In this book, Susan Gluck Mezey examines LGBT policymaking over the last several decades, highlighting advances in LGBT rights as well as formidable challenges that still confront the LGBT community. With an emphasis on courts, she traces developments in the struggles for LGBT rights in the United States and abroad. The chapters focus on employment discrimination, transgender rights, marriage equality, and the ongoing battles over discrimination against same-sex couples and transgender persons in education, employment, and public accommodations. It also adds a global perspective by appraising issues affecting LGBT rights in other parts of the world, discussing claims of discrimination in the Canadian and South African courts as well as in the European Court of Human Rights. Mezey provides a succinct and accessible guide to the debates over sexual orientation and gender identity, evaluating the roles played by state and federal courts, legislatures, and chief executives in formulating and implementing LGBT policy. Suitable as an up-to-date resource for anyone interested in LGBT rights, Beyond Marriage will also help students in upper-level classes focusing on judicial politics, public policymaking, family law, civil rights, gender policy, and minority group politics understand ways forward for the LGBT community in the political realm.
Focusing on a class action lawsuit against the Illinois child welfare system (B. H. v. Johnson), Pitiful Plaintiffs examines the role of the federal courts in the child welfare policymaking process and the extent to which litigation can achieve the goal of reforming child welfare systems. Beginning in the 1970s, children's advocates asked the federal courts to intervene in the child welfare policymaking process. Their weapons were, for the most part, class action suits that sought widespread reform of child welfare systems. This book is about the tens of thousands of abused and neglected children in the United States who enlisted the help of the federal courts to compel state and local governments to fulfill their obligations to them. Based on a variety of sources, the core of the research consists of in-depth, open-ended interviews with individuals involved in the Illinois child welfare system, particularly those engaged in the litigation process, including attorneys, public officials, members of children's advocacy groups, and federal court judges. The interviews were supplemented with information from legal documents, government reports and publications, national and local news reports, and scholarly writings. Despite the proliferation of child welfare lawsuits and the increasingly important role of the federal judiciary in child welfare policymaking, structural reform litigation against child welfare systems has received scant scholarly attention from a political science or public policy perspective. Mezey's comprehensive study will be of interest to political scientists and public policy analysts, as well as anyone involved in social justice and child welfare.
This book examines the role of the federal courts in policymaking for children. Believing that the federal courts are uniquely situated to provide relief to the less powerful in society, Mezey assesses the judiciary's response to the demands for children's rights and benefits across a number of policy areas and a range of statutory and constitutional issues. Through analysis of Supreme Court and lower court opinions over the last several decades, she determines the extent to which federal court decisionmaking has affected the legal, political, economic, and social status of children in the United States.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy.Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's "disabling interpretations" in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and excluded large numbers of claimants from the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has not interpreted the act broadly, as was intended by Congress, and this method of decision making was for the most part mirrored by the courts below. The high court's rulings to expand state sovereign immunity and insulate states from liability in damage suits has also caused claimants to become enmeshed in litigation and has encouraged defendants to challenge other laws affecting disability rights. Despite the law's strong civil rights rhetoric, disability rights remain an imperfectly realized goal.
This book examines the role of the federal courts in policymaking for children. Believing that the federal courts are uniquely situated to provide relief to the less powerful in society, Mezey assesses the judiciary's response to the demands for children's rights and benefits across a number of policy areas and a range of statutory and constitutional issues. Through analysis of Supreme Court and lower court opinions over the last several decades, she determines the extent to which federal court decisionmaking has affected the legal, political, economic, and social status of children in the United States.
In Queers in Court, Susan Gluck Mezey examines the contemporary battle for gay and lesbian rights in the United States, tracing the evolution of issues from same sex marriage and privacy rights to military service and employment discrimination. By combining analyses of nearly three hundred cases from both federal and state courts with detailed explorations of the paths these issues have taken through legislative and executive bodies, she provides the most comprehensive analysis of queer rights in law and policy to date.
