Sentences with phrase «court justices did»

What, then, should Supreme Court Justices do if they are convinced that the decisions of one or more of their colleagues are being influenced by disapproval of religion?

Children play it for kicks and confidence men for a living, but Supreme Court justices do not engage in such antics consciously or deliberately.

Because he says, a number of Supreme Court justices don't like the honest services law.

Supreme Court Justices don't become celebrities.

This is what some U.S. Supreme Court Justices do.

(Some potential Supreme Court Justices do too, I guess, though the Canadian Bar Association was more circumspect in its recent resolution on that topic.)

And some of it had to do with the topic of this Journal article: how Supreme Court justices do not simply uncover the original meaning of constitutional texts.

He writes: «I respectfully disagree that Supreme Court justices don't improve with age; on the contrary, many of them gain a broader perspective than they had when they went on the bench, and this enables them to pierce through the technicalities of which Judge Posner complains, so they can see the woods instead of the trees.

Not exact matches

In trying to recover Snowden's unencrypted mail from the company, which did not keep Snowden's cryptographic key, the Justice Department got a court order forcing the company to turn over another key instead, one that would allow officials to impersonate the company's website and intercept all interactions with its users.

But company lawyer Jesse Binnall said the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower ruling, did so on procedural grounds, so that the Justice Department's win would not influence much elsewhere.

Thurgood Marshall was the Supreme Court's first African - American justice, but this biopic doesn't tell that story.

The Supreme Court allowed parts of Trump's ban to go into effect until it ultimately decides the case in October, but the justices said the ban does not apply to non-citizens who have formal relationships with people or entities in the U.S..

He landed interviews to clerk for US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Antonin Scalia, but he didn't get the job.

What's important is that, when Donald Trump was asked what he thought the Supreme Court should do with its power, the first thing he decided was important to address was that the justices on the court should be nice to him — and that he had made one of them apologize to him when she waCourt should do with its power, the first thing he decided was important to address was that the justices on the court should be nice to him — and that he had made one of them apologize to him when she wacourt should be nice to him — and that he had made one of them apologize to him when she wasn't.

In his dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Constitution «had nothing to do with» that ruling by the court majority.

In the notice of his decision, New York Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez supported the arguments made by Schneiderman at the November 25 hearing and did not appear to be sympathetic to or convinced by those of DraftKings or FanDuel attorneys.

In a 50 - page ruling that read like a Supreme Court brief, he rejected in no uncertain terms the Department of Justice's aggressive use of the broad powers of the 1789 All Writs Act to force Apple to do its bidding in San Bernardino.

The Justice Department does not refer to a specific type of writ in its court petition (it just cites the All Writs Act), but that doesn't really matter.

In a new court filing regarding the Michael Cohen raids, Justice Department prosecutors in New York are citing President Donald Trump's own words during his angry Fox & Friends interview Thursday morning — and they're doing it to undercut Cohen and Trump's arguments.

The IRS contracts are especially intriguing given the agency's ongoing legal battle with Coinbase, wherein the Department of Justice filed a court petition, later granted, «seeking authorization to serve an IRS «John Doe» summons to obtain a wide range of records related to the accounts of millions of Coinbase's customers.»

The judge said in a 91 - page decision that, while the Army Corps substantially complied with the National Environmental Policy Act, federal permits issued for the pipeline violated the law in some respects, saying in a court order the Corps did not «adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice.»

While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal courts should not recognize an ATS cause of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the scope of ATS liability unless directly ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.

Obama says he is in favor of the death penalty, but does anyone doubt that a Supreme Court in which Stephen Breyer is the ideologically median Justice will vote to strike down the death penalty?

Does anyone believe that Justice Ginsburg would vote to strike down the mandate when it comes before the Court?

Judge Christopher Hehir said: «I am sorry justice was not done when you came to court in 1998 and 1999.

«My prayer is, particularly in the week just before we remember two years of Nelson Mandela's passing on, we will have magnanimity of South Africans, we will pray that justice will be done but we will start the process of healing through whatever the courts will lead us.

And surely the police, and the courts, have better things to do — ones that would bring more justice to the world, perhaps?

