1. Detail 3 of the most interesting cases
2. Look ahead at the calender--what cases coming up will be the most significant?
3. Who is John Paul Stephens and why is/was he important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Polly Plugs In!
A 21st Century bird, Polly the Political Bird interfaces with the flock about the demise of CFF!
About Me
- Hoover
- HS Teacher, specializing in American government & politics, as well as World Religions.
1. (first of the category of "most interesting" was kind of confusing so I just summarized 3 cases.) One case is Marbury vs. Madison, one that we learned in class. President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a federal justice of the peace. However, this appointment was not carried out before Thomas Jefferson took office and ordered that the appointed was to not be handed out. Marbury wanted the Court to issue a writ of mandamus; however the Court ruled it unconstitutional. This ruling established judicial review. Another case is Fletcher vs. Peck. The Georgia legislature sold land to Peck who sold it to Fletcher. The new legislature of Georgia repealed the original sale due to fraud and bribery. Peck sued for his money back from Fletcher, but the Supreme Court ruled “The Constitution prohibits states from passing any ‘law impairing the obligation of contracts.’” In the Dartmouth College vs. Woodward case, the New Hampshire state legislature changed the original charter that set up the school by England. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete2. could not find any current upcoming cases. only websites that were like “ upcoming cases for 2007”
3. Justice John Paul Stephens is the head of the liberals. He recently announced his retirement forcing Obama to appropriately replace him.
1. Alright none of them were very interesting but Padilla v. Kentucky this guy padilla claims he had insufficient counceling because he is being deported because he sold drugs. Hes been a permanent U.S. citizen for 40 years and his council advised him he wouldnt be deported because hes lived here so long and he pleaded guilty and now faces deportation. He claims if he would have had sufficient counceling he would have went to trial. Another case bloate v U.S. it was confusing but basically Bloate claimed his 6th amendment right to a quick and speedy trial was broken because the 70 day period where they have to do something was exceeded. I think they ruled that he delayed it himself or something i dont know there was like 100 pages of confusing crap. This last one actually was kinda interesting South Carolina v. North Carolina where apparantly there's this river on the border called the Catawba and south thought north was taking more water than they were from it. Im not sure what the verdict was.
ReplyDelete2. I cant find any upcoming cases!!!!!! But im going to guess some cases that will come up will be about health care and the economy.
3. He was born in Hyde Park Chicago pretty cool for hyde. But at any rate he is assistant chief justice of the supreme court. Stephens was appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and is a liberal. He is 90 years old and is ready to retire. This is crucial because he is a liberal so naturally wants a liberal to replace him so he needed a liberal president to be in office so that he would appoint an appropriate replacement. I read a long wikipedia article about him and i really like him actually. He's done a lot and i think he's been a good justice.
1. No court case is interesting. The first one is Brown v. Board of education. In this one the courts declared that state laws making it illegal for blacks to attend white schools unconstitutional. This decision overturned earlier court cases that went the other way. Another one is Plessy v. Ferguson. In this case Plessy didn't want to leave his seat on the train to the "colored" section. Since he was only 1/8 black. So they arrested him. He said the train was taking away his 13, and 14th amendment rights.In this case they said that it was okay for the states to do that, and was constitutional. Lastly is Roe v. Wade. In this case they courts said it was okay for abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. She found out she was pregnant and wanted to get rid of it. So she tried to say she was raped but that didn't work so she wanted to get a legal abortion. When she couldn't find one she went to court. There they said that abortion is legal in 1st trimester, can be terminated in other two if threatens the health of the mother. So yeah that's three interesting cases.
ReplyDelete2. These are the upcoming court cases for April. I think anyway. Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martines, City of Ontario V. Quon, Rent-a-center west v. Jackson,Hart v. Reliance Standard Life Ins, Doland v. United States,Roe#1 v. Reed and Monsanto Co v.Geerston seed farms. And i have no clue what they are or which would be important.
3. He is the assistant chief justice of the supreme court. He's liberal and like really old. He's important because he just announced that he is retiring and that means someone new will be coming in.
1. I really don't find law very interesting, but Engel v. Vitale is notable. It pretty muvh made it so you can't pray out loud in public schools. As far as Miranda v. Arizona, all I can say is hooray for incompetence. Oh Whatever was the name of the case where the woman spilled hot Mickey dee's coffee on herserlf was pretty funny, especially cause she won which means that all people in need of helmets know that coffee is hot!
