Answers for your legal questions

What kind of laws do the supreme court judges make? answers (290068)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "what kind of laws do the supreme court judges make?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

A right to self-represent or a right to a court-appointed lawyer?

A:  Jerry, It''s possible that the defendant has a chance at a malpractice suit against the lawyer who gave her the wrong court date. It''s not clear from your post why the defendant would need to appear in a court as part of the appellate process. If the case had already gone to the state supreme court then it''s not clear what appeals would still be open to the defendant. I could be wrong but I suspect that you have the facts so garbled that no one can offer good advice. As a final point I think you should tell the defendant that it is likely that all the plaintiff''s legal fees will be awarded, so continuing this appeals process will just cost more money. Though you believe this is insane...

Q: 

Leaving Privy Council (Was: Going Inquisitorial Totally? (Was: Jury Philosophy)

A:  Brian Sandle wrote: On 21 May 2003 12:09:42 GMT I wrote:Several times I have asked about how fairly democracy apportions aperson''s guaranteed rights when they are not so quick with the written orspoken word. Further, I am interested in any changes appearing in therights of underpriviledged minorities in Australia and Canada since thedetachment from the Privy Council. Now NZ Parliament is in process of cutting ties and appointing a local supreme court above the High and Appeal courts. One opposition member claimed that Govt is afraid what might be Privy Council''s views on Maori and the foreshore, following a recent judgement. Another question has been about the selection of supreme

Q: 

Is There a Legal Way for Soldiers to Get Out of Iraq~.....?

A:  jnn7...webtv.net wrote: Is Iraq even a legal war? No WMD~Misrepresentation, Fraud upon the Public, Fleecing of tax funds, hidden agenda of political gain, money made from war, Manipulation of supreme court judges to not be "Fair and Impartial" Canon 3 ,other abuses of Judicial and Violations of Judicial Conduct [...] You''re a f*ckin'' moron. The rationale for the war was that Saddam Hussein had defied 17 (or however many) U.N. resolutions. And the U.S. had the cojones to go after him for it, but the U.N. didn''t. End of story. jnn7...webtv.net wrote: Is Iraq even a legal war? No WMD~Misrepresentation, Fraud upon the Public, Fleecing of tax funds, hidden agenda of political gain, money made from war,...

Q: 

Can anybody help me out? marital trouble - courts in India?

A:  The order passed by High court that the RC petition cannot be transferred from home town of your wife to Chennai does not seem illegal. It is the right of the wife to file RC petition at her home town, hence, you cannot get it transferred to Chennai according to your convenience, though your difficulties may be genuine. However, it is rather strange that High court passed the order that divorce petition should also be transferred from Chennai to her home town when there was no such prayer from either side. You may challenge this order to the supreme court and there is possibility of reversal of that order. However, it will also take some time and you will have to spend money so it is my...

Q: 

civ.liberties: 1000 /2000 foot laws

A:  Decisions by a state supreme court only effect the laws in that same state. GA and MO supreme court decisions only apply in those states; they have no effect any place else. If a ME town has a law like that, you will have to challenge it in courts in ME to get the law overturned. Only a U.S. supreme court decision or a decision by a federal court of national jurisdiction (e.g. the U.S. Tax court) applies nationwide. Rulings by state courts in other states have no bearing on the laws in...

Q: 

In the U.S. how is it possible that..................?

A:  States can adopt or create or get rid of any law they want, as long as that law (or lack of law) doesn''t violate the "supreme law," which is the U.S. Constitution... Occasionally, laws get on the books that come up as "Questionably Constitutional" (in possible violation of the Constitution) or some states or local governents attempt to establish a law that violates the Constitution, and so that''s when the supreme court is called upon to make a decision on the issue.... Such as Abortion or Euthanasia or same sex marriages, etc...Right now the big issue is "Does Preventing Same Sex Marriages Violate The Constitutional Rights of any...

Q: 

How to become a judge?

A:  well the chances of becoming a supreme court justice is slim, as you must be appointed you are appointed for life. Of the 112 supreme court members, only 47 have held degrees from accredited law schools; 18 attended law school, but never attained a degree; and 47 were self-taught and/or went through an apprenticeship. nder the Constitution, there are no formal age, residency, citizenship, or education requirements for a supreme court Justice. In theory, the President could appoint a 5-year-old child to the supreme court if he wanted (though getting him confirmed by the Senate would be...

Q: 

Rehnquist and Scalia Come Out Against Estrada

A:  I think its really important to hear about his views on roe v. wade ''cause the balance is precariously close to being tipped in the direction of roe v. wade being overturned. My feelings and thoughts about this are of course judges have knowledge and life experiences which lead them to have personal opinion''s they are human. But they are trained professionals as lawyers, judges on lower courts, and often as law professors to rise above their personal opinions. That is why they, the Appellate court judges and the supremes, read (as do their clerks) prior decisions, study the case before them, listen to oral argument, and read briefs. So far...

Q: 

Affidavit by deceased in NYS murder trial admissibe?

A:  The rules of evidence are complicated and vary by state. Basically, the divorce paperwork contained statements that were considered not only hearsay but testimonial. Under Crawford v. Washington, that makes them inadmissible as a violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment right to confront the witness against him (in this case the wife). The statement made to the friend was also hearsay but likely fell under a recognized exception. First, the Simpson diaries were not testimonial as in prepared for purposes of trial. Second, and most importantly, that trial occurred prior to the supreme court decision. Had that trial occurred today, the diary would not be admissible. To understand the underlying reason...

Q: 

Judge disregards rules of evidence--Q

A:  Most lower level courts (like this) are not courts of record. I''m not surprised there was no record of the "trial". Many of these lower level courts are not required to transcribe events that transpire before them. But, what''s your question? How can we try to help you? It looks as if you lost on appeal. It doesn''t matter what the reason is, as long as the appellate court upheld her decision. Your case is, as they say, over! Res judicata, loosely translated means, let it rest, sleep, or end. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Actually I am scheduled for an appeal at NY supreme court, but the appeal process is narrow as it...