Quotes About Supreme court

That the search violated the Fourth Amendment was undisputed—it had been done without probable cause. But the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was nonetheless admissible at trial.

in 2000 the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional, stressing that Congress by statute cannot overrule the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

police know that even if they intentionally violate Miranda and the statements gained are not admissible, the information obtained still can be used in other ways against the suspect. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions allow the statements to be used for other purposes—such as to impeach a criminal defendant at trial34 or to lead to physical evidence that can be admitted.35

The Supreme Court ruled that the governor was not protected by absolute immunity, but could claim qualified immunity: "the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief, . . . affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers.

The Supreme Court, though, found that conducting the lineup without the presence of a lawyer violated Wade's right to counsel.

Roberts went even further and said that the exclusionary rule applies only where the value of deterring police misconduct outweighs the costs of releasing a potentially guilty person:

In every case since then, without exception, the Court has rejected people's ability to sue federal officers.

Justice Stewart wrote that the way the search was done had nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence.

Brown v. Allen, decided in 1953, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Frankfurter, held that a constitutional claim may be raised on habeas even though it had been raised, fully litigated, and decided in state court.

Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court did not overrule or narrow the third-party doctrine, but it refused to extend it to cover stored cellular location information.

Chambers, the Supreme Court invoked the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment and said "automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office" if officers have probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that they are entitled to seize.

it ruled that people have a lower expectation of privacy with motor vehicles, and that cars are regulated by the government. In Cady v. Dombrowski

O'CONNOR WAS THE most powerful Supreme Court justice of her time. For most of her twenty-four-plus years on the Court, from October 1981 to January 2006, she was the controlling vote on many of the great societal issues, including abortion, affirmative action, and religious freedom, so much so that the press came to call it the O'Connor Court.

The experience I don't want to see repeated occurred in 'Bush v. Gore.' The Court divided five to four. There were four separate dissents, and that confused the press. In fact, some of the reporters announced that the decision was seven-two. There was no time to get together.

The Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and they have the right of free speech and the right without disclosure—all of this is through the Citizens United Supreme Court decision—to put as much money as they want into campaigns all over the country.

The country [Canada] is not entitled to nine [Supreme Court] judges giving their own views; the country is entitled to nine judges giving their views after listening to the views of their eight other colleagues.

The birth control pill, to a great degree, made possible the (hetero)sexual revolution. Yet those who developed oral contraceptives did not intend their work to promote what the majority of Americans at the time called "promiscuity." Doctors generally refused to prescribe the pill to women who were not married; the Supreme Court did not rule this practice unconstitutional until 1972.

The 1857 Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott vs Sanford continued to influence judiciary thinking, and he doubted its ramifications would be banished in his lifetime, if ever.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court handed down an 8–1 decision that found the 1875 Civil Rights unconstitutional.

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that while investigators shouldn't threaten possible consequences—grand jury investigation, prison time, execution—or make promises of leniency, they can use tactics of "reasonable deception" and duplicity to solve crimes. Another reason neither to believe what cops say nor to answer their questions.

Conservatives shouldn't count on the Supreme Court to do our work for us on Obamacare. The Court may rule as it should, and strike down the mandate. But it may not. And even if it does, the future of health care in America - and for that matter, the future of limited government - depends ultimately on the verdict of the American people.

The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo.

The Twist was a guided missile launched from the ghetto into the heart of suburbia. The Twist succeeded, as politics, religion and law could never do, in writing in the heart and soul what the Supreme Court could only write on the books.

My ambition, however, was also a factor in leaving the law. I'd become convinced that passion was a critical factor in professional success... I could see that in my co-clerks at the Supreme Court: they read law journals for fun, they talked about cases during their lunch hours, they felt energized by their efforts. I didn't.