Sentences with phrase «by justices of the supreme court»

The release, which failed to indicate the names of the Committee members, as well as state exactly when the Committee will start its work, said it will be chaired by a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Speeches by Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada as well as scholarly articles about the court's rulings are not included.

Not exact matches

U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed support on Tuesday for Microsoft's bid to fend off class action claims by Xbox 360 owners who say the video game console gouges discs because of a design defect.

Barrister John Vaughan has been appointed a judge of the WA Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Justice Peter Martino.

By contrast, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine, now chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote in the Wake Forest Law Review: «Corporate law requires directors, as a matter of their duty of loyalty, to pursue a good faith strategy to maximize profits for the stockholders.»

Of course, President Trump has accomplished some significant campaign promises, including appointing a Supreme Court justice who is well - regarded by Republicans and rolling back some of the onerous regulations of the Obama erOf course, President Trump has accomplished some significant campaign promises, including appointing a Supreme Court justice who is well - regarded by Republicans and rolling back some of the onerous regulations of the Obama erof the onerous regulations of the Obama erof the Obama era.

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.

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 allowed for unlimited political spending by corporations, but Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed his strong support for public disclosure of the money spent.

The groups are represented by former DOL solicitor Eugene Scalia (the son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia) who's a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington office.

Following a controversial New York Times editorial by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Tuesday calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, we asked readers to respond, offering not only the news of Stevens» stance, but also a Chicago Tribune editorial taking the other side of the issue.

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.

The groups are represented by former DOL solicitor Eugene Scalia, who's now a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Washington office and the son of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Following a controversial New York Times editorial by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Tuesday calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, we asked readers to respond, offering not only the news of Stevens» stance, but also a Chicago Tribune editorial taking the other side of...

While the points made by these gentlemen are both valid and critically important, they fail to take note of four other dangerous subsidies: (1) the market perception that the Washington and Wall Street revolving door has rendered these firms immune from prosecution — even for repeated, illegal cartel behavior; (2) the ability to spend billions buying back their own stock, effectively propping up their own share price and bad behavior; (3) self - regulation with compromised bodies creating the market perception and reality of a competitive edge; and (4) Congress and the Supreme Court tolerating Wall Street running its own private justice system (mandatory arbitration) where corrupt acts are kept hidden from public view until they blow up into catastrophic events to the economy.

Obama says he believes in an individual right to keep and bear arms, but if even one of the non-liberal Justices is replaced by an Obama appointee, you can be sure that we will have an anti-Heller and anti-individual right majority on the Supreme Court.

By reading the Ninth Amendment as creating a general right to privacy, Black and Stewart suggested, the unelected justices of the Supreme Court had subst - ituted their own subjective notions of justice, liberty, and reasonableness for the wisdom and experience of the elected representatives in the Connecticut state legislature who were responsible for passing the birth control regulation.

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?

The results of these and other Supreme Court decisions call to mind the warning issued by Justice Arthur I Goldberg (no Moral Majoritarian, he) some 25 years ago in the School Prayer Cases.

Justice Elena Kagan explored the limits of permissible government action by using the Supreme Court as an example.

Baltimore (CNN)- Shortly after becoming the nation's 112th Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan by tradition was presented with a silver cup, engraved with the names of those who preceded her in that particular seat.

That was clearly the hope of the Supreme Court majority that signed onto the opinion written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

I share their views, and have argued that these sincerely held convictions ought to be granted legal status — which is basically the perspective set forth recently by the majority of Supreme Court justices.

Olson also invoked «fundamental rights» and was queried by Justice Scalia as to just exactly when it became unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage: 1791 with the Bill of Rights, 1868 with the 14th Amendment, or some other date, perhaps after the Court declined in 1971 to review a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding opposite - sex marriage requirements?

The phrase has its roots in a 1919 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, but there's a version of it growing increasingly common today: Falsely yelling «hate» in a crowded public square.

And the incompetence displayed goes beyond that of Solicitor General Verrilli, but extends to several of the meaning - to - help - his - case comments by some of the liberal Supreme Court Justices themselves.