When we seek instead to «pay something back to the victims and bring them closure,» we are doing a justice either lower (as in civil - court cases) or higher (as in repaying blood with blood)» but, in any case, something that should not be a model for how we deal with criminals.

Kagan did not suggest that the Supreme Court's majority (Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) voted to uphold sectarian prayer because they are members of the country's largest church, Roman Catholicism.

But does «justice» for atrocities require a court, let alone a criminal court, much less an international criminal court?

Writing for the court in Abington v. Schempp (1963), Justice Tom Clark held that public schools can not establish a «religion of secularism,» preferring «those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.»

For justice is done in the particular case, and until tried in the courts, abstract principles have no more authority than the people who declare them.

Lower court judges and the justices of the Supreme Court have «failed to offer a «principled or predictable alternative» to «strict separation» because they — like the American people — do not agree among themselves on the nature of the problem or how to resolvcourt judges and the justices of the Supreme Court have «failed to offer a «principled or predictable alternative» to «strict separation» because they — like the American people — do not agree among themselves on the nature of the problem or how to resolvCourt have «failed to offer a «principled or predictable alternative» to «strict separation» because they — like the American people — do not agree among themselves on the nature of the problem or how to resolve it.

If we still have our laws determined by the European Court of Justice, then our parliament is no longer able to make all our laws, and the votes of the British peoples do not count because our laws are made and interpreted by a foreign cCourt of Justice, then our parliament is no longer able to make all our laws, and the votes of the British peoples do not count because our laws are made and interpreted by a foreign courtcourt.

even if he didn't quite mean it: In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the....

you can have a court system that is supposed to deal non-violently with solutions to these dillimmas but mostely it is entertainment and laughable in it's core justice to begin with humans are human so how does the newer muslim prophet propose to become more than human in response to violence and as a tool for enactment for change — if necessary?

If the argument here is correct, the two developments result from some of the same causes: The American kind of church - state separation meant no church monopolized religious symbols; courts were called upon to articulate ultimate purpose and justice; and judges felt little ambivalence in doing so.

The consti «tution does back up these justices and if the trial was held in Berkley and the courts had gone the other way I have no doubt that their interpretation of the law would back them up in the same matter.

As for the conclusion of Aidan O'Neill QC, that schools will be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff who refuse to use stories or textbooks promoting same - sex marriage and that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will have no right to withdraw their children from lessons, does that sound at all unlikely, given the cases of the Strasbourg four, which were considered by the European Court of Justice in September?

The second reason Newdow deserves close attention is that, although the court did not officially rule on the pledge's inclusion of the God - phrase, some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway.

To put the point in the blunt terms employed by Justice Harold Blackmun toward the end of his career on the bench, when he announced that he would henceforth vote (as Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall had previously done) to overturn all death sentences, when I sit on a Court that reviews and affirms capital convictions, I am part of «the machinery of death.»

He wants people to live according to Seven Basic Human Laws: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal and kidnap, not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

By adding the words «so help me God» to the oath of office, as Supreme Court chief justices and presidents have done since at least 1933, Roberts would...

They do not make it less important for our courts to appeal to justice; they make it more important.

The only thing that G - d wants people to do are Seven: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal and kidnap, not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

They are: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal (and kidnap), not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal, and to set up effective courts of justice.

He gave us Seven Laws to follow: To believe in One G - d, not to blaspheme Him, not to steal (and kidnap), not to murder, not to do adultery, etc., not to eat the limb of a living animal (animal cruelty) and to set up effective courts of justice.

Under the test, first proposed by Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor in a 1984 case from Pawtucket, Rhode Island, a display violates the Establishment Clause if it amounts to an official endorsement of religion, that is, if it suggests that the government approves a particular religious message (or disapproves such a message, though that issue does not regularly arise).

No, but it does illustrate that the courts are capable of responding to the demands of justice despite one Supreme Court opinion to the contrary.

The justices on the current Court will do the real work of jurisprudence if they draw on the briefs, take the time to set forth the evidence, and show why the state or the federal government has a compelling case for casting around infants in the womb the full protection of the law.