The supreme court has been urged to throw out a momentous legal challenge to the government’s powers to trigger Brexit, with Downing Street lawyers claiming parliament’s support for exiting the EU was conclusively demonstrated this week. Because of the urgency and significance of the constitutional issues, 11 justices are sitting together for the first time on the supreme court bench to hear the government’s appeal. If the justices uphold the high court decision, they are likely to have to decide whether primary legislation would be needed. The three high court judges last month merely said that it was for parliament to decide how to proceed. ] is not legally binding but that does not mean it’s not legally relevant. Eadie agreed that if the supreme court found against the government, then legislation would be needed. Closing the hearing, the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, said: “We are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum. The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect.
A statement released by the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, said: “The country voted to leave the European Union, in a referendum approved by an act of parliament. The government has argued throughout that no further act of parliament is needed to begin the process of leaving the EU. “There was a universal expectation that the referendum result would be honoured. Parliament will be closely involved in the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU over the coming months and years. “The tone of this week’s proceedings from everyone involved and many parts of the media showed respect, civility and professionalism and I very much hope that this will continue throughout the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. “Parliament debating and voting on a motion or resolution simply won’t suffice. I hope that the supreme court will uphold the high court ruling that article 50 cannot be triggered using the royal prerogative. Our case is that prerogative powers end where domestic law begins. Earlier in the day, the supreme court heard arguments that triggering article 50 without consulting the devolved assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast would dissolve “the glue” that holds together the UK’s unwritten constitution. The Sewel convention says that if Westminster is introducing legislation on issues that have been devolved, it “normally” has to seek the consent of the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. Helen Mountfield QC, for the crowdfunded People’s Challenge, accused the government of fictional creativity and myth-making in its assertion of its prerogative powers. “It’s much like attempts to catch the Loch Ness monster,” she said.
New Delhi’s attempts to make Indians link their bank accounts and mobile phones to a single identity card have been knocked down in a judgment that will place strict limits on the world’s most sophisticated digital identity scheme. India’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the so-called Aadhaar scheme was constitutional but companies would be unable to access citizen’s biometric or demographic data. The ruling was celebrated by privacy campaigners but there were also fears that it would hamper some fast-growing technology companies. Prasanna S, one of the lawyers arguing that Aadhaar violated Indians’ fundamental right to privacy, told the Financial Times: “The vision behind Aadhaar has been significantly curtailed. The previous government launched the Aadhaar project in 2009, aiming to give every one of its 1.3bn citizens a unique identity number, even if they lacked basic paperwork such as a birth certificate. Its proponents argued this was the best way to plug the country’s leaky welfare system and prevent people from falsely claiming benefits. The scheme’s supporters included high-profile personalities from international politics and business, including Bill Gates, who urged other countries to follow suit. Almost 10 years later, authorities said they had signed up 99 per cent of Indian adults, and the scope of the system had widened significantly. Instead of only being used to claim benefits, private companies — from banks and telecoms groups to digital payments companies — can now also ask for Aadhaar details as part of their registration process. It was also taken up enthusiastically by many Indian financial services and technology companies, which have used the Aadhaar system to authenticate new customers. For example, anyone wishing to open a digital wallet with Paytm — the digital payments company backed by Warren Buffett, Alibaba and SoftBank — can do so more quickly by using their Aadhaar details than any other identification. According to rules laid down by India’s central bank, they are also able to store and transfer more money.
I find it hard to believe that idiots are running the country. The debt ceiling crisis besides being a manufactured crisis is also not the big deal the peanut brain idiots of the Republican Party believe it is. Governments do 2 things: they collect taxes and they spend revenue. Raising a little more revenue is such a bitter pill that the idiots will in effect raise the cost of borrowing which of itself will be like a higher tax by putting the country into default. So, people that don’t understand economics or the capital markets for that matter, or how to govern, are making decisions based on false assumptions. Yes, if I was a single old man, with no other responsibilities to anyone else, I would look into leaving and living in another country. The bird size brain idiots in Congress, with their faith based reasoning, has put western civilization back at least 500 years. Stay tuned. This is just the beginning.
