by Adelaide Mary Anderson ; foreword by the Right Hon. the Viscount Cave.