Sentences with phrase «supreme courts so»

By selecting your own language as the search language (click on the appropriate abbreviation running across the top of the web page), and then setting the Search Engine appropriately via the modify the selection link in right hand column (ie selecting up to a maximum of 5 supreme courts so their flags show) you can do a single court or similtaneous search.

Behind this may be many additional opportunities with the federal and state supreme courts so getting this one right opens up the door to many other cool things.

«Intimate without being obtrusive, RBG doesn't exactly demystify the Supreme Court so much as it brings us closer to one of its greats.»

as displayed by the following: «When a decision gets to the Supreme Court so much is at stake for the parties.

We are disputing these as always, and looking for good cases to Petition to BC Supreme Court so we have an opportunity to make clear to the Court the historic and scientific basis behind the requirement for a Proper Breath Test.

«I hope I get nominated for the Supreme Court so that I can dismiss what I did when I was 20 Main Kerr interviews former FBI lawyer about National Security Letters»

Main I hope I get nominated for the Supreme Court so that I can dismiss what I did when I was 20»

Appeals are more - often - than - not declined by the Supreme Court so adjudication may stop at the federal United States Courts of Appeals (circuit courts) or District Courts and those are a good place to look for precedent, too.

Not exact matches

Apple's response is complicated, made more so because it includes Constitutional arguments (First and Fifth Amendment) that it will need if the case goes to the Supreme Court.

Not since the 1960s has the Supreme Court heard so many high - profile patent cases.

When I was working on it from 1974 to 1994, it did not cross my mind that a legal case that would end up in the Supreme Court would be the consequence of my work and I'm so gratified that it was a unanimous decision.»

As the Supreme Court gets ready in June to rule on the issue for the second time in two years, conservative states have rushed to enact so - called Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) laws that would allow businesses to object on religious grounds to serving LGBT people and same - sex couples.

«The Obama administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far with the CPP that the Supreme Court issued a historic stay of the rule, preventing its devastating effects to be imposed on the American people while the rule is being challenged in court, «Pruitt said in a stateCourt issued a historic stay of the rule, preventing its devastating effects to be imposed on the American people while the rule is being challenged in court, «Pruitt said in a statecourt, «Pruitt said in a statement.

The U.S. Supreme Court emasculated the controversial legal concept of «honest services» on Jun. 24th and in so doing, handed a moral victory to jailed former press baron Conrad Black.

So the defendants went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court only accepts around 1 % of all appeals, and typically does so when there's a pressing legal question or a significant split between appeals courts.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the use of race in college admissions is constitutional, so long as explicit «quotas» aren't used.

Perhaps the most controversial initiative so far is a supreme court blacklist of 170,000 defaulters who are barred from buying high - speed train or airplane tickets or staying at luxury hotels as a means to pressure them to repay their debt.

After the Supreme Court in 1911 struck down the form of resale price maintenance enabled by fair trade laws, 59 Congress in 1937 carved out an exception for state fair trade laws through the Miller - Tydings Act.60 When the Supreme Court in 1951 ruled that producers could enforce minimum prices only against those retailers that had signed contracts agreeing to do so, 61 Congress responded with a law making minimum prices enforceable against nonsigners too.62

The Supreme court is going to put some handcuffs on these idiots and justly so.

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.

In doing so counsel relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Windsor (City) v Canadian Transit Co 2016 SCC 54 (Windsor) which, serendipitously, was released the morning of the hearing of the appeal.

The Supreme Court ruling said the so - called interconnection rates should be set by telecom regulator IFT.

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

One need not be a historian of education or a theologian to assess the damage done to public education and then to society in general by how these cases were decided and what public school officials were empowered to do (or so they believed) despite the clearly given cautions from the Supreme Court itself.

The Supreme Court's ruling means they are now no longer allowed to do so and must legally conduct and recognise same - sex as well as heterosexual marriages.

