Sentences with phrase «supreme courts do»

A number of reasons have been suggested for this choice: because judges believe that the formulation of the rules is best left to the ABA, because the development of abstract rules is something judges are not comfortable doing (they are comfortable responding to concrete cases), because the state supreme courts do not have the resources to conduct legislative - like research and hearings,....

It might be an indication of the fact that ministers, law makers, and presidents of supreme courts don't see themselves very much as justice innovation leaders.

However, supreme courts do not just reflect reality — they also shape it.

A major question in that litigation was whether Texas had legal standing to sue, an issue that the Supreme Court did not resolve.

What will the Supreme Court do with all this?

On the far more important point raised by Tubbs, the Supreme Court did, from Griswold on, make it up at each stage of the game» despite the legal paper trail (or, pace Tubbs, chain) I referenced in my article.

The Supreme Court does not have to answer these questions formally; no case about wine is before it.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly say that «homophobia» can not be made into law.

Moreover, the Supreme Court doesn't only look at those specific words, but can reference other docu - ments of the time to gain insight as to the intentions of the Founding Fathers which they have done in the concept of the separation of Church and State.

Well, that's because the Supreme Court doesn't much like it, determining more than 100 years ago that polygamy was «an offence against society» (Reynolds v. U.S.) and compared it to «murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands» funeral pyres,» or so writes lawyer and social critic Wendy Kaminer.

The UK supreme court does not say May can't do it, it says she can't do it without MP approval.

To add a bit more (I read the full rulings which are interesting), the supreme court didn't say Teresa May (i.e., the government based on the prime minister's wish) could not trigger article 50.

«The Supreme Court doesn't need to politicized or made into a reality program in the name of political correctness.

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court did not uphold Miller's conviction, nor did it make any determination about whether sawed - off shotguns were protected firearms.

Until the Supreme Court does rule, for good or bad, the question is «still being worked out».

In Putnam however, the Supreme Court does exercise jurisdiction over some criminal cases.

«New York, by in large, can always provide more protection of rights and liberties than the U.S. Supreme Court does,» said Vincent Bonventre, an Albany Law School professor and noted court - watcher.

Between the mid-1930s and late 1980s / mid - 1990 s the Supreme Court didn't invalidate any acts by Congress during the era of New Deal Federalism, but under the Rehnquist Court a revival of Federalism occurred in the US.

The Supreme Court did not order that persons who registered with National Health Insurance (NHI) identification cards ARE or SHOULD BE automatically deregistered by the Electoral Commission.

The Supreme Court DID NOT order that the names of all person on the Register of Voters, who registered with the NHI I.D. card as a means of identification stand deleted.

The Supreme Court DID NOT order the Electoral Commission to validate the Voter Register.

The Supreme Court DID NOT order the Electoral Commission to automatically delete the names of all person on the Voter Register who registered with the NHI I.D. card as a means of identification.

The Supreme Court DID NOT declare the Register of Voters unconstitutional, null and void, and therefore of no effect.

In any case, I did not issue that writ, it is my lawyer, who is an officer of the court, and even the clerk of the Supreme Court did same.»

The Supreme Court DID NOT, AND CAN NOT ORDER THE AUTOMATIC DELETION of the names of NHIS registrants from the Voters Register.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not eliminate the use of race as a factor in the University of Michigan Law School admissions process (see the full text of the court's decision here).

However, the Supreme Court did not stipulate how intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour should be measured, leaving that to individual states to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not lift the federal ban on interracial marriage unto June 12, 1967.

The Supreme Court did say women can do anything men can do, but the mine ain't no place for girls, and anyway, jobs are scarce enough without females in the workplace.

To their disappointment, the Supreme Court did not comply.

And judicial rulings can redefine what qualifies as implementation of policy, as the Supreme Court did in its 2017 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist.

The other argument against vouchers is on church / state grounds — a concern that the current Supreme Court doesn't share, and one that I've always found utterly irrational.

Three years later, the Arizona Supreme Court did the same.

In its decision last month, the state Supreme Court didn't dispute the notion that Connecticut's educational landscape was tilted in favor of students in affluent areas.

A spokesman said Dorn is waiting to see what the state Supreme Court does next in the ongoing McCleary school funding case before making his decision.

Some courts have closely tracked the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, as the Indiana Supreme Court did last year in unanimously upholding the state's voucher law.

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court did not touch on the Winn decision, it did agree the plaintiffs did not have standing.

American Schools Are More Segregated Now Than They Were In 1968, And The Supreme Court Doesn't Care, from https://thinkprogress.org/american-schools-are-more-segregated-now-than-they-were-in-1968-and-the-supreme-court-doesnt-care-cc7abbf6651c

In the case of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, for example, the Supreme Court didn't make a final ruling until 2008, 19 years after the spill.

The Supreme Court did not decide that it was a pollutant — it doesn't have that authority.

However, Supreme court does not have the power to issue advisory opinions (I'll cite if need be, but its much more of a the thing does not exist so I'd kinda have to cite all of reality).

«A lot of what the Supreme Court does is simply irrelevant to what federal trial judges do on a daily basis,» wrote Judge Kopf, who presides and blogs from Lincoln, Neb..

But the Supreme Court does:

The Court's answer is lawyerly: «The Supreme Court does not have a style manual for advocates before the Court.»

The Supreme Court did not differentiate between rights.

The Washington Supreme Court doesn't allow disbarred attorneys to work as paralegals in Washington, but other states don't have that rule.

We note that the Supreme Court did not decide whether to award fees in this particular case, but sent the case back to the district court for further consideration.

That injunction, which the B.C. Supreme Court did grant, gave birth to a pair of 24/7 work camps ringed by police.

The Supreme Court does not hold a new trial or consider new evidence.

He writes, «Seems that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't want anything to do with BlackBerry's dispute with the outcome of a lower court ruling and a $ 565 million verdict against the company.