U.S. Supreme Court justices, for example, have been called «the nine high priests,» and the sacredness imputed to the Constitution and other artifacts of the legal order are often commented upon.102 No single church evokes the breadth of respect enjoyed by the Supreme Court.

Benito Juárez, supreme court justice and then president, was the liberals» foremost leader and engineer of the 1857 constitution (for which he is now honored by schoolchildren as the first among national heroes).37 Earlier outlawed had been any but «secular» education and the use of civil machinery to enforce religious vows and payment of church tithes.

Liberals who are dismayed by the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch should cheer up.

This view is superlatively expressed by the plurality opinion of the three moderate justices in the Supreme Court's 1992 Casey decision: «[I] ntimate and personal choices [are] choices central to personal dignity and autonomy.»

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...

«The attack on the character of Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by militant white feminists, in books and newspaper articles, should not be ignored by anyone concerned with the misuse of the Black American Civil Rights Movement.

In assessing the legal prospects for mediating structures, I have mentioned the technique employed by Congress in the Adolescent Family Life Act, the receptiveness of the majority of the Supreme Court Justices in Bowen v. Kendrick toward that technique, and the openness even of the dissenting Justices to accord weight to the protection of intermediate associations as such under certain circumstances.

Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the proper role of religion in public life and the extent of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.

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).

Although «secular humanism» is a term used most frequently by Protestant Fundamentalists, it was Justice Hugo Black» in delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in a 1961 case, Torcaso v. Watkins» who distinguished between «religions based on a belief in the existence of God» and «religions founded on different beliefs,» such as «Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.»

For a «Supreme Court justice to express himself so freely on religious matters is unequaled in the modern era,» observed Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School, one of many alarmed respondents cited by Chandler.

Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiests, Most Outspoken Justice edited by Kevin A. Ring Regnery.

The stated aim of this volume is to bring to a wider audience «some of the most noteworthy, colorful, and entertaining opinions ever written by a United States Supreme Court Justice.»

Chandler points out that Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders «provoked a political uproar in his state by addressing an antiabortion rally on the steps of the state capitol.»

The ERLC has offered six pro-life priorities for action by President - elect Trump and Congress in 2017, including the nomination and confirmation of a pro-life successor to the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a permanent ban on all federal funding of abortion and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the country's No. 1 abortion provider.

So though RFRA had near unanimous backing in 1993 and restores the Supreme Court's free exercise doctrine which was accepted from the 1963Sherbertdecision authored by Justice William Brennan untilEmployment Division v. Smithin 1990, the applications of that doctrine are now said to be «extreme religious liberty rights.»

We took this one to the Supreme Court, and the decision, written by Chief Justice White, held that the First Amendment does not protect private censorship by the broadcaster and that, between the right of the broadcaster and the right of the listeners and viewers, «it is the right of the viewers and listeners that is paramount.»

When Americans — whether presidents, Supreme Court justices or ordinary citizens — refer to the «wall of separation» desired by the Founders, they not only perpetuate a historical inaccuracy; they unwittingly revive some of the most distasteful episodes in American history.

This week, the Supreme Court justices heard arguments challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.

But when Gorsuch is confirmed as our next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the spectacle will move on, and the Court will be strengthened by this new custodian to care for our Constitution and laws.

The president's introduction of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the nation as his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia's death gave us a lift we sorely needed.

Indeed, not all that long ago liberal Justices of the Supreme Court were accusing the State of Indiana of shredding the First Amendment by enforcing public nudity laws against table top dancers at the Kitty Kat Lounge in downtown South Bend.

This effort, like that of the NCBCPS, relies heavily on the distinction made by Justice Thomas Clark in the 1963 Supreme Court decision forbidding devotional reading of the Bible in public schools: «Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.»

The Northern Territory Government announced its floor pricing plans in late February after an alcohol review by former NT Supreme Court chief justice Trevor Riley who found the NT had one of the highest per capita rates of alcohol consumption in the world.

HBO's Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight, which debuts on Oct. 5 and is directed by Stephen Frears (The Queen), is a glossy and engaging docudrama that focuses on the Supreme Court's inner - chamber battles in 1971, when the justices ruled on Ali's appeal of the conviction that had cost him 3 1/2 years of his career and threatened to send him to jail for five more.