Jump to content

User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

[edit]
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
From the 1860s until the 1930s, the court sat in the Old Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol.

Eras of the history of the Supreme Court are named after the Chief Justice of that time.

Earliest beginnings to Marshall

[edit]

Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.[1] The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[2] a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[3] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[4][5] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[6] [7][8][9]

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[10] a remnant of British tradition,[11] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[10] Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the court's control, the failed impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-0805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[12] [13]

From Taney to Taft

[edit]

The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[14] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[15] which may have helped precipitate the Civil War.[16] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution,[9] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[17] Adair v. United States).[18]

Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital),[19] and the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Incorporation doctrine.[20]

The New Deal era

[edit]

During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935[21] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government in order to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[22] [23] [24] During World War II, the court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett) and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

Warren and Burger

[edit]

The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[25] It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Green v. County School Bd.),[26] and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Simms). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[27] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[28][29] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[30][31]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona);[32] At the same time, however, the court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan), and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[33]

The Burger Court (1969–1986) expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[34] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[35] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo),[36] and dithered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[37] then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[37][38][39]

Rehnquist and Roberts

[edit]

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[40] directly (New York v. United States and Printz v. United States), and by emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison)[41][42] and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Alden v. Maine, City of Boerne v. Flores),[43][44] Alden v. Maine).[45] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[46] the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), state-imposed term limits on federal legislatures (US Term Limits v. Thornton), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws.[47] The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.[48]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court.[49][50] Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[51] of the Eighth (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana),[52][53] Fourth (Georgia v. Randolph and Hudson v. Michigan),[54] and First (Garcetti v. Ceballos, Morse v. Frederick, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) amendments,[55][56][57] federal preemption, (Wyeth v. Levine), the status of military detainees (Boumediene v. Bush),[58] and racial discrimination (Parents v. Seattle).[59] and civil procedure (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal). The Roberts court also dealt seriously with the Second Amendment for the first time (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago).[60]

Even shorter Rehnquist-Roberts

[edit]

Rehnquist and Roberts

[edit]

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[40] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[41][42][43][44] Alden v. Maine).[45] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[46] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws.[47] The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.[48]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court.[49][50] Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[51] of the Eighth (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana),[52][53] Fourth (Georgia v. Randolph and Hudson v. Michigan),[54] Second, (Heller-McDonald).[60] and First (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) amendments,[61] and civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal).


Midway Rehnquist-Roberts

[edit]

Rehnquist and Roberts

[edit]

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[40] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[41][42][43][44][45] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[46] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[47] The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.[48]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court.[49][50] Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[51] of the First (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), [62] Second (Heller-McDonald),[60] and Eighth amendments (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana),[52][53] of federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine) and of civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal).


Rehnquist and Roberts (variant with amendments stated for Magidin)

[edit]

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[40] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[41][42][43][44][45] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[46] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[47] The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.[48]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court.[49][50] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[51] and the bill of rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[63] Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment),[60] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment),[52][53] amendment, of .

