The Pros And Cons Of Frivolous Lawsuits

However, along with the numerous failures, there were also successes. There were also cultural, economical, political and social successes by the late 1960s gained through the civil rights movement. Four significant anti discrimination laws were passed, beginning in 1964 when The Civil Rights Act was introduced. This forbade discrimination in public places such as restaurant, schools and hotels.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark legislation that resulted from a unique combination of public pressure, historical events, previous failed legislation, and a large-scale social movement. Many regard the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the most successful civil rights legislation in history. There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed the way the society addressed race and gender, but it in the context of current events resulting in racial tension, it is worth examining the true impact of the legislation and how society can continue to move forward in matters of civil equality. This paper will provide an overview of the historical context of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and examine the legislation’s impact on society

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation in the United States was commonly practiced in many of the Southern and Border States. This segregation while supposed to be separate but equal, was hardly that. Blacks in the South were discriminated against repeatedly while laws did nothing to protect their individual rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ridded the nation of this legal segregation and cleared a path towards equality and integration. The passage of this Act, while forever altering the relationship between blacks and whites, remains as one of history's greatest political battles.

Defendants generally are given plea bargaining negotiations “for one or more of the following reason: (a) reduce a charge, (b) elimination of a possible waiver to the criminal court, and (c) agreement for dispositional program… Any plea deal must be entered voluntarily and intelligently, or the conviction could be overturned on appeal (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504) There are many pleas that a defendant may choose to enter in court. Guilty, not guilty, an Alford Plea, and also nolo contendere, also known as “no contest”. A guilty plea is when the defendant is admitting their guilt to the crime, and giving up their rights to the trial, “more than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504).” When a defendant pleads not guilty they are saying that they believe that they did not do anything wrong. An Alford Plea is when a defendant is pleading guilty but still claims their innocence.

The Civil Rights Movement’s influence has been extensive and enduring. It has transformed the American culture and society up until this present day. Even though racism has not disappeared, there is far less tolerance for racist attitudes and behavior than before the 1960s. It has occupied a large part of the American history and is still a very controversial subject today. The goal of the Civil Rights Movement was to end racial segregation and discrimination against the African Americans or as were called at that time “Negros”. African Americans also sought for federal protection of their citizenship rights and to grant them equal protection under the 13th and 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Below are three of the landmark cases heard

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

A debate in civil rights history appeared in the decades following the well-publicized struggles of the early 1960s and continues today. This debate is of whether the movement was finished with its goals when it attained equal treatment under the law, or whether it had changed to a new goal of fighting all forms of discrimination, not just the formal version found in Jim Crow.

Affirmative Action began in 1965 when President Johnson signed the Executive Order 11246 in to law. The Executive Order prevents federal contractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The phrase “affirmative action” was first coined, when federal contractors were required to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants were not discriminated against in anyway. When affirmative action was created, it only included minorities. In 1967, Johnson decided to expand the program to include women because women were discriminated against much like minorities. In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, affirmative action was a method used to stop

The Right-to-Try bill is a proposed amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that would allow those with a terminal illness to have access or the “right to try” investigational drugs which are not approved by the FDA. The Right-to-Try bill, S.204 — 115th Congress (2017-2018): Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017 was passed by the Senate in August 2017, and now in the House of Representatives for vote in order to be signed into law by President Trump.1

The Civil Rights Movement began in 1954 spurring the famous supreme court case Brown versus Board of Education. This landmark case shines a bright spotlight on the Civil Rights Movement and changed America for the better. This case helped establish the precedent that ““separate-but-equal” education and other services were not, in fact, equal at all.”

There were many factors to the civil rights act of 1964 from presidents to normal “civilians”. In today’s society the Civil Rights Act is allowing equal opportunities for everyone. The Civil Rights was not just an act it was a movement fought for almost twenty years. Starting in 1948 with Truman’s executive order 9981 that gave equality in the military (infoplease.com, Brunner). Then in 1054 the case of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, was finalized with the decision that segregation within public schools was wrong. In august of 1955 the tragedy of Emmett Till occurred, where he was brutally murdered. There are many more effects of the Civil Rights act, but these were some of the turning points.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC laws are enforced. EEOC laws give citizens the ability to find a job without being discriminated upon race, religion, origin, or sex. There are many laws that have stemmed from this Civil Rights Act. I think that these laws have established a well-rounded society.

There is a distinct contrast in the freedom of speech rights of an employee of a private corporation and the freedom of speech rights of an employee of the government. The Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion in the Korb case reminds us of the famous dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes in an 1892 Massachusetts case that involved a policeman who was a member of a "political committee" and who solicited money for that committee. The policeman was then discharged from the police department. The ex-policeman petitioned the court for restoration of his employment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman (Rbs2.com, 2000). There are few employments for hire in which the employee does not agree to suspend his constitutional rights of free speech as well as of idleness by the implied terms of his contract. The employee cannot complain, because he freely accepts the employment on the terms which are offered to him.

The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and outline the damages available to complainants in actions brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (law.cornell.edu, 2006)