John Coy V. Iowa Supreme Court Case

The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

This happened on September 10, 1951, in the execution of Elisio Mares. During his execution, all five of the marksmen aimed away from the target over Mares heart and shot him on the right side of his chest. The firing squad and witnesses watched in horror as Mares slowly bled to death. When Gary Gilmore was shot to death in Utah in 1973, all four bullets pierced his heart. However, heart death was not immediate, and the doctor had to check twice before pronouncing him dead. (86)

With his opinion is NFIB v. Sebelius, Roberts established precedential value for this case. It is now regarded as an example to be considered in the subsequent similar cases. Justice Ginsburg said in her opinion that “until today, this Courts Pragmatic approach to judging whether Congress validly exercised its commerce

During his opening statement, Scalia employs rhetorical questions in order to elucidate that Americans’ lack of knowledge of the government forces judges to firmly abide by the United States’ unparalleled Constitution. He postulates, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” The reality that “never more than about 5%” of his audience, who are “interested in the law,” has delved deep into the document portrays them as ignorant. With this concern, Scalia expounds upon his originalist ideals and encourages rivaling judges to alter their opinions of a flexible Constitution. Scalia credits his argument through the Framers who illustrated the significance of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Due to the fact that Americans are incapable of thoroughly interpreting the government, he attests that judges must abide by the precise words of the Constitution. Scalia advises his audience to

On April 29, 2014, Oklahoma execution Clayton Lockett using a three-drug lethal injection procedure. The procedure went poorly; Lockett awoke after the injection of the drugs that were supposed to render him unconscious and did not die until about 40 minutes later. Oklahoma suspended all subsequent executions until the incident could be be investigated and subsequently adopted a new protocol that place higher emphasis on making sure the injection was done properly. The new protocol is also allowed for four alternative drug combinations, one of which used midazolam as the initial drug, as the did the the protocol used in the Lockett execution.

Anthony Cooper was charged under the laws of Michigan State with assault with intent to murder Mundy using a gun that he fired to Mundy and she was shot on her buttock but luckily she survived the attack. Besides the assault charges, he was also charged with possession of a weapon illegally, been under the influence of marijuana and turning to be a habitual offender. Blaine received an offer from the court to dismiss two of the charges and suggest a lenient sentence of 51-85 months for the two remaining charges, in exchange for a guilty imploration. Cooper on good faith admitted his offence and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. However, the respondent rejected the offer proposed by the court after his attorney managed to convince him that the court will not be able to prove his intention to kill Mundy because the victim was shot in her waist. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution proposed a substantially less attractive deal which made respondent reject the plea deal. After the end of the trail, Cooper was found guilty and was subjected to a compulsory least verdict of 185 to 365 months imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court based on the allegations that the advice of his attorney to decline the offer was an ineffective counsel. The canton court temporarily permitted the writ and instructed the first plea bargain presented to Cooper be employed. The court of appeals confirmed and the U.S Supreme Court accorded certiorari to review (Wynne & Klein, 2012).

Carries lawyer then made the move to take it to the U.S Supreme Court which he claimed that Carrie Bucks due process law

Name: Albert L. Trop v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, et al. Citation: 356 U.S 86 78 S. Ct. 590; 2 L. Ed. 2d 630; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1284. Year: 1958.

For Scalia, everything the Supreme Court debated about had clear issue. When talking about religion and freedom of speech he believed, “speech by and about religion received precisely the same protection under the First Amendment as any other kind of speech.” (Tobin 113) when talking about whether minors should be executed such as in the Stanford vs Kentucky case, Scalia wrote that states could execute 16 year olds and seventeen year olds.

Ninth Circuit Court holds that an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their private office, because it is locked and not shared with others. This reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the contents of their office, including the employee’s company computer, located therein. As a result, the court held that the fourth amendment protects both the office and computer from warrantless searches by the government unless it obtains valid consent from either the defendant or one with common authority over the items searched, or proceeds on the authorization of one with apparent authority to give such valid consent. In this case, the Ninth Circuit holds that the government obtained valid consent from one with common authority over the items searched, when it received such consent from the employee’s employer. The employer had common authority over the employee’s office computer because it had a policy of, and regularly did, monitor employees’ computer usage of company machines, a policy of which its employees were made aware. The court accordingly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found by the government during its warrantless search of defendant’s office computer. As a result, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant was convicted of the receipt of obscene material based, in part, on evidence obtained during this search. The evidence obtained during this search, and by the company earlier, showed that defendant had viewed and had possession of

From 1905 to 1937 the Federalist Papers were referenced by both sides of the court’s decision. As recently as 2012, when New Jersey passed the law allowing Governor Chris Christie, vetoed the law on the premise that the popular vote was not considered. He was faced with the purpose of Federalist Paper 51, in which “political safeguard against tyrannical majorities . . . if a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” (Madison, 1778)

The first reason I rule in favor of Johnson in this case is because of the First Amendment to

He demonstrated a huge amount of effort in seeking for facts by writing his most remarkable opinion on the United States ex rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan. Almar Elkins was a Latvian immigrant, and was convicted of killing his common law wife after he pled guilty. After serving ten years in prison he was seeking his release under a writ of habeas corpus. By bringing an action to the Federal Court, Elksins stated that his plea to the State Court judge was not constitutional, since it was not voluntary and was done by a promise to get the minimum punishment of ten years which was not kept. Judge Weinfeld brought up factual grounds supporting Elskin’s application. Firstly, any plea offered in an agreement to return a promise from a judge is not voluntary, consequently it is not constitutional. Secondly, Judge Weinfeld found that the defendant wanted to plead not guilty, and the interview with the judge seemed to influence the defendant’s actions. Weinfeld mentioned that Elksnis had never truly surrendered his right to replace his plea of not guilty, and since the guilty plea was encouraged by the judge's promise, Elksnis's plea was involuntary. Weinfeld argued that the defendant must be well-informed, and the guilty plea must be voluntary to be considered constitutionally valid. In Elksin’s case, the initial sentence was factually inappropriate; since there was an agreement between the judge and the defendant which was not kept, and the guilt was plead involuntary even though the judge insisted on misunderstanding by Elksin’s side. Weinfeld’s opinion was so abundantly persuasive that the office withdrew its notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of

Upon learning of his death, I got that tingly feeling on the back of my neck, and my eyes began to itch. Although I did not agree with his politics, nor did I agree with some of his more controversial decisions, I respected this man in the most expressive sense of the term. Over the years, I have read his opinions, and awaited new ones, with equal parts anxiety and excitement. Justice Scalia's