Answers for your legal questions

What exactly is the supreme court? law answers (486485)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "what exactly is the supreme court?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

Allowing for many years of hindsight-do you feel Clarence Thomas should be a supreme court Justice?

A:  My judgment of Thomas is based on his actual performance on the bench. I think he''s shown he''s not really supreme court material. He votes with Scalia about 95% of the time, and I don''t believe he has ever written an opinion of his own. (If so, it''s been rare.) The two biggest lies GHW Bush ever told in his entire term were about Clarence Thomas. (1) That he was just the very best man he could find for the job and (2) that his race didn''t matter. Yes. Why do you ask? Let me point out two things here: It was proven many, many, many years ago that Thomas did not perjure himself during the hearings and Anita Hill was an opportunist. He is indeed quite qualified to sit on the supreme court....

Q: 

Help on supreme court case?

A:  The supreme court and Appellate court opinions will describe the arguments made on behalf of each of the parties. You can also find supreme court briefs on line, which will also set out the parties'' arguments. It''s always good to be able to state the arguments for the side you don''t believe in, since that''s a good way to prepare to respond to them. So, this is a good exercise. Read the opinion of the court. It will spell out the arguments presented. You understand Bakke, but do you understand the cases since Bakke? I will just make a few points. First; this was a divided court ruling so there were strong...

Q: 

What exactly has Bush and Cheney done 4 this country?

A:  Well for one, they cleaned up the mess that Clinton left. he has kept your right to criticize and kept the terrorist from attacking us again Bush Has Done Nothing To Gain The Respect of The American People. He Has Given The People who deserve lots of help Nothing. Bush is someone who shouldnt had been reellected, People were just asking from Problems when they allowed him to be president for another term. Like some people said, His term is almost over and i sure will more then happy to see this. Bush never has and never will be the best president that has ever runned this country!!! WELL, I know Cheney is on the Halliburton payroll,and they have gotten over half of the contracts in Iraq,SO....he is making out bigtime,while our lower middle class and poor kids try to make a buck in the...

Q: 

Can Obama use the federal courts to overturn state laws prohibiting federal government mandated healthcare?

A:  I think we are about to find out if ObamaCare passes muster with the supreme court, yes. If it doesn''t, the issue would be moot, wouldn''t it? He can try, but I don''t think he will get Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy to agree, especially when he offends the SC during his state of the obama speech. the executive and legislative branches have no authority over the judicial. and they shouldn''t be easily swayed by rewards for favoring anything or one over another. i sure hope he tries! we can buy the dollar from china after we secede and whats left of the u.s. goes broke from broken states wanting government healthcare...

Q: 

Should supreme court have power to overturn unconstituitional federal law?

A:  It already does, that is exactly what it''s job is... Yes. That is why they are there, to ensure the executive branch or the legislative branch does not press an agenda which is unconstitutional. The legislative branch can override an executive veto of a bill, but the supreme court, when someone appeals a decision through court to the supreme court, can rule that bill unconstitutional, so a new bill would have to be introduced into the cycle, which is not unconstitutional. They DO have that power, in fact that''s their primary job. The thing is, they don''t automatically review laws as soon as they''re passed. There...

Q: 

Why is the government more concerned with keeping the Bible out of schools than keeping drugs out?

A:  It''s not the goverment as such, it''s the plague of local council staff, local self-appointed busybodies who just come up with these stupid ultra-pc rules and regulations to justify their having a job! Not a year goes by without some ''official'' banning posters advertising a church xmas service in case it offends muslims (who don''t care anyway, and if they did, should have no right to complain as this is a predominantly christian country - live here and you should live by our rules!)*, or kids being banned from playing conkers in case they hurt their little fingers.... Political Correctness is ruining this country, something thats not helped by the ridiculous claims and lawsuits that are allowed to go to court these days, something which...

Q: 

Is the lawsuit against Arizona''s immigration law a violation of States'' Rights?

A:  No, because federal law preempts state law on immigration. There are some areas of law reserved for the federal government and immigration is one of them. Arizona''s immigration law ? Far as I can see Arizona does not have an “Immigration law.” What it appears to have is a heavy-handed method of detecting criminals by “stop and search”. More power to them, why can''t all police forces in the world do this? The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to regulate naturalization. The case Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong (1976) held that in order to regulate naturalization, the federal government has the implied right to regulate...

Q: 

I began working for my current employer several years ago . After working there for some time, I was required to sign a non-compete clause/agreement. I did not receive anything for signing this agreement. If I leave the company, is the non-compete enforceable?

A:  This is one question that is still not completely settled. Just in Ohio, for example, the state courts of appeals have come down on both sides of the question. In any contract, there must be what is known as ''consideration''. This is some benefit or detriment to each party. Advocates for employment at will argue that an employer receives the benefit of a signed non-compete, but coupled with the detriment of retaining and paying an employee. Arguably the promise of continued employment is sufficient consideration for the non-compete since in an employment at will situation, each day is akin to a new hire.Proponents on the other side obviously disagree. They argue that a mere promise of continued employment is insufficient consideration due to the unequal bargaining...

Q: 

Why are so many people complaining about Arizona Immigration law when in fact it is the same as the National?

A:  That''s what i wonder. We''ve never been a free country although we like to believe we treat people well. There''s no freedom in America from the beginning of it''s history with the native Americans, Africans, till today poking at Hispanics. Only in America, yet we talk about freedom. Because people can''t read or just believe what the news has told them. It is not the same as the national law. It adds an element that should be offensive to every American. Namely, probable cause to stop and detain someone. I must have missed the federal law that says the authorities can demand someone''s papers based solely on some elusive “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. No, it is not the same as the federal

Q: 

Is the privacy act part of the Constitution?

A:  The privacy act is not a part of the constitution...no ''act'' is...an act is a congressional action. As far as a constitutional right of privacy, the supreme court held in Griswold that the constitution contained an implied right of privacy within the ''penumbra'' of the bill of rights...This theory has held for almost half a century so far, so it is pretty well established. This right of privacy is pretty limited though. There is no single place to read all of your constitutional rights...there are a great deal of them, mostly found in case law. No, the privacy act was enacted as a statute by Congress and can be found in Title 5 of the US Code. The ''rights'' in the Constitution have been listed in volumes that...