Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Rehnquist Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States during which William Rehnquist served as Chief Justice.Rehnquist succeeded Warren E. Burger as Chief Justice after the latter's retirement, and Rehnquist held this position until his death in 2005, at which point John Roberts was nominated and confirmed as Rehnquist's replacement.
state court decisions and the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine: Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo: 544 U.S. 336 (2005) standard for pleading loss causation in a securities fraud claim Small v. United States: 544 U.S. 385 (2005) resolution of split appeals court decisions on inclusion of foreign courts in the term "any court ...
Colorado General Assembly v. Salazar: 541 U.S. 1093 (2004) electoral redistricting Scalia, Thomas: Rehnquist dissented from the Court's denial of certiorari, arguing that the Court should review the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of the Federal Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution that it was up to each state to decide for itself what "Legislature" meant in the context of what ...
But the Rehnquist Court expressly declined to overrule Miranda v. Arizona in Dickerson v. United States. Rehnquist believed that federal judges should not impose their personal views on the law or stray beyond the framers' intent by reading broad meaning into the Constitution; he saw himself as an "apostle of judicial restraint". [24]
The 2001 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002. This was the thirtieth term of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's tenure on the Court and the sixteenth term as Chief Justice.
The 2004 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 4, 2004, and concluded October 3, 2005. This was the thirty-third and final term of Chief Justice William Rehnquist's tenure on the Court and the nineteenth term as Chief Justice; Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005.
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency to deliver ...
The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices.