Quotes About Supreme court

With new Supreme Court appointments during the ensuing decade, the margin of support within the Court for maintaining the right to abortion appeared to shrink to the vanishing point.

The Court's exercise of judicial review is an ever-present and renewable source of interbranch tension. While the court-stripping efforts were responses to the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings, Congress pushes back regularly and more productively against the Court's statutory decisions. In the early 1990s, Congress responded sharply to the Court's rightward turn in a series of civil rights cases decided several years earlier.

majority described the pressure on the Court and explained why "principles of institutional integrity" required that Roe v. Wade be reaffirmed. A "terrible price would be paid for overruling," the three justices wrote, adding that such a step "would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law.

As one leading Supreme Court scholar, Sanford Levinson, has noted, Supreme Court cases necessarily deal only with the "litigated Constitution," those provisions that are open to interpretation and become fodder for lawyers and judges.

And yet, over time, the Court and the public seem to maintain a certain equilibrium. Public opinion polls regularly reflect that "diffuse" approval for the Supreme Court—that is, approval of the institution in general, rather than of particular actions—is higher than for other institutions of government.

Two periods sixty years apart provide bookends to an account of deep conflict between the political branches and the Supreme Court in the modern era. The first was the struggle over the New Deal.

Even today, the contours of what is often referred to as the "Article III jurisdiction" of the federal courts remain contested. The important points here are simply these: that questions concerning the federal courts' jurisdiction are anchored deeply in the nation's constitutional origins, and that the Supreme Court itself has provided the answers.

Morrison, 2000). The Court also ruled that states could not be bound, as employers, by the federal laws against employment discrimination, either on the basis of age (Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 2000) or on the basis of disability (Board of Regents of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 2003).

perhaps the public expression of trust in the Supreme Court reflects a leap of faith rather than actual knowledge; people want to believe in some governmental institution, and they are more likely to be able to identify what they don't like about the political branches. Or

During its first two terms, February and August 1790, it had almost nothing to do. A year after its first session, the Court finally received its first case, but the case settled before argument. Six months later, in August 1791, the Court received a second case, an appeal in a commercial dispute.

The justices heard arguments, but then declared that a procedural irregularity in the appeal barred them from proceeding to a decision. Not until 1792 did the Supreme Court begin issuing opinions.

perhaps the expression of public support for the Court reflects what political scientists call the "legitimation hypothesis," the theory that once the Supreme Court rules on an issue, a measurable proportion of the public will come to the conclusion that "if they believe it, it must be right.

The case was a suit by a merchant in South Carolina against the state of Georgia for a Revolutionary War debt. The plaintiff sued directly in the Supreme Court under the provision of Article III that gave the Court jurisdiction over suits between a state and a citizen of a different state. The Court rejected Georgia's argument that as a sovereign state it was immune from suit without its consent. When Georgia refused to appear, the Court entered a default judgment against it.

While it is unlikely that the size of the Court will ever change again, some scholars, troubled by the increasing length of service on the Court and the advanced age at which justices retire, have recently put forward a proposal that would add new justices, move the oldest into a senior status, and assign the Court's active work to the most junior nine.

By statute, a Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday of every October. But the justices' active labor actually begins the week before, on the last Monday of September, when they meet in conference to consider the cert petitions that have accumulated over the summer months of recess.

decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the essence of Roe's original decision, and we do so today.

He sought a writ of mandamus, a judicial order commanding the delivery of his commission. It seemed a readily available remedy, because Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 had explicitly provided that citizens could go directly to the Supreme Court to seek a writ of mandamus against a federal official.

Was Hayburn's Case, then, the first instance of the Supreme Court declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional? Not formally.

It's a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country's chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution - and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died - is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.

What five members of the Supreme Court say the law is may be something vastly different from what Congress intended the law to be.

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.

Commenting on the crew's Christmas Eve reading from Genesis, he looked down at the justices of the Supreme Court—a court barely seven years removed from having ruled prayer in the classroom unconstitutional—and said, "But now that I see the gentlemen in the front row, I'm not sure we should have read from the Bible at all.

You can see what happened in the seventies. Up until then, the Supreme Court never saw a gender-based classification it didn't like or regarded as unconstitutional.

In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that fuck could be protected political speech in Cohen v. California. This case overturned a 1968 conviction for "disturbing the peace" against an antiwar protestor who wore a jacket with the words "FUCK THE DRAFT" on it. John Marshall Harlan II noted in his decision that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," arguing that a state cannot censor its citizens merely for the sake of civility.