In 2008, the Supreme Court in Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms without regard to Militia service. That right, however, is not unlimited. Post-Heller, lower courts have struggled to turn the text of the decision into a workable approach for resolving Second Amendment challenges. Today, in United States v. Greeno (10-6279), the Sixth Circuit adopted the two-pronged test utilized by the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. Under the second prong, the court applies the “appropriate” level of scrutiny to the strength of the government’s justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of Second Amendment rights. The definition of “appropriate” is not defined. Mark Greeno was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received the standard two-level enhancement under Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for possession of a dangerous weapon. Greeno argued that the enhancement violated his post-Heller Second Amendment rights. The Court announced its adoption of the two-pronged test and dismissed Greeno’s challenge without reaching the second prong. The Court reasoned that, even in 1791, the Second Amendment only protected an individual’s right to possess a weapon for lawful purposes. The Court did not reach the second prong and so did not weigh in on what level of scrutiny it might apply.
Hi, I’m Matt. Many thanks a great deal for joining us. Nowadays I will be speaking about a few phrases that are simply baffled. And these are typically some Authorized English words and phrases That always come up all through my Authorized English courses. In case you have a look to the board, you’ve got some sets of terms there which have really equivalent but still unique meanings and also the distinctions are essential. I will Supply you with a handful of times to have a think about the to start with 3 sets of text. We’ve got Best Lawyer in Supreme Court and Best Lawyer in Supreme Court . Act of God and pressure majeure. Damages and compensation. And that i’d like you to think about what these text imply and what the main difference is amongst Every of these sets of phrases. Let’s have a look at these initial two, Best Lawyer in Supreme Court and Best Lawyer in Supreme Court .
You’re almost certainly familiar with the phrase Best Lawyer in Supreme Court . Best Lawyer in Supreme Court is a standard time period in American Lawful English for Best Lawyer in Supreme Court . Best Lawyer in Supreme Court isn’t really the identical. Best Lawyer in Supreme Court is distinct to England and plenty of Commonwealth nations around the world, and It truly is a certain kind of Best Lawyer in Supreme Court . And in the united kingdom we contrast the time period Best Lawyer in Supreme Court with A different branch on the lawful job, the Best Lawyer in Supreme Court . Now, just one of those, the Best Lawyer in Supreme Court or even the Best Lawyer in Supreme Court has rights of audience at court docket. That means which they can go and represent clientele at courtroom and perform the advocacy perform. One of them does the preparation – most of the do the job that sales opportunities around the actual advocacy operate in court.
WASHINGTON — In the initial flurry of e-mails and Twitter comments about the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday on affirmative action, the metaphor of choice was football. The Supreme Court had punted, the comments said, by sending the case back to a federal appeals court for further review. But a number of other legal experts — some of them strong supporters of affirmative action — are reading Monday’s decision as going well beyond a punt. They argue that the conditions being set by the Supreme Court for colleges to successfully defend the consideration of race will be hard for the University of Texas and many institutions to meet. What the court decided to do, these experts argue, was let lower courts restrict affirmative action, rather than having a decisive ruling from Washington do so. One thing legal experts agreed on: The Fisher case and the debates over affirmative action in higher education are far from over. And many expect to see the Texas case return to the Supreme Court.
At issue in the case was the right of the University of Texas to consider race and ethnicity in admissions when the university had already identified another means by which to create diverse student bodies. Because Texas has many high schools that are almost entirely black or entirely Latino, this law means that the University of Texas at Austin is sure to admit black and Latino applicants. Fisher’s challenge was to the consideration of race for the slots not given out through percent plan admissions. The university has maintained that it wouldn’t have enough diversity (particularly in some fields of study) if it relied only on the percent admissions plan. Fisher and her backers disagree. Monday’s ruling didn’t say who was right. Rather, it said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had erred in not applying “strict scrutiny” (a very high standard) when it reviewed the university’s defense of its admissions practices and found that Fisher did not have a case. The Supreme Court’s decision — 7-1, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the author — ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case, this time applying strict scrutiny.
