51 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2022
  2. Aug 2022
  3. Jun 2022
    1. Another example of that, because you might say, are there othercases like that, Miranda. So Miranda is reaffirmed a lot, but thenin the Dickerson case in 2000, Chief Justice Rehnquist writes theopinion, considering the stare decisis factors and reaffirming Mi-randa. Even though Chief Justice Rehnquist, by the way, had beena fervent critic of Miranda throughout his career, he decided thatit had been settled too long, had been precedent too long, and hereaffirmed it
    2. o that is why both of those cases, Planned Parenthood v. Caseyand Dickerson, are cases where I would refer to them as precedenton precedent.Senator F EINSTEIN. So you believe it is correctly settled, but isit correct law in your view?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, there is on that case or onDickerson, or on cases like Citizens United or Heller or UnitedStates v. Lopez or Kelo, just the whole body of modern SupremeCourt case law, I have to follow what the nominees who have beenin this seat before have done.
    3. has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law.The first question I have of you is what do you mean by ‘‘settledlaw’’? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law?Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could beoverturned, and has your views changed since you were in theBush White House?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, I said that it is settled as a prece-dent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles ofstare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mindabout Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times overthe past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most impor-tantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.And as you well recall, Senator, I know when that case came up,the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The Courtspecifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in consid-ering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Ken-nedy, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Souter, at great length wentthrough those factors.
    4. Is it correct law?RESPONSE: Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), is a precedent of the Supreme Courtentitled to the respect due under the law of precedent. As I discussed at the hearing, the law ofprecedent is not a judicial policy but rather is rooted in Article llI of the Constitution.Adherence to precedent ensures stability and predictability in the law, and reinforces theimpartiality and independence of the judiciary.46. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that states may not intrudeinto the bedrooms of same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion explainedthat laws prohibiting intimacy between same-sex couples are unconstitutional becausestates "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their privatesexual conduct a crime
    5. is most-ly a sham. You know the game. In the Bush White House, youcoached judicial nominees to just tell Senators that they have ‘‘acommitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, that they will ad-here to statutory text, that they have on ideological agenda.’’ Fairytales.At his hearing, Justice Roberts infamously said he would justcall balls and strikes, but this pattern, 73–0, of the Roberts Fivequalifies him to have NASCAR-style corporate badges on his robes.Alito said in his hearing what a strong principle stare decisiswas, an important limitation on the Court. Then he told the Fed-eralist Society, ‘‘Stare decisis means to leave things decided whenit suits our purposes.’’
    6. he President early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Courtpicks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite confirmation etiquette as-surances about precedent, your own words make clear you do notreally believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the Court, as yousaid, ‘‘can always overrule its precedent.’
    7. Justice Kagan, when asked about Roe v. Wade, said the fol-lowing, ‘‘I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to commenton the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settledlaw entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to futurecases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come be-fore the Court in the future.
    8. This reason, we believe—I believe—demonstrates that you arewilling to disregard precedent. And if that is the case because justsaying something is settled law, it really is, is it correct law?
    9. I want to talk a little bit about one of the big deci-sions that we have the belief that although you told Senator Collinsthat you believed it was settled law, the question is, really, do youbelieve that it is correct law? And that is Roe v. Wade
    1. 22. We may note in passing the archaic nature of the US Supreme Court, whosejudges are named for life like the pope of the Catholic Church and the apostles of theMormon church. However, a pontifical bull of 1970 denied cardinals over eighty yearsold the right to vote in papal elections, which proves that all institutions can be re-formed, even the most venerable ones.
    1. Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy. The men who cited Hale as they constructed the early American legal order refused to give women the right to vote or to otherwise enjoy full citizenship. Relying on that history of injustice as a reason to deny modern women control over their own lives is a terrible argument but apparently the best Alito can do.

      Relying on a history of injustice to continue to deny justice to any person is a predatory argument.

    1. On examination, you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

      Gerrymandering has provided exactly the idea of "judges dependent on Congress" just as Patrick Henry suggested, though it has been done more circuitously than he imagined.

  4. May 2022
    1. The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.

      It's very likely that the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would have been released late in the typical cycle. The leak of this document prior to the midterm elections may have some profound effects on the election cycle.

    2. Alito’s draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages’ worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.
    3. Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

      But didn't they also criticize the original decision because they felt that there were better and stronger arguments in favor of maintaining the right?

    4. No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.
  5. Mar 2022
  6. Feb 2022
  7. Jan 2022
    1. A Bill that could alter the mediation landscape R.K. Vij January 10, 2022 00:02 IST Updated: January 10, 2022 00:46 IST R.K. Vij

      Constitutional கட்டப் பஞசாயத்து

  8. Nov 2021
  9. Oct 2021
  10. Sep 2021
  11. Jun 2021
    1. Mike: So they were like, "Dude, you got to do something. You either going to jail or to fight it, the case. But you're going to jail. You've got to be in jail and you can't be out while you're fighting this case, or you do a voluntary departure and you go." At that time I felt like I wasn't any good to anybody. I didn’t want to be a burden on my family." So I just left. This is just something that I felt like I had to do. I knew if I ran away, I was never going to be able to provide for my kids, because I was always going to have to try to find a way to provide for myself. And I didn't want that for them. So I just did a voluntary departure. I just said, "Screw it."

