Florida Supreme Court Case Study

Originally the Florida Supreme Court ordered that a recount was to happen in Palm Beach, Volusia, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties. Bush used the Equal Protection Clause from the Fourteenth Amendment to argue Florida’s ruling. Bush won in the Federal Supreme Court and established that the recount was unconstitutional because it was giving more protection to these county’s ballots than others. The vote to was so close that the decision was essentially made by one person. This shows that the supreme court didn’t vote in what they believed in and rather wanted to help out their own party.

He also argued that the president’s power as the Commander in Chief did not allow him to detain American citizens as military combatants. In addition, the congressional authorisation was not intended to allow the detention of American citizens. The detention of American citizens had been expressly forbidden when the President was authorised to use necessary and appropriate measures in the war against terror. His other argument was that the government controlled the location of his detention and the choice to transfer him should not affect his ability to file a petition for habeas corpus in New

A prohibition on seeking disclosure jury deliberations in the Jury Act would also not apply to an AUSLAN interpreter. The plurality held that the decision of the deputy registrar to exclude Ms Lyons from juror duty was not unlawful under the A.D.A 1991 and instead vetoed the contention that the disclosure or jury contemplations to an interpreter was lawful. The argument was based on the phrase “perform the functions of a juror” included in Section 4 (3L) of the J.A 1995. Additionally, the plurality also rejected the appellant’s contention that Section 54 (1) of the J.A 1995 extended a grant of leave to an AUSLAN. Section 54 (1) of the J.A only allows for the officer of the court

With the Congressmen winning their case the executive branch appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case immediately “because the act directed the Court to hear as soon as possible any suit challenging its constitutionality”. The court dismissed that case, Raines v. Byrd on May 27, 1997 because the court did not feel that the congressmen were “the right litigants”. After the Court made their decision, President Clinton invoked the act and cancelled more than 80 items that included money for New York City hospitals and a tax break for potato farmers in Idaho. This angered the parties involved and they filed to sue under one consolidated case against the act and the Court held that the law was an unconstitutional delegation of

Fisher, but they held the the Court of Appeals did not hold the University’s admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny so the judgement was incorrect. In previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that they are reviewable under the fourteenth amendment, these such cases must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. If the policy does not meet this standard, then race can not be considered in any admissions process. The Court stated the it was the job of the reviewing court to verify that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve a more diverse student body and the any race-neutral alternative would not achieve the same level of diversity.The Supreme Court said the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case. Justice Ruth Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion in which she argued the the University treats race as merely one factor in the overall decision to admit a student, which is permissible under previous judicial precedent.

The unelected Supreme Court justices did not find anywhere in the Constitution that established marriage as a fundamental right that needed protection. Instead, these justices practiced judicial activism. Whether or not marriage between same-sex couples should be legalized and recognized is a matter falling under the responsibilities of state legislature and their electorates. If marriage were to be defined anywhere in the constitution as a right or liberty of the American people then the Supreme Court’s actions could be justified, but this is not the case. The justices implied marriage as a fundamental liberty and established a law to protect it.

So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act

"Since the Oklahoma Supreme Court 's decision in June regarding the Ten Commandments monument, my constituents wanted to know what could be done," Rep. John Paul Jordan (R-Yukon) was quoted as saying by Associated Press. "I knew it would be a difficult proposition to undo the ruling, so we looked at giving voters the opportunity to remove the basis for the ruling." After the monument was built, other groups also inquired about space to place their monuments on the Capitol grounds. The requests to put their statues came from a satanic church in New York, a Hindu leader from Nevada, and a satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The American Civil Liberties Union, who represented Prescott, will challenge the monument in federal court, if it returns after the referendum.

Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.

They pointed that nothing in the Constitution established the power of judicial review. McCulloch v. Maryland was a case that decided if states had the power to tax national banks within their jurisdiction. The federal government had not asked for permission to open the bank in the state, and it was competing with banks established by the state. The state legislature then passed a law taxing all banks in Maryland that were not chartered by the state. The Court ruled that the United States government did have the right to establish a bank in Maryland and that the state of Maryland could not tax the bank for doing so.

It states “Republicans have one major weapon left: the filibuster,” says author Kristi Oloffson. It then states, ”If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," said Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent. "Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill. (Time)” The making of the cloture guideline was not an announcement of affection for supermajority rules to the Senate, but rather it was the result of tough managing of an unsupportive

Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. 5. Ruling and Reasoning Chief Justice Rehnquist was the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the court. He reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician-assisted suicide symbolized

Force people to vote takes away their individual rights. The democratic country will not be democratic anymore by taking away its citizens’ rights. According to Sen Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, said on Fox News, no voting is also a legitimate choice that some people make”(Sherfinski). In the United States, It is every individual 's freedom to make a choice of whatever vote or not. “The right to speak, which is protected under the First amendment, includes the right not to speak.