The Supreme Court Of The United States

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

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

8. Reason: We can understand the policy rational of the Court in making this decision. Being that there was no explicit law on the books, the Court felt that the best interest of society would call for an establishment of such a rule to allow the case to be heard. As such it is possible for a reasonable person

Glenn Joseph Raynor v. State of Maryland. Case number 12-K-08-001527. Argued: April 8, 2014. Decided: August 27, 2014

In 1953, Chief Justice Earl Warren ascended to the Supreme Court after the death of former Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson. Chief Justice Warren led the Supreme Court, most notably during the 1960s, which were already a time of great social and governmental change. He, along with the rest of the justices on his court, helped to shape both the both the court and the country during this time in dramatic and long-lasting ways. The Warren Court took place during a period of rapid change in American history, leading it to produce many impactful decisions that influenced the course of federal and state laws for decades, as it took a judicial activist stance on how it approached decision-making in cases regarding civil rights, the right to privacy, criminal due process, voting rights and election law, as well as the first amendment.

At the beginning of the oral argument the appellant’s lawyer, Thomas I. Emerson was asked if the case was an equal opportunity case. He verbally stumbled and was delayed with his response to the Judges. The Judges asked several times why it was not being argued as an equal opportunity case due to the distinction that only married women received treatment and counsel from the Planned Parenthood Clinic. His only response was that was not the issue of this case.

In any legal system, there is a notion that the chief end to be achieved is justice. Clearly no one would advocate for an unjust legal system, but what if the clear distinction between just and unjust is not so clear? What if there are diametrically opposed moral principles supporting competing arguments? On three occasions, the Supreme Court of Virginia has declined ruling on whether the relationship with an assailant 's wife deprives a defendant of the right to self-defense.

The Court established from Aguliar v. Texas (1964) and Spinelli v. United States (1969), the Aguilar-Spinelli test determined whether an informants’ tips or letters could be used as probable cause to obtain a search warrant. This two pronged test established that [1] the tip had to “reveal adequately” the informant’s “basis of knowledge”, [2] the tip had to “provide facts sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant, or, alternatively the ‘reliability’ of the informant’s report. The anonymous tip did not meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test which was proved not credible for two reasons. [1] The Principal received an anonymous tip that ‘one of her students’ was distributing condoms to students during lunch break which was in violation of school policy. The anonymous person did not specifically state that Bradley was the person who was distributing the condoms and also did not provide any description of the person was provided to the

Reasoning- The Supreme Court’s decision was split and provided various points of view on the issues just like the American population and some sections are still being challenged today. Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan to form the opinion of the court on this case. However, there are sections where Justices felt split on the opinion. Due to this reason, there is a detailed explanation of which

Repeatedly throughout history, the United State’s Supreme Court has changed their standing on labor laws, from supporting the right’s of employees to supporting the right’s of employers. In 1903, the Supreme Court concluded through Lochner v. New York that the government did not have the right to oversee businesses, but in 1908 the Supreme Court passed an unprecedented decision regarding labor laws. In Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court alternatively sided with the workers and upheld restriction on working hours in a gendered argument based on the fact that the workers were women. On the surface, the decision was just, as it protected workers’ right, but in the long run the outcome was unjust; suggesting through gender formation, intersectionality, and structural sexism that superficially the decision was a progressive legislation but it masked misogynist values, preserved heteronormative ideals and perpetuated gender inequality.

Originally, I had thought there was no way something so sacred should be allowed to be defaced, but I have quickly realized the constitution is much more powerful and sacred. As a nation, we must pick our fights and the hills we die on. It will not and never should be considered treason to burn the flag, however there is, like with most things a catch twenty-two. Publicly and privately the burning of the flag is accepted as freedom of speech, but once this simple gesture turns into a hazard we must act. President Trump and conservatives may view it as weak, but a system of penalties or citations would be the correct form of punishment. We should follow the lead of other progressive nations and fine those who attempt to burn the flag in

The Supreme Court attests. The Court noticed that its point of reference requests a case-by-case examination when lower courts figure out if urgent conditions advocated a warrantless pursuit. In spite of the fact that the State contended that exigency essentially exists in any DWI related blood test given that blood-alcohol content quickly decreases with time, the Court found no argumentation to embrace a per se rule. The Court concurred that essentially postponing a blood test to get a warrant would adversely influence the supportive value of the outcomes. However, it contemplated that when the state have sufficient time to get a warrant, the Fourth Amendment obliges it to do as such. While getting a warrant is unrealistic, the blood testing may well honor an exigency exception. Since the State construct its contention exclusively in light of the proposed per se rule, the Court declined to detail the significant elements courts must weigh while investigating exigency in DWI cases. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspect’s warrantless blood test where the officer “might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened ‘the destruction of evidence,’ ” id., at 770 (Missouri v. McNeely, 2013)

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.