| Abstrakt: |
I would apply the opposite presumption and assume that Arizona's Supreme Court has ruled for its own State and people, under its own constitutional recognition of individual security against unwarranted state intrusion.....State courts interpreting state law remain particularly well situated to enforce individual rights against the States. 40 There, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced that if cases came to the Court with state constitutional law "interwoven with the federal law", and the state court decision was not grounded on an obvious "adequate and independent" state law ground, the Court could, in its discretion, exercise jurisdiction. 150 Again the Court referred those dissatisfied with its decision to state law remedies: "Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply." 48 Those decisions, then, are not convincing precedents for state courts deciding cases under their state constitutions even with identical language, in a state with which they are familiar, and only deciding for that one state. 949 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 72 | ISSUE 4 SUMMER 2020 FOREWORD ROBERT F. WILLIAMS STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LECTURE: THE STATE OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE NEW JUDICIAL FEDERALISM AND BEYOND Robert F. Williams TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION . [Extracted from the article] |