      Leaving the US, Reasons for Exit, Voluntary Departure

    2. Mike: They took me downstairs, checked me, and then they let me go. But then they told me that I had a court date. Little did I know in the next two days somebody came to pick me up from ICE, so I had to go with them. They placed me there for a couple of days, more. Two or three days more. I stayed in the ICE facility for two or three days and then they let me out and then that's when I had to go to court. Keep going to court. Keep going to court until finally I couldn't stall it anymore.

      Leaving the US, Treatment By ICE

    3. And that's the day I got caught up with the blunt in my ear and the security caught me. From there on, I had to go to court fighting the cases and then basically I just like—

      Time in the US, Drugs, Taking

  12. Mar 2021
  13. Feb 2021
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2021, January 18). Calling lawyers, historians, and political scientists. A thread on the value of life. I’m still stunned by Lord Sumption, ex-judge on UK’s Supreme Court, now anti-lockdown campaigner, publicly stating that the life of a woman with stage 4 bowel cancer was ‘less valuable’ 1/4 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1351118909886312449

  14. Nov 2020
    1. “Let’s say a trial is listed and I have to cross examine a witness,” he said. “Now, what is the guarantee that the witness would be willing to go all the way to the court in such a time?” If witnesses do not appear, then the matter would merely be adjourned.

      access to justice

  15. Oct 2020
  16. Sep 2020
    1. The modern practice of the committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several southern senators attempted to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.[1][8]

      Interesting that this practice stems from the imposition of what looks like racist policies.

  17. Aug 2020
  18. Oct 2019
    1. https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/news-update/2192688/business-as-usual-for-spar-stores-closed-after-owners-accused-of-bringing-brand-into-disrepute/

      The 22 stores, which would have re-opened on Saturday under the control of the Spar Group South Africa, will revert to the control of the Giannacopoulos Group. It was business as usual for the Giannacopoulos Group after winning its High Court appeal late on Friday, reports Zululand Observer.

      The group appealed the closure of its 22 Spar stores and 21 Tops Bottle Stores, which was overturned. The stores, which would have re-opened on Saturday under the control of the Spar Group South Africa, will revert to the control of the Giannacopoulos Group.

      Shoppers at various Spar outlets in Richards Bay and Empangeni, as well as in Hartebeespoort, were greeted on Thursday morning by signs on the closed doors, after stores were sealed by the Sheriff’s office in accordance with a High Court application, Zululand Observer and Kormorant reported.

      A statement from the Spar Divisional Managing Director Desmond Borrageira, said a decision was taken by The Spar Guild of Southern Africa Limited “to terminate the membership of the stores which fall within the Giannacopoulos Group”, claiming it was “competing with businesses of retail members and bringing the Spar brand into disrepute”.

    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

  19. Feb 2019
  20. Jan 2019
    1. CBC Gem Premium Services Subscription Conditions

      "Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on January 29, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Justice Ginsburg died of complications related to the thoracic injuries she sustained in November, 2018."

  21. Apr 2018
    1. If the Imputation is defamatory per se, necessary mens rea will be presumed - The principle laid down here, shifts the onus to prove to the defendant if the imputations are prima facie defamatory, and releases the burden from the complainant to prove that the allegations caused harm to his reputation

    1. The law of defamation is a culmination of a conflict between society and the individual. On one hand lies the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the other is the right of individual to have his reputation intact. How far does the liberty of free speech and expression extend" And when does it become necessary for the law to step in to safeguard the right of the individual to preserve his honour. THE law of defamation seeks to attain a balance between these two competing freedoms.

      In every society there needs to be a balance between the right to speech/expression and the right not to be defamed.

    1. The John Thomas vs Dr. K. Jagadeesan clears two concepts:

      1. If imputations are prima facie libellous or per se defamatory, the complainant need not establish that the imputations had indeed defamed or damaged him/her
      2. If a definite company, association or group of persons are defamed, any of the aggrieved director or office holder can feel aggrieved by the offence.
  22. Oct 2016
  23. Sep 2016
    1. “routine burden of citizenship”

      New York Times Editorial

      Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent was more faithful to the evidence: ''A group of white citizens,'' he wrote, ''has decided to act to keep Negro citizens from traveling through their urban 'utopia,' and the city has placed its seal of approval on the scheme.'' Despite a national commitment to equality, blacks were being kept quite literally in their place.

  24. Feb 2014
  25. Sep 2013
    1. while we take our solemn oath at the beginning of each year that we will hear impartially both accusers and accused, we depart so far from this in practice, that when the accuser makes his charges we give ear to whatever he may say; but when the accused endeavors to refute them, we sometimes do not endure even to hear his voice.2

      An observation on human behavior. A cry for the importance of impartialness in the court.