All men may be created equal in the United States - but more than 30 years after Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment, can the same be said for women? Elusive Equality offers a clear understanding of how government institutions - the executive branch, Congress, and state legislatures, as well as the federal courts - affect the legal status of women. Surveying the judicial and public policy issues central to the identification - and protection - of women's rights, Susan Mezey traces the developing legal parameters of gender equality. From early court rulings that prohibited employment discrimination and sexual harassment through today's decisions on reproductive rights and same-sex relationships, Mezey analyzes the broader political context within which critical judicial decisions have been made.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was intended to send a clear message to society that discrimination on the basis of disability is unacceptable. As with most civil rights laws, the courts were given primary responsibility for implementing disability rights policy.Mezey argues that the act has not fulfilled its potential primarily because of the judiciary's "disabling interpretations" in adjudicating ADA claims. In the decade of litigation following the enactment of the ADA, judicial interpretation of the law has largely constricted the parameters of disability rights and excluded large numbers of claimants from the reach of the law. The Supreme Court has not interpreted the act broadly, as was intended by Congress, and this method of decision making was for the most part mirrored by the courts below. The high court's rulings to expand state sovereign immunity and insulate states from liability in damage suits has also caused claimants to become enmeshed in litigation and has encouraged defendants to challenge other laws affecting disability rights. Despite the law's strong civil rights rhetoric, disability rights remain an imperfectly realized goal.
In this book, Susan Gluck Mezey examines LGBT policymaking over the last several decades, highlighting advances in LGBT rights as well as formidable challenges that still confront the LGBT community. With an emphasis on courts, she traces developments in the struggles for LGBT rights in the United States and abroad. The chapters focus on employment discrimination, transgender rights, marriage equality, and the ongoing battles over discrimination against same-sex couples and transgender persons in education, employment, and public accommodations. It also adds a global perspective by appraising issues affecting LGBT rights in other parts of the world, discussing claims of discrimination in the Canadian and South African courts as well as in the European Court of Human Rights. Mezey provides a succinct and accessible guide to the debates over sexual orientation and gender identity, evaluating the roles played by state and federal courts, legislatures, and chief executives in formulating and implementing LGBT policy. Suitable as an up-to-date resource for anyone interested in LGBT rights, Beyond Marriage will also help students in upper-level classes focusing on judicial politics, public policymaking, family law, civil rights, gender policy, and minority group politics understand ways forward for the LGBT community in the political realm.
Susan Gluck Mezey's newest book, Gay Families and the Courts, is a compelling examination of the role of the state and federal courts in furthering the goals of the gay and lesbian community. Unlike Mezey's earlier book, Queers in Court, this book evaluates the extent to which litigation is effective in advancing equal rights for gay families_families in which at least one member is gay_as they seek to expand their opportunities and battle discrimination. Mezey shows how the courts address gay and lesbian rights and sexual orientation in schools and social organizations such as the Boy Scouts along with family-oriented problems such as marriage and parenthood. In doing so, Mezey emphasizes the complexity of the issues involved in the cases, and assesses the degree to which the outcome of the litigation is explained by the type of case, the type of court, and the judge's perception of his or her role as a policymaker. It is a valuable reference for scholars interested in judicial, legislative, and executive policymaking at the federal and state level as well as anyone interested in LGBT politics.
Arguing that an inter-generational war is brewing in the United States, this book paints a picture of the "ageing of America" and what it means for politics and policy questions, including social security, health care, crime, jobs, social welfare, defence and foreign affairs. Differences between older and younger citizens are examined in the light of voting and registration patterns, ideological and party preferences, and varieties of political activism. Contemporary media and new technologies are highlighted as sources of disparities and bridges between the generations - how they "watch politics", how they prefer to solve social problems, and how inter-generational understanding may be improved through communication and education.