ReplyDelete2. Uh... I couldn't really find any court cases...sorry hoover :,(.
3. J.P.S. is the assistant chief justice of the SCOTUS. He controls case discussions. He's proably one of the oldest members and he is retiring. This means Obama's got to pick a new one...proably a liberal or whoever else gets approved by congress.
ok--obviously I was not clear. I was looking for cases for THIS term--2009-2010. I don't want Brown, Roe, Vitale and all the others. Dakota was correct. Do you kinow how difficult that is to write?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you can go to http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/april-argument-calendar-day-by-day/ for the unheard cases. The blog also has the current term.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find any recent interesting cases that I understood, so I detailed some of the court cases we discussed in class.
ReplyDeletePlessy v. Ferguson (1896)
A Louisiana state law required separate accommodations on railroads for white passengers and black ones. A black citizen, Plessy, was jailed for refusing to leave a car that was reserved for white passengers. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the principle of "equal but separate" violated his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court, in a 7-1 vote, upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
An African-American girl, Linda Carol Brown, was not allowed to attend a school four blocks from her house because it was for white students. Instead, she had to walk twenty-one blocks to the nearest all-black school. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision saying that separate but equal is inherently unequal. In a follow up case one year later, the Court stated that local school systems should develop their own plans for desegregation to take effect "with all deliberate speed."
Roe v. Wade (1973)
A single, pregnant, Texas woman, under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, challenged anti-abortion laws by stating that they violated her rights under the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court had to decide whether a fetus was a person or not. The Court upheld Roe's claim that her right to privacy entitled her to an abortion. However, they went on to say that the right to privacy is not absolute. "A state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health of the mother, in maintaining medical standards, how and by whom abortions are performed, and in protecting potential life." The Court ruled on this by saying: 1. Abortions in the first three months of pregnancy cannot be limited by the states excepting that they may require that doctors perform them. 2. The state may set the conditions under which abortions may performed during the second three months of pregnancy to safeguard the health of the mother. 3. The state may outlaw abortions during the last three months of pregnancy to protect the "viable fetus," excepting cases in which the mother's life or health is threatened.
2. Upcoming court cases are:
April 19th
Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, Leo P. and Ontario, CA, v. Quon, Jeff.
April 20th
Dolan Brian, R. v. United States
April 21st
Wanda Krupski, Petitioner v. Costa Crociere, S.p.A.
April 26th
Rent-A-Center, West, Inc., Petitioner v. Antonio Jackson and Bridget Hardt, Petitioner v.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
April 27th
Monsanto Company v.Geertson Seed Farms
April 28th
John Doe #1 v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State
I am assuming these are all very important cases, becasue they are the last ones of the 2010 year.
3.John Paul Stevens was appointed assistant chief justice of the supreme court by Gerald Ford in 1975. Stevens is a liberal. At at the age of 90, he is ready to step down. This is a crucial time for him to do so, since Obama is a liberal President. The idea is for Obamam to replace him with anohter liberal.
I began writing this before Hoover posted, so i couldn't read his before I posted.. but I did find the upcoming cases and detailed my other cases so Im not redoing my post.
ReplyDelete1. Well a lot of court cases aren't that interesting so I'm just going to detail three somewhat recent cases. In Johnson v. U.S. the SC had to clarify the status of a state conviction for felony battery as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. The SC held that a "violent felony" under the law requires the use of physical violence which means causing physical pain or injury to another person. The SC ruled in Safford United School District #1 v. Redding that a public school in Arizona violated a 13-year old girl's constutional rights by conducting a strip search for ibuprofen. In Berghuis v. Smith the SC found that a defandant's right to an impartial jury was not violated. They ruled that an African-American man's murder conviction shouldn't have been thrown out because he had an all-white jury.
ReplyDelete2. In April there will be some oral arguments. They concern issues such as privacy, religion in public schools, and an environmental act.
3. John Paul Stephens is a SC justice who was nominated by President Ford. He is going to retire so this important because he is a liberal and prefers to be replaced by a liberal justice which is possible because Obama is president.
Brittany H.
1. Ok i just searched google and tried to understand what the cases were about..
ReplyDeletePORTER v. McCOLLUM is about George Porter who was a Korean veteran that had the death penalty for killing someone in 1988 but had it overturned bc they said he was tramatized from the war.
