Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court

ISBN-13: 9781107565609 / Angielski / Miękka / 2016 / 578 str.

Bridget J. Crawford; Linda L. Berger; Kathryn M. Stanchi

Opis

What would United States Supreme Court opinions look like if key decisions on gender issues were written with a feminist perspective? Feminist Judgments brings together a group of scholars and lawyers to rewrite, using feminist reasoning, the most significant US Supreme Court cases on gender from the 1800s to the present day. The twenty-five opinions in this volume demonstrate that judges with feminist viewpoints could have changed the course of the law. The rewritten decisions reveal that previously accepted judicial outcomes were not necessary or inevitable and demonstrate that feminist reasoning increases the judicial capacity for justice. Feminist Judgments opens a path for a long overdue discussion of the real impact of judicial diversity on the law as well as the influence of perspective on judging.

Spis treści

Part I. Introduction and Overview: 1. Introduction to the US Feminist Judgments Project Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger and Bridget J. Crawford; 2. Talking back: from feminist history and theory to feminist legal methods and judgments Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol; Part II. The Feminist Judgments: 3. Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 US 130 (1873) Kimberly Holst and Phyllis Goldfarb; 4. Muller v. Oregon, 208 US 412 (1908) Andrea Doneff and Pamela Laufer-Ukeles; 5. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965) Cynthia Hawkins DeBose and Laura Rosenbury; 6. Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967) Inga N. Laurent and Teri McMurtry-Chubb; 7. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972) Nancy D. Polikoff and Karen Syma Czapanskiy; 8. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) Rachel Rebouché and Kimberly M. Mutcherson; 9. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 US 677 (1973) Iselin M. Gambert and Dara E. Purvis; 10. Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 US 484 (1974) Maya Manian and Lucinda M. Finley; 11. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977) Brenda A. Smith and Maria L. Ontiveros; 12. City of Los Angeles Department Dep't of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 US 702 (1978) Cassandra Jones Havard and Tracy A. Thomas; 13. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980) Mary Ziegler and Leslie C. Griffin; 14. Michael M. v. Superior Court, 450 US 464 (1981) Margo Kaplan and Cynthia Godsoe; 15. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 US 57 (1981) Jamie R. Abrams and Davis S. Cohen; 16. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (1986) Kristen Konrad Tiscione and Angela Onwuachi-Willig; 17. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 US 616 (1987) Deborah Gordon and Deborah L. Rhode; 18. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 US 228 (1989) Dale Margolin Cecka and Martha Chamallas; 19. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992) Macarena Sáez and Lisa R. Pruitt; 20. United States v. Virginia, 518 US 515 (1996) Christine M. Venter and Valorie K. Vojdik; 21. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 US 75 (1998) Margaret E. Johnson and Ann C. McGinley; 22. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 US 274 (1998) Michelle S. Simon and Ann Bartow; 23. United States v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000) Shaakirrah R. Sanders and Aníbal Rosario Lebrón; 24. Nguyen v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001) Sandra S. Park and Ilene Durst; 25. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003) Kris McDaniel-Miccio and Ruthann Robson; 26. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005) Patricia A. Broussard and Maria Isabel Medina; 27. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) Erez Aloni and Carlos A. Ball.