The United States Supreme Court Granted Certiorari

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), building a parking lot will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from the property, thus keeping the floodplain free from the development would likely confine the pressures on Fanno Creek created by the new development. However, this was not enough for the city; the city wanted the land for itself. According to Justice Rhenquist, “the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in *396 support of the dedication it asks for” (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 5). San Jose’s law does not solve the issue of increasing low-income housing, but instead harms entrepreneurs. The City of San Jose has made no effort to meet its burden to show that developers of new homes are somehow responsible for the astronomical prices of housing in the city. The law is an impediment to growth, an interference with the free market and an exceedingly expensive cost-per-unit way of integrating lower incomes into high land-value

Residents of the land, now “condemned” challenged the City’s authority. When the Supreme Court decided Kelo, it began of an evolving set of tensions across the United States over defining “public use.” Many state legislatures banned eminent domain for economic development or several other specific authorized public uses. (A&M)

Why would the Supreme Court have say in something that only pertains to local and state governments though; it should be something dealt with on that level. The reason is because property owners starting fighting back and in a 1954 Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court “upheld that it is within the government’s power to use eminent domain to ensure the community is not only healthy, clean, and well patrolled, but that it is beautiful, spacious, and well balanced.” (Legal) The reason why people started fighting back was simple, these government entities started taking land and using words such as creating and upkeep of such necessary infrastructure as roads and highways, parks, and public buildings, as well as water, power, and gas lines. The governments were claiming that they were using this eminent domain for “urban renewal, replacement of deteriorated housing with new low-cost housing, and beautification of public areas.” (Legal) The term public use was loosely being used to be construed for whatever the entity needed the land for, construed that it was in the public’s interest and for the betterment of the public’s

The Supreme Court ruled announced their ruling on June 28, 1978 but there was not a majority opinion. Four major justices, Rehnquist, Stewart, Burger, and Stevens, voted against the minority admission program for all school because it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The other four justices, Marshall, Brennan, White, and Blackmun, voted that the affirmative action is acceptable within certain areas. However, the plurality opinion was given by Justice Powell. This gave the ruling a 5-4 in favor of Allan Bakke. Powell gave his opinion that the using racial quotas as the deciding factor of one’s admission was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, affirmative action is permissible by Universities but only if used alongside with other factors. This meant that Universities had to discontinue their quota system for minorities and that UC Davis violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Under these circumstances Allan Bakke was allowed to attend UC Davis.

Injustice is a concept that can be defined as the violation of the rights of others, or the unfair action or treatment of an individual. Society in particular sees unjust actions all the time, and most people would even go as far as describing society as biased. Sometimes, there are specific instances that occur that can teach society as a whole a lesson of righteousness and justice; and in this case, these instances are landmark Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court of the United States is a powerful judiciary decider that can grant justice to someone who is in desperate need of protection. The Supreme Court cases of Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and Roper v. Simmons have

Parker (348 U.S 26(1954)), in which a redevelopment plan in the Washington DC area was challenged by a business owner who argued that a “better balanced, more attractive community” is not a valid public use. However, the Court, at the time, used the Constitution to suggest that a well balanced, healthy, and carefully developed community, is indeed of public interest. Although the Kelo case deals more with “economic revitalization” rather than “re-designing”, the Berman case was used as supporting evidence that the development plan was of public

In Utah a Detective by the name of Douglas Fackrell received a tip of the whereabouts of drug activity taking place. Fackrell over a course of some days watched the house, where he concluded that there was in fact suspicious drug activity taking place. The man who exited the house went by the name of Strieff, who the detective decided to stop and question. By taking Streiff's I.D., Fackrell discovered a traffic warrant meant for Strieff. Under this warrant, the detective then arrested Strieff, and then conducted a search on Strieff due to the arrest. Due to this search, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe inside

The case of the United States v. Salerno was about whether or not there is an absolute right to bail. Salerno believed that the Federal bail reform act of 1984 violated his 5th Amendment due process rights and his 8th Amendment right to excessive bail. This act allowed people to be detained if they were a threat to the community. Racquets in the opinion stated that the 8th Amendment didn't expect there to be a need for no bail like there is today. The Outcome was that Salerno lost the case and it established that Liberty is the norm, and detention is a carefully limited

The Supreme Court had to ultimately determine whether or not the Bakeshop Act of 1895 violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. After two days of oral arguments, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4, in favor of Lochner. Hall and Patrick (2006) notes that Justice John Marshall Harlan was initially attached to writing the opinion of the court. However, Justice Harlan was unable to maintain a majority and, as a result, Justice Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion (70). Following the shift, the majority opinion of the Court found that the New York law was, in fact, unconstitutional for several reasons. Justice Peckham argued that the state’s use of police powers must be exercised “in a legitimate, fair, and reasonable way” (70).

While reading HOUSING AUTHORITY &c. v. Johnson, 74 SE 2d 891 - Ga: Supreme Court 1953, I was very perplexed. The record in this case discloses that the redevelopment project here proposed involves 139 acres of land and a population of 5056 persons and 818 dwelling structures *561 together with a number of structures now being used for business purposes. It is proposed to remove all buildings from the area, and thereafter the property "shall be used for light manufacturing or industrial use, warehousing and servicing operations, and related activities." It is further provided that, "said redevelopment plan provides for the ultimate sale or lease of the land acquired in carrying out said redevelopment project to private individuals." Such of

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States of America. This is expressed in Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court.”(1) They have jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to federal and constitutional law, including the interpretation of such laws. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution clarifies the Supreme Court’s judicial jurisdiction by stating that, “Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”(1) The powers granted to the judiciary in the U.S. Constitution have allowed the courts to overrule state legislatures, Congress, governors, and even presidents. They are able to strike down laws, rules, and regulations that are interpreted as violations of federal or constitutional law.

In the first scenario, there was a motion to suppress the rifle and shells that were seized from the glove compartment and under the passenger seat. However, the Supreme Court established three components that an officer may search in vehicle searches if the search is valid. Conduct a search of the passenger compartment of a car and of the contents therein if it is incident to a lawful arrest. Search the entire car and open the trunk and any packages or luggage found therein that could reasonably contain the items they are looking for. Search a container in a car if there is probable cause to believe that it holds contraband or seizable items, even in the absence of probable cause to search the car. In addition, there are three cases that

In my opinion for question #2, I think it downright comes down to the inability for California to be able to substantiate and clearly define their law. In this case, Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that barred the sale of violent video games to children. It was not a unanimous decision by the judges either, it was a 7-to-2 decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer filed separate dissents. Justice Thomas said the Constitution did not protect minors’ free speech rights, while Justice Breyer said the statute survived First Amendment scrutiny.

Throughout the history of the United States, the Supreme Court has decided the interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. They have settled many cases and set many precedents that have changed life in America since its inception. It was the Supreme Court who protected the freedom of speech when a man tried to burn the flag. It was the Supreme Court who decided that a person could not be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance if it went against their religion. And it was the Supreme Court who decided that a free citizen of the United States couldn’t be kept from a public school because of his or her race.