Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The 'rule skeptics' rejected legal rules as providing uniformity in law, and tried instead to find uniformity in rules evolved out of psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, politics, etc. Hans Kelsen, it will be remembered, maintained that it is not possible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. The 'rule skeptics' avoided that criticism ...
"The Constitution's a sacred document, but it is not a suicide pact," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) said in 2016, voicing support for banning gun possession by people on "no fly" lists. "This is ...
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 2006, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote a book called Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency. [7] [8] Posner's position [clarification needed] has drawn both critical opposition [8] and support. [9]
But in a striking concurrence that captured support from both liberal and conservative justices, Justice Elena Kagan asserted that the court’s historic analysis need not end with the late-18th ...
The American Constitution Society refers to the "rule" as an "urban legend of judicial nominations" that "never became a 'rule' at all, and as such, it can be disregarded for good reason–it is the Thurmond Myth." [5] The Alliance for Justice has written: "The Thurmond Rule is not real. It is a myth, a figment of the partisan imagination ...
Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, defended the code of conduct this summer but also conceded it would be more effective if it included an enforcement mechanism.
Concurring, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the amendment interfered with the "relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government." [3] Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, countered: It is ironic that the Court bases today's decision on the right of the people to "choose whom they please to govern them."