Cja364 Supreme Court Case Paper

The source was created by the John Marshall, in 1803. What I know about the author, John Marshall, is that he was a great American Politician. John Marshall was born on September 24, 1755, and deceased on July 6, 1835. Also, he was the 4th Chief Justice of the U.S. from 1801 to the time he died in 1835. His opinions in court helped sustain the basis for the United States constitutional law. Furthermore, many say that he made the Supreme Court an equal branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches. John Marshall’s point of view was that he wanted to gain the rights of the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the United States Constitution in the case of “Marbury vs Madison”.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Biloxi H.M.A., LLC formerly d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center and now d/b/a Merit Health Biloxi (the “Hospital”), by and through undersigned counsel, and files this its Response to William Kennerly, M.D.’s (“Kennerly”) Rule 59 Post Judgment Motion (the “Motion”), and would show this honorable Court as follows.

This specific court case revolves around the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), specifically regarding particulate matter in the ozone layer. Within the CAA, it states that the Environmental Protection Agency must set a standard on the quality of ambient air so that public health is protected. This section 109 (b) (1) of the act was challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and declared it unconstitutional to delegate Congress to the EPA so that they can officially set a quality of air standard. They stated that it violated the Constitution in Article 1 Section 1 due to it delegating congressional actions to the EPA, which it cannot do under law.

Plaintiff’s petition alleges three issues with the agency’s action under K.S.A. 77-621, but none of the three issues meet muster under the law. The three issues they allege are 1) the agency action is unconstitutional; 2) the agency engaged in unlawful procedure or has failed to follow prescribed procedure; and 3) the agency action is based on a determination of fact that is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record. These three issues represent the only grounds that the Plaintiff has chosen to challenge Fort Hayes State University’s decision on and so under the statute they are the only grounds which this Court can consider. Neither the law, nor the facts of this case support a decision to overturn FHSU’s decision to suspend Herrel.

In the spring of 2011, right around the time Donald Trump was humiliated by Barack Obama during the president's speech at the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, placed a call to Richard Mack. Kushner was thirty years old, a decade and a half younger than Mack, but in many respects the men were peers. They were both scions of prominent real estate families, and in 2009 Mack and his wife had attended Kushner's wedding, to Ivanka Trump. The two men were also business associates: Mack held some of the debt on 666 Fifth Avenue, a gleaming thirty-nine-story office building in midtown Manhattan for which Kushner had paid a record $1.8 billion in 2007.

The first tier of the federal court system is the US District Court. There is a total of “94 district or trial courts” in the United States, “Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marina Islands” (Court Role and Structure). The cases that are handled in the US District Courts are considered “criminal activity” by Congress and include but is not limited to, “interstate theft of an automobile, involvement in terrorist activities, illegal importation of narcotics” but for the last ten (10) years most have been cases like “embezzlement and fraud, larceny and theft” and “drug-related offenses” (Carp, Stidham, & Manning, 2014). Another case heard in the US District Court is that of robbery; which is a type of case that is “uniform in occurrence in each of the ninety-four U.S. judicial

Analysis. In his analysis of the first issue, Justice Breyer began by noting that the Court has

William Marbury was one of President Adams’ “midnight appointments.” All of the required paperwork, and procedures were completed in time to secure his appointment as a justice of the peace for Washington, D.C. However, secretary of state John Marshall, a midnight appointee to a judicial position as well. Failed to deliver his commission. Upon becoming president, Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commission. Under authority of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury sued to ask the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the commission.

I have chosen to write my research paper on the late Justice Antonin Scalia. I wanted to know more about his legal philosophy of “originalism” and the legacy he left. I wanted to read on some of his landmark case rulings. I focused on one to include in my research paper. My thesis statement is as follows:

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that a person has the right to represent himself or herself at a criminal trial based on case law from Faretta v. California (Cabell, 2012). Many people have a preset notion that those who wish to represent themselves are mentally ill, obtuse, believe they can “beat” the system, or simply are arrogant (Cabell, 2012). I do believe in certain jurisdictions it would be an advantage to conduct a defense pro se.

The order of law is the utmost importance of maintaining a safe and healthy society. And with upholding these laws, sometimes our laws come within conflict or cause confusion between rights of parties both seeking justice. And today, we indeed face a conflict created from past Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and constitutional powers. In this contested court for the manner of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III v. City of Chicago, we must first look at the questions before us. Can the Attorney General create conditions upon the Byrne grant program? And in doing so, is placing the conditions become a means of coercion?

Upon reading your story and going over what happened, with my extent knowledge in media law I have come to the conclusion that you will run into some legal troubles. You are looking at a defamation lawsuit. Firstly, I think it is important to understand what exactly that is, some possible defense options and as well as ways to avoid a lawsuit like this in the future.

There are many Supreme Court cases that play a role in influencing how our health care is run. One of the most recent and influential cases that have sparked controversy and has progressed the United States health system further along than one could have imagined. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, was signed into effect on March 23rd, 2010. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) several new pieces of legislature effectively changed the way Americans see healthcare. A few of those changes included mandating health insurance for all, increasing national revenues from the new taxes, and reducing and reorganizing the largest national health insurance plan, Medicare. Part of the act was a new law, individual shared responsibility

Well first of all, the supreme court is the highest judicial court in a country or state. "The highest federal court in the US, consisting of nine justices and taking judicial precedence over all other courts in the nation" (wikipedia.com). The supreme courts job is simply the final judge. In all cases involving laws of congress, or the constitution, the supreme court gets to make the final judgement. However, it is not all-powerful. The power of the supreme court is limited by two other branches of government. (scholastic.com). Now how do people get a job as a justice of the supreme court? Well the president gets to appoint each justice.

Question 1 : The supreme court of the United States is a court of last resort, it’s the highest court in the USA, and there is no other court with higher authority. All cases that reach the Supreme Court have been heard from the decisions of lower courts across the nation. Once a case works its way through lower courts, a party can petition if they want to have their case heard by the Supreme Court, but Supreme Court is extremely picky regarding cases. In order for a supreme court to hear the case, 4 of the 9 justices of the court must agree to hear the case. If judicial writ is granted, the time frame for the parties is set. The petitioner has 45 days to file their brief on the merits, which explains their argument to the court.