Henceforth, the right to abort was to be understood as a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, which included (so the plurality opinion of the Supreme Court said) «the right to define one's own concept of existence and to make the most basic decisions about bodily integrity.»

So, be honest and tell us what perversion it is that you're holding at such high regard that you would trample the beliefs of the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, who was also President of the American Bible Socity, and Patrick Henry and George Washington, the two men who most led the American Revolution.

Judge Rothstein conveniently ignored the fact that virtually all states forbade assisted suicide, either by express statute or well - settled common law precedent» which fact the Supreme Court noted without reservation in the one case it has heard dealing, albeit peripherally, with a so - called «right to die.»

So who would have thought we'd ever arrive at day when a Supreme Court without Protestants was a distinct possibility?

And if Eisenstadt, Roe, Casey, and Lawrence were the direct descendants of Griswold, it is not difficult to see how Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision mandating so - called «gay marriage,» was a collateral descendant of Justice Douglas» discovery of a constitutional «right to privacy.»

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports, «The Supreme Court is the highest court in Pakistan so the prosecutiCourt is the highest court in Pakistan so the prosecuticourt in Pakistan so the prosecution...

At the same time, euthanasia and assisted - suicide practices in the Netherlands have so detached that society from true humanism that their supreme courts issued decrees allowing access to assisted suicide to both the mentally ill and depressed.

So the Supreme Court, when it practices judicial activism, undercuts democratic participation not only by substituting its own assertoric judgment for democratic deliberation, or by ignoring the plain letter of the constitution in favor of its own political inclinations, but also by understanding itself as a council of philosopher kings (versus really good lawyers) prudentially adjusting the fundamental nature of American democracy to fit the ever changing historical horizon that provides the context for its expression.

It's not so clear to me — contra Berkowitz — why anyone who reads THE FEDERALIST would know that the Obama mandate is unconstitutional in a way that would compel our Supreme Court to declare it void.

The purpose of this pledge is to clarify the difference between the Christian view of marriage and the government view, which the Supreme Court has redefined so that everyone can use it to express their identities, whatever those identities might be.

Further, as the Cold War began, Christianity was unquestionably in control of American culture, so much so that religious organizations initially felt unthreatened by the new Supreme Court decisions.

In part it's probably because the Supreme Court has left so little room for expression of popular will through legislation.

Of the «alphabet soup» of federal agencies initiated by Roosevelt, not all found equal favor with the publication; it was, for instance, doubtful about the National Recovery Administration long before the Supreme Court pronounced that agency s death sentence (even so, it carried the NRA eagle sign on its second page for many months).

Back in the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court explained that churches have authority over their internal decision - making because «All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent to this government.»

Most Christians who support Trump have done so with reluctant strategic calculation, largely based on the president's power to appoint members of the Supreme Court.

Anthony Giambrone, O.P. published an article in America Magazine warning that Catholics inclined to celebrate the life and service of the late Supreme Court justice should not be so inclined to celebrate his judicial philosophy.

Just now, by a vote of five to four the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same - sex couples may now marry in all 50 states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted do so.

So those who voted for Clinton say, «You care more about the balance on the Supreme Court than black men getting shot by police.»

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 truth is that many Supreme Court justices appointed by pro-life presidents have voted to uphold abortion rights, so the issue is far more complex than we are often willing to admit.

Every generation, it seems, has its paradigm - defining Supreme Court case: a decision (or series of decisions) that determines the jurisprudential ethos and frames the judicial, political, and academic debate for the next quarter century or so.

So long as the locus of decision is the parent and not the church, the U.S. Supreme Court seems prepared to give its blessing.

The Supreme Court has to rule based on law, so that California vote is meaningless.

About half my monthly disability goes for rent on a 12 x 20 efficiency apartment... I am frightened, in the light of what's going on politically, that I will be cut off, even though I paid in my entire working life, so that some wealthy Floridian, or corporation - they're people now, thanks, Supreme Court - can have a tax cut.