  1. ^ Ashmore, Anne (August 2006). "Dates of Supreme Court decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2-107 (1791–1882)" (PDF). Library, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2009-04-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  2. ^ Scott Douglas Gerber (editor) (1998). "Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall". New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-3114-7. Retrieved 2009-10-31. (page 3) Finally, many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ Garrett Epps (October 24, 2004). "Don't Do It, Justices". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected
  4. ^ Jeffrey Rosen (book review of "Packing the Court" by James MacGregor Burns) (July 5, 2009). "Black Robe Politics". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
  5. ^ "The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America -- Marbury v. Madison (1803)". US News & World Report. 1803. Retrieved 2009-10-31. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
  6. ^ Cliff Sloan and David McKean (February 21, 2009). "Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-10-31. More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate.
  7. ^ "The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court" (PDF). New York Times. February 27, 1893. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The decision ... in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court ...
  8. ^ Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter Breyer (2000-12-13). "Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court ... The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ a b "Decisions of the Supreme Court -- Historic Decrees Issued in One Hundred an Eleven Years" (PDF). New York Times. February 3, 1901. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Very important also was the decision in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the court asserted its authority to overrule, within certain limits, the decisions of the highest State courts.
  10. ^ a b "The Supreme Quiz". Washington Post. October 2, 2000. Retrieved 2009-10-31. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other justices to stop seriatim opinions -- each issuing one -- so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, however, there's been a significant increase in individual "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions.
  11. ^ Dan Slater (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal branch.
  12. ^ Claire Suddath (Dec. 19, 2008). "A Brief History Of Impeachment". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was overzealous and notoriously unfair ... But Chase never committed a crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate acquitted him on every count. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Linda Greenhouse (April 10, 1996). "Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives ... This decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said
  14. ^ Edward Keynes, with Randall K. Miller (1989). "The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion". Duke University Press. ISBN 0822309688. Retrieved 2009-10-31. (page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction.
  15. ^ Sherrilyn A. Ifill (May 27, 2009). "Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to respect", has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most insensitive
  16. ^ Irons, Peter (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176, 177. ISBN 0143037372. The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue... (p.177) {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ "Liberty of Contract?". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. 2009-10-31. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner--the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships.
  18. ^ "Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161". Cornell University Law School. 1908. Retrieved 2009-10-31. No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908
  19. ^ Bernard H. Siegan (1987). The Supreme Court's Constitution. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9780887386718. Retrieved 2009-10-31. In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of Columbia. (p.146) | pages = 146 | isbn = 0-88738-127-8
  20. ^ Bodenhamer, David J. (1993). The Bill of Rights in modern America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. ... of what eventually became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ Joan Biskupic (2005-03-29). "Supreme Court gets makeover". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  22. ^ Justice Roberts (September 21, 2005). "Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. I agree that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era cases - Adkins in particular - evince an expansive view of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the appropriately more limited vision of the Framers.[dead link]
  23. ^ Seth lipsky (October 22, 2009). "All the News That's Fit to Subsidize". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. He was a farmer in Ohio ... during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm. [dead link]
  24. ^ Adam Cohen (December 14, 2004). "What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard ... for paving the way for strong federal action...
  25. ^ United Press International (September 25, 1971). "Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states.
  26. ^ "100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954)". US News & World Report. May 17, 1954. Retrieved 2009-10-31. On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" ... and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement...
  27. ^ "Essay: In defense of privacy". Time. July 15, 1966. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself.
  28. ^ Nancy Gibbs (Dec. 9, 1991). "America's Holy War". Time. Retrieved 2009-10-31. In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government", ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite." {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ William R. Mattox Jr., Katrina Trinko (August 17, 2009). "Teach the Bible? Of course". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book ... In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education", was permissible under the First Amendment.
  30. ^ "The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle". Time Magazine. June 18, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
  31. ^ "The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment". Time. April 16, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). ... the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal courts." But in the light of Gideon ... ruled Black, statements 'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states can no longer be regarded as law.'
  32. ^ "Guilt and Mr. Meese". New York Times. January 31, 1987. Retrieved 2009-10-31. 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to silence and to a lawyer, and waived it.
  33. ^ http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090107_GragliaEngage93.pdf
  34. ^ Karen O'Connor (January 22, 2009). "Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy...
  35. ^ "Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose". Time. July 10, 1978. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'...
  36. ^ "Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo". New York Times. November 12, 1998. Retrieved 2009-10-31. ...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers.
  37. ^ a b Staff writer (June 29, 1972). "Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Furman v. Georgia ... Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
  38. ^ History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
  39. ^ "A Supreme Revelation". Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years earlier.
  40. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (January 8, 2009). "The Chief Justice on the Spot". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The federalism issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments.
  41. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (September 4, 2005). "William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
  42. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (June 12, 2005). "The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Intrastate activity that was not essentially economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Morrison.
  43. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (March 22, 2005). "Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to the states.
  44. ^ a b c d Vikram David Amar (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result.
  45. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (April 1, 1999). "Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface ... On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority over the states.
  46. ^ a b c d Michael A. Lindenberger (Michael A. Lindenberger). "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  47. ^ a b c d Justice Sotomayor (July 16, 2009). "Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' -- The 'Roe' recital". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court.
  48. ^ a b c d Charles Krauthammer (Dec. 18, 2000). "The Winner in Bush v. Gore?". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. ... the Supreme Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida Supreme Court in its tracks--and stayed its willfulness. By 5-4, mind you, ... {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  49. ^ a b c d Charles Babington and Peter Baker (September 30, 2005). "Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court.
  50. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (July 1, 2007). "In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared ... This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small.
  51. ^ a b c d Charlie Savage (July 14, 2009). "Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" — to be settled law.
  52. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic.
  53. ^ a b c d Linda Greenhouse (June 26, 2008). "Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday ... The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states.
  54. ^ a b Adam Liptak (October 7, 2008). "Justices Weigh Value of a Rule That Limits Evidence". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. Justice Scalia repeated his view, expressed in Hudson v. Michigan in 2006, that police departments are more professional than they used to be, reducing the need for the exclusionary rule.
  55. ^ "Defining 'whistle-blower'". Los Angeles Times. June 2, 2006. Retrieved 2009-11-01. The high court was divided along ideological lines on the case. It held that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office did not violate the free-speech rights of Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Ceballos by denying him a promotion because of his memo alleging that police officers lied to obtain a search warrant.
  56. ^ Stanley Fish (July 8, 2007). "Clarence Thomas Is Right". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. On June 25th the Supreme Court held in Morse v. Frederick that it was all right to discipline a high school student because he and some of his friends had unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a school-sponsored event.
  57. ^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
  58. ^ JOHN YOO (June 17, 2008). "The Supreme Court Goes to War". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-11-01. Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling...
  59. ^ Paul e. peterson (July 24, 2007). "School Choice and Racial Balance". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-11-01. Schools that admit students on the basis of race run afoul of the Constitution, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the recent Supreme Court case, Parents v. Seattle. Over-subscribed schools may not use race as a tie-breaker when deciding which students to admit.
  60. ^ a b c d Robert Barnes (October 1, 2009). "Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller...
  61. ^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
  62. ^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
  63. ^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Simon_Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS&oldid=1168382917"