Williamson’s employment? Was this even battery at all? The plaintiffs did not want that to be the case, as there is a law preventing personal lawsuits against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Holding: The trial court has determined that Mr. Williamson was outside of the scope of his employment.
They are ones that are truthful to their system. This stage perfectly describes Judge John Danforth. He is part of the court and, not even if he thinks that something is unjust, will he disobey the “justice” of his court. When Reverend Hale tries to convince Judge Danforth to listen to Mary Warren’s words, he rejects him by saying, “We “must” do nothing but what justice bids us to do” (59). Nothing will change a mind under the set of rules that they think is right and just.
Certainly, there are idealists and altruists who make the claim that they are able to keep an open mind when meeting someone. And sometimes, based on a first impression, one might not make a judgement based on a language or dialect. These people claim that they look more at body language, confidence, and other more physical traits. They claim that the language a person uses is not the most important factor when it comes to knowing and making a clear judgement.
In recognition of this principle, we perceive no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal of the denial of his petition for contempt because he “was not held in contempt, however closely related and intertwined it is with other orders or judgments” in this case. Pack Shack, Inc., supra, 371 Md. at 260. Accordingly, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s failure to hold Mother in
It simply says “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech” ("First Amendment (ratified 1791”). Nowhere in the Amendment does it specify what kind of speech is protected. In addition, United State also violated its citizen’s right by creating a law (The Federal Obscenity Statute) to limit the speech of the people, which is an
Dr. Loury speaks with no circumscription against his opponents. Therefore, he tries to influence the emotions of the reader by using an accusatory tone when referring to his critics ' ideas as "dangerous." Loury (2013) effectively uses the device of metaphor to help his readers understand his argument when he says, "One could use a color-blind instrument to pursue racial goals and color-conscious instruments to pursue goals that are not necessarily racially defined" (p. 347). Loury doesn 't believe that color-blind policies can guarantee racial equality. But, can 't they?
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
While Justice Thomas is famous for his silence during oral argument, this does not mean that his lack of input in cases makes the other justices wary of where he may stand in issues because of his known conservative reputation. What drives his conservative stance on the Supreme Court is his “originalist” philosophy which calls for interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers primary intents were. As Ralph Rossum states “During his years on the Court, Thomas has pursued an original general meaning approach to constitutional interpretation; he has been unswayed by claims of precedent, by the gradual buildup of interpretations that, to his mind, come to distort the original meaning of the constitutional provision in question, leading to muddled decisions and contradictory conclusions” meaning that Thomas determines cases based on strict interpretation of the Constitution and does not think that neither precedent or stare decisis have any weight on recent cases. The only document that has a true significant precedent is the Constitution itself. His judicial philosophy surely makes him an enigma to
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
Their concern was mainly on the jury being questioned loss of use damages, whether it was lawful for the trial court to allow and ignore their motion. They didn’t dispute the amount that was paid to Robert’s company but only them not be obligated to pay for any loss of use damages that Brueland insurance didn’t cover. J&D also appealed their case, commenting that it shouldn’t matter if the damages to property are partially or totally destroyed that loss of use stills
During World War I, Charles Schenck sent a copious amount of circulars over to the draftees. The circulars consisted of anti-draft sentiments and claimed that the draft was despicably supported by the capitalist system. Schenk basically told the readers to join him in protest. Schenk was unsurprisingly charged with conspiracy for his action due to violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing disruption in the military and attempting to prevent military recruitment. The main issue emerging from this case was whether or not Schenck’s circulars were protected by the First Amendment’s via freedom of speech.
Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,
In 2007, the respondent Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting as a board member in Claremont, California, where he introduced himself as the following: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” (United States v Alvarez 1). In fact, Mr. Alvarez had never received said award, nor had he served in the United States Armed Forces. As a result of making said false statement, Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act.
The unconstitutional Pledge should banned. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” These are the 31 words millions of children across the United States recite each and every morning as they face the flag and place their hand over their hearts. Most students go through this daily obligation without objection and probably without giving it much thought at all, however that is not true for all students. Many students oppose the pledge for a multitude of reasons, some on philosophical grounds, and others for religious reasons.