CONE V. BELL was about Gary Cone who was a Vietnam veteran whos death row was overturned in a lower court ruling bc of evidence that was left out by the state. Cone pleaded insanity bc of his former drug use.
THOMPSON V. MCNEIL is about William Thompson who was put on death row for 32 years and he was confinded to isolation for 23 hours a day. They are saying it was unhumanizing and suffering bc he has had two stays of execution.
2.April 19 Christian Legal Society V. Martinez
April 20 Dolan V. Us
April 21 Krupski V. Cost Crociere
3. John Paul Stephens is an associate justice of the Supreme Court. He is important because he joined the Court in 1975 and he is the oldest member. and he is also the 4th lonet serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He is retiring soon which means Obama has the chance to appoint a new memeber which he will choice a liberal.
1.I thought there were many interesting cases but these 3 really grabbed my attention. The first case was Cornick vs. Thompson. The Supreme Court was trying to see if the District Attorney is responsible for withholding evidence to convict John Thompson of a murder. Thompson was convicted in 1985 of attempted armed robbery. Then, shortly after that he was tried of an unrelated murder shortly after being convicted of the attempted armed robbery. He did not show up for to defend himself in court and the DA used him being convicted of attempted armed robbery to convict him of this unrelated murder charge. An investigator was working on Thompson’s case and noticed that his blood type did not match the blood found at the scene of the crime. This led his case to be heard by the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteThe next case was Snyder vs. Phelps. Supreme court will be deciding whether picketing at a funeral is a violation of the 1st amendment or if the 1st amendment allows it. The family of Marine Matthew Snyder sued the Baptist Church for defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The family was awarded 5 million dollars for the suit. Then another judge reviewed the case and said that the Baptist church was not in violation and that freedom of religion is covered by the 1st amendment. The judge said even though the church was saying hurtful things and it is frowned upon, it is still covered by the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court will be reviewing the case.
The final case is Palida vs. Kentucky. A 40 year illegal resident of the U.S. from Honduras faces deportation after selling drugs and trafficking marijuana. He claims he had insufficient consoling because if he would have known that he would have been deported if he pleaded guilty he would have went to trial.
2. The cases that said they were upcoming were from march so they were old. I’m sorry Hoover.
3. John Paul Stevens is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He recently announced that he will be retiring when the court revises its 2009-2010 term in late June. He is the oldest member at 90 years old. Now President Obama will have to replace him. Obama will most likely choose someone librel.
HYDE
ReplyDelete1.
PADILLA V. KENTUCKY (3/31/10): A 40-year citizen of the United States by the name of Padilla was convicted for distribution of drugs in Kentucky. He plead guilty. After his conviction, he claimed that the council did not tell him that his consequence would be deportation before he made his plea. They told him not to worry about deportation since he's been a citizen for 40 years. The court's opinion states that Kentucky requires that defendants be warned of possible removal or deportation consequences.
UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. V. ESPINOSA (3/23/10): Fancisco Espinosa filed for bankruptcy and set up a plan for himself to repay his student loans to the United Student Aids Funds. This incorporation then filed a "proof of claim" that was $4,500 more than what Espinosa included in his plan. He didn't know about this, so when the USAF started "intercepting" his tax refunds three years later to get the "unpaid portion" of his student loans (the $4500,) he was pissed. Espinosa petitioned the bankruptcy court and held the USAF "in contempt for violating the discharge injunction." In response they said his student loans were "improperly discharged." These arguments were accepted by the Arizona federal district court on appeal. It ruled in favor of the United Student Aid Funds.
BLOATE V. UNITED STATES (3/8/10): A Missouri federal district court convicted Bloate for the possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and the possession of a firearm. Bloate moved to dismiss arguing about a Speedy Trial Act violation, and was denied. Bloate then appealed, after he was convicted, saying that the court's calculations were wrong in the number of days. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled against Bloate, and his conviction was affirmed.
2.
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Dolan v. U.S.
Krupski v. Costa Crociere
Doe No. 1 v. Reed
...all the others seem kind of insignificant.
3. John Paul Stephens is a judge on the supreme court. He's important because he's the oldest member of the Supreme Court Justices and he's a liberal, so the other liberals look up to him. He recently announced his retirement, which means Obama will have to appoint a new judge in his place. Obama will almost certainly appoint another liberal to take his place.