Suchergebnisse

The Supreme Court has the incredible power to overturn unconstitutional injustices through its rulings, making it a vital check to the executive and legislative branches' powers. This information-rich book introduces readers to inner workings of this essential aspect of the United States government and uses historical and contemporary examples to explain complex issues. Readers will explore landmark decisions, such as Brown v. The Board of Education, which provide context for current events. Photographs bring light to important issues and fact boxes provide insight on key topics. This thorough look at the Supreme Court encourages readers to ask tough questions about the United States judicial system and empowers them to find answers

Includes index. ; At the end of v. 1 of The Queensland law journal reports is found "Cases decided in the Supreme court of Queensland, during the year 1879--42 and 43 Victoria. Ed. by H.R. Beor, Q. C., for the Queensland Society; the judgments reported by W.H. Osborne." ; At head of title and binder's title: The Queensland law reports. ; Parts [I]-II printed by J. C. Beal, government printer. ; Issued in three parts; pt. [I] has title: . Cases in equity, common law, admiralty, insolvency, and criminal law . ; Mode of access: Internet.

On 15 November 2023, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) unanimously declared the government's policy of removing some asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claims unlawful. Like the Court of Appeal, it found substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment because of insufficient guarantees against refoulement. This post explores the origin and significance of the UKSC judgment and the legal and policy implications of the UK government's immediate response to it.

Amy Coney Barrett's nomination would make the Supreme Court more conservative than it has been in decades, even more conservative than the majority of the public. But one piece of research suggests that an out-of-step Court will not just have its way.

This paper from Tom Clark, Professor of Political Science at Emory University, shows why our new conservative Court may still follow public opinion.

Preface to the sixth edition -- Preface to the first edition -- The genesis and nature of judicial power -- The establishment of the right to decide: 1789-1810 -- The Marshall court and the shaping of the nation : 1810-1835 -- The court under Taney : the natural history of judicial prestige -- Constitutional evolution in the gilded age: 1865-1900 -- The judiciary and the regulatory state : 1900-1937 -- The court and postwar America : 1937-1959 -- Civil liberties, civil rights, and the Supreme Court -- Judicial monitoring of the new American welfare state -- Epilogue: the court of today and the lessons of history

Citation: Emrick, Eugene. History of the Supreme Court. Senior thesis, Kansas State Agricultural College, 1900. ; Morse Department of Special Collections ; Introduction: In writing a history of the Supreme Court of the United States, a few words concerning the courts of England, after which our system was modeled, may not be out of place. In England, the jurisdiction and powers of the courts are not so great as here, and it is a source of complexity to the English statesman why our Supreme Court does not control the legislative department. England has no written constitution. What is termed her constitution, is but a code of laws which are constantly changed from year to year, as new laws are passed and old ones are taken away. Parliament is supreme. It makes all laws, and can unmake them at any time. If an English court finds a law of Parliament conflicting with a decided case, the act will be observed as it is supposed to be the last expression of Parliament on that subject. If the court misinterprets an act, or decides it differently from what Parliament intended, the decision will stand until Parliament again meets and reenacts the law. Their courts do not have to decide between two conflicting statutes. They simply look up the date of their enactments, and that of the later date will be the one observed. What is the decision of the court one year, may not be the next, for the court follows the acts of Parliament and Parliament may, at any time, pass a law which conflicts with, and repeals the one, on which the court has based its decision. Such, in brief, is the plan which the English courts follow.

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- The Ninth Amendment in Light of Text and History -- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: "Precisely What WRTL Sought to Avoid -- United States v. Stevens: Restricting Two Major Rationales for Content-Based Speech Restrictions -- Church and State at the Crossroads: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez -- Doe v. Reed and the Future of Disclosure Requirements -- The Tell-Tale Privileges or Immunities Clause -- The Degradation of the "Void for Vagueness" Doctrine: Reversing Convictions While Saving the Unfathomable "Honest Services Fraud" Statute -- Taking Stock of Comstock: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Limits of Federal Power -- Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB: Narrow Separation-of-Powers Ruling Illustrates That the Supreme Court Is Not "Pro-Business" -- Federal Misgovernance of Mutual Funds -- Forward to the Past -- Antitrust Formalism Is Dead! Long Live Antitrust Formalism! Some Implications of American Needle v. NFL -- Looking Ahead: October Term 2010 -- Contributors -- About Cato