Evenwell Vs. Abbott, Justice Scalia

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Under the U.S. Constitution, this appointment is a lifelong position that will only be nullified if the judge resigns their post or dies in office. This creates serious contests within the partisan political environment found among federal representatives, for any candidate appointed to this post helps define the direction of the Supreme Court for the rest of their life. Thus, it is frequently believed that a president who appoints a judge to the Supreme Court is creating a legacy, helping to shape the direction of the laws for the country for a time long after their presidency has expired. This makes the selection of a judge a hotly contested process.

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

The rest of Article III, Section I points to how judges can serve stating, “shall hold Offices during good behavior.” The good behavior portion of the statement is constitutionally recognized that judges may serve to the end of their life time or leave office voluntarily. Over time the meaning of life time has expanded and become the center of the controversy surrounding the extent of service. The framers of the constitution found life tenure appropriate for the justices of the Supreme Court as an expression of their importance to the government, but also that the loss of their cognitive ability was an imaginary farce.

In the Marbury versus Madison case, Chief Judge John Marshall distinguishes three questions that are used in the judgement of the case. He debates whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands; whether, if he has a right and that right has been violated, the laws of his country afford him a

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

Gregory Lee Johnson was found guilty of violating Texas state law by burning the American flag at the Republican national convention in Dallas, Texas. The state sentenced Johnson to one year in prison and a fine of $2000. Johnson argued that the right to burn the American flag was protected under the right to free speech in the First Amendment. Johnson appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District in Dallas. The court upheld the conviction made by the state, and the sentence given to Johnson remained. Johnson then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and they reversed the decision of the district court and dismissed the charges. The state of Texas then appealed to the Untied States Supreme Court, and the Supreme

While our nation was founded on the principle of a balance of power, coming from the ideology of Baron de Montesquieu, the Judicial, unlike any other branch, does not have regular elections for its positions or terms like Presidency or Congress. Justices are nominated and confirmed for seats on the Supreme Court for life and have the option to leave whenever they choose to, not when they are voted out of office. An example of this is Justice Stanley F. Reed. He worked with the panels for the D.C. Circuit and

When: American disability rights activist, Edward Verne Roberts who is considered the founder of the independent-living movement, recently received recognition of his activism, in the form of a Google Doodle in 2017.

King v. Burwell is a case ruled by the US Supreme Court on June 25, 2015 to confirm health law subsidies. It challenged the legality of subsidies issued by the IRS on behalf of states that used the federal health insurance exchange. Perhaps millions of people who are under the federal exchange are at stake since they could lose their subsidies. Furthermore, the test relied on the meaning of four words in the Affordable Care Act, “exchanges established by the State.” These words imply that state exchanges could issue subsidies, but it did not literally specify that states didn’t establish their own exchange or the ones under the federal exchange. A definite conclusion is that both the state exchange and the federal exchange can have the health

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

I am interested in attending the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University due to the plethora of opportunities that are offered to their law students. I believe that these opportunities are encapsulated by the Scalia Law Advantage, as the law school’s proximity to northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. grant access to an incomparable amount of career opportunities and high-caliber faculty. These features are especially of interest to me as I believe that gaining practical experience in the government, a private law firm, or a non-governmental organization would be integral in developing a legal career. In addition to the exceptional location and professional opportunities, Mason Law’s smaller community and 1:11.8 teacher to student