This book focuses on the Reagan administration's broad attempt from 1980 to 1984 to strike thousands of Social Security disability recipients from government rolls. . . . [Mezey] enriches her study with a brief history of federal disability policy and provides a review of contending arguments over public policy and judicial activism. Of particular interest is the legal battle over the medical criteria used for determining desability and the SSA's deliberate policy of nonacquiescence when confronted with adverse judicial rulings. . . . A well-documented and valuable addition to case studies on the Reagan administration's efforts to cut human services. Choice This book is a case study of judicial policy making. It focuses on the role of adjudication in the making and refining of federal policy. It goes beyond the scope of most treatments of social security and the disability policy to examine the stages of judicial review and subsequent legislative and bureaucratic responses to adjudication. It then proceeds to analyze the resulting changes in legislative policies. The study is devoted to two themes. First, it provides an opportunity for empirical analysis of the role of the lower federal courts in the policy making arena; second, it examines the role of litigation as a political activity. This issue serves as a timely opportunity to explore the impact of federal courts on bureaucratic and congressional policies by focusing on the interactions of institutions involved in the disability policy-making process. By examining the effects of the courts on social policy, this case study offers new perspectives on the role of the federal courts in the political system.
Focusing on a class action lawsuit against the Illinois child welfare system (B. H. v. Johnson), Pitiful Plaintiffs examines the role of the federal courts in the child welfare policymaking process and the extent to which litigation can achieve the goal of reforming child welfare systems. Beginning in the 1970s, children's advocates asked the federal courts to intervene in the child welfare policymaking process. Their weapons were, for the most part, class action suits that sought widespread reform of child welfare systems. This book is about the tens of thousands of abused and neglected children in the United States who enlisted the help of the federal courts to compel state and local governments to fulfill their obligations to them. Based on a variety of sources, the core of the research consists of in-depth, open-ended interviews with individuals involved in the Illinois child welfare system, particularly those engaged in the litigation process, including attorneys, public officials, members of children's advocacy groups, and federal court judges. The interviews were supplemented with information from legal documents, government reports and publications, national and local news reports, and scholarly writings. Despite the proliferation of child welfare lawsuits and the increasingly important role of the federal judiciary in child welfare policymaking, structural reform litigation against child welfare systems has received scant scholarly attention from a political science or public policy perspective. Mezey's comprehensive study will be of interest to political scientists and public policy analysts, as well as anyone involved in social justice and child welfare.
This book focuses on the Reagan administration's broad attempt from 1980 to 1984 to strike thousands of Social Security disability recipients from government rolls. . . . [Mezey] enriches her study with a brief history of federal disability policy and provides a review of contending arguments over public policy and judicial activism. Of particular interest is the legal battle over the medical criteria used for determining desability and the SSA's deliberate policy of nonacquiescence when confronted with adverse judicial rulings. . . . A well-documented and valuable addition to case studies on the Reagan administration's efforts to cut human services. Choice This book is a case study of judicial policy making. It focuses on the role of adjudication in the making and refining of federal policy. It goes beyond the scope of most treatments of social security and the disability policy to examine the stages of judicial review and subsequent legislative and bureaucratic responses to adjudication. It then proceeds to analyze the resulting changes in legislative policies. The study is devoted to two themes. First, it provides an opportunity for empirical analysis of the role of the lower federal courts in the policy making arena; second, it examines the role of litigation as a political activity. This issue serves as a timely opportunity to explore the impact of federal courts on bureaucratic and congressional policies by focusing on the interactions of institutions involved in the disability policy-making process. By examining the effects of the courts on social policy, this case study offers new perspectives on the role of the federal courts in the political system.
All men may be created equal in the United States - but more than 30 years after Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment, can the same be said for women? Elusive Equality offers a clear understanding of how government institutions - the executive branch, Congress, and state legislatures, as well as the federal courts - affect the legal status of women. Surveying the judicial and public policy issues central to the identification - and protection - of women's rights, Susan Mezey traces the developing legal parameters of gender equality. From early court rulings that prohibited employment discrimination and sexual harassment through today's decisions on reproductive rights and same-sex relationships, Mezey analyzes the broader political context within which critical judicial decisions have been made.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.