Justice Kennedy’s decision seemingly had something to offer to defenders and critics of affirmative action alike. He cited the Bakke and Grutter decisions (from 1978 and 2003, respectively), both rulings that upheld the right of colleges to consider race and ethnicity in admissions for the educational purpose of creating a diverse student body. Some in higher education had feared (and some critics of affirmative action had hoped) that the Supreme Court would use the Fisher case as an opportunity to reverse Grutter and effectively bar colleges from considering race. The decision not to take on Grutter was at the heart of numerous press releases from pro-affirmative action groups praising Monday’s ruling. In his opinion on Fisher, Kennedy stressed that issue. The following are links to some of the most recent opinion pieces Inside Higher Ed has published on the case. Berneta Haynes writes about how she benefited from affirmative action. Richard Kahlenberg predicts increased reliance on socioeconomic status in admissions decisions. Aaron Taylor considers the role of Justice Kennedy. Len Niehoff explains why he considers diversity essential in the classroom. Of course it is not a surprise that, in the wake of Monday’s ruling, Fisher and her lawyers predicted that they would win at the appeals court level. But many who support affirmative action are finding that to be a live possibility after Monday’s ruling. Robert M. O’Neil, professor of law emeritus at the University of Virginia and former president of that institution, is also a supporter of affirmative action. O’Neil said that the University of Texas lawyers have cause to celebrate “for the next 18 hours,” because the court didn’t reverse Grutter. But he said that the language in Kennedy’s decision means that Texas can’t just make the same arguments again. As to what argument would work, O’Neil said, “I”m not sure I know what it is.
Monken, the challenge to Illinois’s FOID Card regulation brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, has been reassigned from Chief District Court Judge Michael McCuskey to newly confirmed District Court Judge Sue E. Myersclough. It is a common occurance for new judges to have cases reassigned to them. I am not sure how this will impact the case. If you will remember, back in November Judge McCuskey denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case. His decison seemed to portend good things for this case as it went to trial. Judge Myersclough served from 1998 until her confirmation as a judge on the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District. From 1990 to 1998, Myersclough was a Circuit Judge for the Circuit Court of Illinois, Seventh Judicial Circuit. Both of these courts meet in Springfield. She was nominated by President Obama in July 2010 and confirmed by the Senate in February 2011. Myersclough was nominated back in 1995 by President Bill Clinton for a District Court Judgeship but was not confirmed.
Myersclough is a graduate of Southern Illinois University taking her B.A. 1973 and her J.D. 1980. According to the public questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she also did graduate study at both Southern Illinois and the University of Chicago before attending law school. As to her political leanings, she is a Democrat as would be expected. She had won a few awards from state and local Democratic committees for service over the years. The important thing for us is how she would deal with Second Amendment rights. She did get a couple of questions for the record on Second Amendment issues from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Do you believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right? Please explain your answer. Response: The Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct.
3020 (2010) hold that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. What standard of scrutiny do you believe is appropriate in a Second Amendment challenge against a Federal or State gun law? Second Amendment must be treated in the same manner as any fundamental right identified in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment right to bear arms should therefore not be treated as a “watered down right” subject to “judicial interest balancing.” See Heller, 128 S. C. at 2821; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. What limitations remain on the individual Second Amendment right now that it has been incorporated against the States? Response: What limits remain on the Second Amendment remain open but for those limits expressly set forth by the Supreme Court as presumptively lawful regulations in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. Is it limited only to possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home, since both Heller and McDonald involved cases of handgun possession for self-defense in the home? Response: Both Heller and McDonald specifically found city ordinances unconstitutional that prohibited handgun possession in the home. The Supreme Court has left open for future evaluations examples of other limits on the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court made clear that core protections are conferred by the Second Amendment. ]” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. I guess that is the best one could hope to hear from any nominee for a District Court judgeship. She does note that it is a “fundamental right”.
Looking for news you can trust? Subscribe to our free newsletters. The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower-court order requiring voters in North Dakota to present certain forms of identification and proof of their residential address in order to cast a ballot in next month’s elections. A case challenging this requirement on behalf of the state’s sizable Native American populations alleged that the requirement would disenfranchise tribal residents, many of whom lack the proper identification and do not have residential addresses on their identification cards. The Supreme Court’s order will likely make it harder for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, to retain her seat in November. Heitkamp won her seat by less than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong backing from Native Americans, and she is the only statewide elected Democrat. North Dakota Republicans began changing voting rules to make it harder to cast a ballot months after Heitkamp’s victory six years ago. Republicans have claimed the changes to voter ID requirements are intended to stop voter fraud, even though in-person fraud is exceedingly rare.