{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[8,2,8,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[19,2,19,3],[20,2,20,3],[22,2,22,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910983484903321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Grover Sonja C"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Litigating the Politics of Human Rights : Contemporary U.S. Culture Wars on Trial / / by Sonja C. Grover"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Cham : , : Springer Nature Switzerland : , : Imprint : Springer, , 2025"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"9783031824630"]
[{"$nulls":4},"3031824636"]
[null,null,"Edizione",null,"[1st ed. 2025.]"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (220 pages)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, , 2214-9902 ; ; 121"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"340.9"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Conflict of laws"]
[{"$nulls":4},"International law"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Comparative law"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Human rights"]
[{"$nulls":4},"America - Politics and government"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Private International Law, International and Foreign Law, Comparative Law"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Human Rights"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Politics and Human Rights"]
[{"$nulls":4},"American Politics"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Introduction: The Role of the Courts in Affirming Fundamental Human Rights as Essential to Democracy -- Litigating the Politics of Religious Conservatism in Public Life -- US Education Culture Wars: Freedom of Expression, Race, Gender and Revisionist History -- The Abortion Culture War and De-Democratization: States as Final Arbiters of Fundamental Human Rights and the Privatization of Abortion Restriction Enforcement -- US Education Culture Wars: The Right in a Democracy to Exposure to a Plurality of Views -- Selected US Culture Wars Involving the Scope of Authorities of Competing Sovereign Powers: The Court’s Role."]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","The cases analysed involve litigation concerning a disparate range of contemporary US culture wars including equity in access to public services unrestricted by religious bias, resistance to the teaching of historical facts relating to racial tensions in America including the so-called ‘critical race theory’ debate, the right of schoolchildren to "]
[{"$nulls":4},"exposure concerning a diversity of views, current USSC litigation about US university admissions policy that considers ‘race’ (ethnicity) as one factor amongst many in admission, contemporary cases concerning the constitutionality of US abortion law grounded on Roe v Wade and the scope of State and indigenous sovereign powers These contemporary culture war US landmark cases are then compared to similar cases in non-US jurisdictions and courts to consider in more depth the underlying core issues in these cases. The book highlights the risk to a democracy of recasting fundamental human rights litigation as essentially nothing more than the sorting out of political quagmires and cultural conflicts best left to the discretion of government rather than the courts. Then, the major risk is that constitutional controversies will increasingly not be decided by an independent judiciary but rather by self-interested politicians as the courts more often than not decline to weigh in on highly sensitive human rights controversies. A further risk is that instead such cases will be decided through a judicial majoritarian political lens rather than a largely apolitical consensus judicial opinion constructed by both philosophically left leaning (so-called liberal) and right leaning (so-called conservative) jurists."]