SCOTUS To Issue More Decisions... Supreme Court decisions could have broad impact June 19, 2014: WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court will issue more decisions today as it races toward the end of its term -- and many of its most controversial cases are up for grabs.
First Monday in October... High court begins term with case on police actions October 6, 2014 WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday pondering whether a police officer's misunderstanding of the law can justify a traffic stop that led to the seizure of illegal drugs.
Supreme Court To Decide If Jerusalem Is In Israel... US Supreme Court to Decide Status of Jerusalem October 6, 2014 ~ The US Supreme Court will decide the fate on whether to recognize Jerusalem as being a part of Israel as part of several new cases to be taken up during its new term, which opens on Monday.
Based upon this ruling it's also Constitutionally acceptable to invoke the name of Satan and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster during the opening prayer at a government meeting as well. In case of fact the town of Greece, NY, now has an incumbent responsibility to ensure that other religious beliefs (e.g. Satanic and Pastafarian) are also represented at their board meetings to ensure that they are not solely endorsing a single relgious belief. Failure to ensure that other religions are represented would constitute the "establishment" of a specific religion by government (Christianity) which would violate the First Amendment's establishment clause.
This will be a very interesting case to watch because it really hinges upon Article 3 Section 2 which states: Clearly under international laws established by "Treaty" that the US is a party to the Israel settlements in the Golan Heights, West Bank, and E Jerusalem are illegal settlements. Techinically if he was born in E Jerusalem he wouldn't qualify at all as being born in Israel as E Jerusalem isn't recognized as being a part of Israel by any nation, including the United States. At the same time the US has never recognized Jerusalem as being a part of Israel at all and rejects the proposition that Jerusalem is a part of Israel currently. It is certainly a matter of "foreign affairs" which is delegated to the Executive Branch of government and not to the legislative branch. Where I do find a problem is that if he was born in Jerusalem then he wasn't a citizen of the United States anyway unless his parents filed for him to become a naturalized US citizen based upon their status as US citizens. Our statutory laws that grant US citizenship based upon jus sanguinis are naturalization laws that require an application for citizenship. A person born in a foreign country is never a "natural born citizen" of the United States as that is only established by jus soli (i.e. born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof). It will be an interesting case to watch because of the requirements related to treaties the US is a party to as well as the authority granted by the Constitution to the Executive as being responsible for foreign relations.
Ironically "ignorance of the law" is not an excuse accepted by the courts when it comes to prosecution of individuals but law enforcement, that is actually supposed to know the law, somehow is excused from being ignorant of it. Law enforcement should be required to meet an even higher standard of knowing the law than the average person because they get paid to know the law.
I would agree with the final conclusion assuming the pollution continues. While those originally responsible may be exempted from financial liability based upon the statute of limitations the pollution would remain a violation of the Rights of the People and the State therefore must assume responsibility in stopping the pollution.
Apparently I was correct as the US Supreme Court has refused to address the Appeals Courts decisions that have struck down the prohibitions against same-sex marriage based upon the equal protection clause. http://news.yahoo.com/gay-marriage-focus-returns-lower-courts-063510001.html The refusal of the Supreme Court to address this is obvious because there has been no dispute established by the different Court of Appeals as all of them, in reviewing lower court rulings, have issued decisions that supported the fact that the prohibitions violate the equal protection clause. As the story notes unless a future Court of Appeals rules differently there is no issue of national dispute for the Supreme Court to rule on.
Seeing as how over 90% of court cases end in a plea bargain, I'd say that they are pretty useful. If they didn't allow plea bargains, people would not be able to get a "speedy trial", and most cases would have to be thrown out. Not to mention the costs to run the judicial system would be astronomical because of all the jurors, lawyers and judges who would have to be paid to hear all the cases. I'm not really sure how plea bargaining harms society or the victims.
Supreme Court Divided Over Jerusalem Status... Supreme Court divided over Jerusalem native's passport November 3, 2014 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared as divided over a 12-year-old Jerusalem native's passport Monday as Israel and the Palestinian Authority are on the broader issues dividing the Middle East.
Supreme Court rejects case calling Senate filibusters unconstitutional... Court rejects appeal over Senate filibuster rules November 3, 2014 WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a public interest group and four members of Congress who challenged the Senate filibuster as unconstitutional. See also: High court won't hear crisis pregnancy center case November 3, 2014 - WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court is leaving in place a portion of a New York City law aimed at regulating crisis pregnancy centers that are run by anti-abortion organizations.
SCOTUS to take up abortion case... U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Texas abortion challenge Nov. 13, 2015 -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge to a new Texas law that has dwindled the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State -- in what will be the high court's first major abortion case in eight years.
Supremes throw out Florida's death penalty... High Court Throws Out Florida's Death Penalty Jan 14, 2016 | WASHINGTON -- By a vote of 8-1 the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Florida's death penalty statute unconstitutional, concluding that it gave judges too much power. See also: Fate of Florida death row inmates in limbo after U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thu Jan 14, 2016 -- The fate of the 390 inmates on Florida's death row was uncertain after the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the state's capital punishment sentencing process.
Granny says, "Dat's right - sue the schlitz outta `em... US High Court Considers Iranian Payments for Terror Victims January 13, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the sensitive question of whether Iran has to pay nearly $2 billion in compensation to the families of victims of what the U.S. sees as Iranian-backed terrorist attacks.
Not all instances of this would constitute fraud. It would require demonstrable injury to a specific victim. And if somebody pretends they are a war hero and causes some sort of damage to a victim, they could be pursued under fraud code. same thing with misrepresentation. If you can tie a fake war hero to causing pecuniary damages, then they can be pursued for misrepresentation.
Supreme Court gonna decide on Obama immigration plan... U.S. top court takes up case on Obama immigration plan Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2016 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear President Barack Obama's bid to resurrect his plan to shield more than 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation, a unilateral executive action he took in 2014 to bypass the Republican-led Congress.
Do you think the President will accept defeat or ignore it like he did when they told him the men at Guantanamo need fair trials. Will Trump or Cruz abide by the principle, or kill them all.
Congress is supposed to set immigration policy... 'Great Day in America'; SCOTUS Can Allow 4M Illegal Aliens to Stay January 20, 2016 | "It's a great day in America," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) on Tuesday, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to President Obama's executive amnesty plan.
Granny says, "Dat's right - hang `em high... U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeal to outlaw death penalty WASHINGTON Monday, Jan. 25, 2016 | The U.S. Supreme Court is rejecting a Pennsylvania inmates appeal to consider banning the death penalty across the United States.
Granny says, "If dey do an adult crime - den dey ought do adult time... US Supreme Court: Juveniles Sentenced to Life Can Seek Parole January 25, 2016 - Hundreds of inmates in U.S. prisons who were sentenced as juveniles to life without parole can now challenge those punishments, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday.
Obviously that one case was manslaughter not murder and most manslaughterers get out in much less than 52 years. His other crimes that day deserve some time though. Sentencing is horribly uneven everywhere, but that's what the founders wanted.
This is actually a false summary of the case. The issue of whether President Obama exceeded his discretionary authority as president was never argued in the case. The issue argued in the lower court was whether President Obama complied with prior notification requirements under the law before issuing the executive order and if that executive order can now take effect because the notification time has expired. The issue of Constitutional authority is not being disputed in the case.
I agree with this Supreme Court decision 100%. The fact that they can now seek to challenge the life sentences does not imply that they will be released. All it does is allow their cases to go before the parole board and the parole board decides on whether the person, sentenced as a child, should continue to be incarcerated.
