“Bad legislation” argument in Morgentaler v. The Queen.

law argumentYesterday the justices heard argument in Mathena v. Malvo, during which convicted D.C.-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo is asking the court docket to overturn his sentence of life without parole for murders dedicated in Virginia in 2002, when Malvo was 17. Amy Howe has this weblog’s argument evaluation, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Fox News, Barnini Chakraborty and Bill Mears report that the court grappled with “whether or not Malvo, now 34, must be resentenced in Virginia in mild of a pair of recent Supreme Court rulings proscribing life-with out-parole sentences for crimes committed by juveniles.” Ariane de Vogue stories at CNN that “the justices struggled for more than an hour discussing the impression of their own prior circumstances as well as the small print regarding Virginia’s sentencing scheme.” Audio protection of the argument comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR. At Quartz, Ephrat Livni argues that “[a] win for Malvo … would convey the harshly punitive American strategy a little closer to being consistent with the remainder of the globe.” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger presents his “preliminary impressions” of the oral argument, and concludes that “[w]ith this many splits among the Justices, there is no predicting the end result.” Additional commentary on the argument comes from Mark Joseph Stern at Slate (by way of How Appealing).

The patient argued that as a result of the Moeller court docket addressed the query of whether a hospital might be held vicariously answerable for the negligence of … Read More

View More “Bad legislation” argument in Morgentaler v. The Queen.

Legal argument definition and which means

law argument

FIRST LOOK: Two Lawyers Analyze Tuesday’s LGBTQ Supreme Court Argument

The Grampus arrived at New Haven three days earlier than the choice of Judge Judson was pronounced. Her appearance there, in January, when the odd navigation of Long Island Sound is suspended, coming from the adjoining naval station at Brooklyn, naturally excited shock, curiosity, suspicion. What could be the motive of the Secretary of the Navy for ordering a public vessel of the United States upon such a service at such a time? Why should her commander, her officers and crew be uncovered, in the most tempestuous and the coldest month of the yr, at once to the snowy hurricanes of the northeast, and the ice-certain shores of the northwest? These had been questions necessarily occurring to the minds of every witness to this strange and sudden apparition.

In the primary argument, on sexual-orientation discrimination, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. posed skeptical questions to Pamela S. Karlan, a lawyer for two males who said they’d been fired for being homosexual. WASHINGTON — In a pair of exceptionally exhausting-fought arguments on Tuesday, the Supreme Court struggled to decide whether or not a landmark 1964 civil rights regulation bars employment discrimination primarily based on sexual orientation and transgender status. 7. By depart of the Court, and topic to paragraph 4 of this Rule, counsel for an amicus curiae whose temporary has been filed as provided in Rule 37 could argue orally on the side of a party, with the consent of that … Read More

View More Legal argument definition and which means

Rule 28. Oral Argument

law argumentThe Supreme Court has determined precisely one case involving the privilege, and even that decision—within the Watergate tapes case, United States v. Nixon—raised as many questions as it answered. One cause courts have traditionally had so little to say about the privilege is because, because the Congressional Research Service defined in 2014, “[t]he overwhelming majority of those disputes are resolved by way of political negotiation and accommodation.” Most privilege claims come up in disputes between Congress and the executive department, and most of the time, the involved events are in a position to attain some sort of compromise—or the relevant administration and/or Congress ends—before the dispute is conclusively settled by the courts.

Stanford University Navigation

Yesterday the justices heard argument in Mathena v. Malvo, by which convicted D.C.-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo is asking the court to overturn his sentence of life with out parole for murders committed in Virginia in 2002, when Malvo was 17. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument evaluation, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Fox News, Barnini Chakraborty and Bill Mears report that the court grappled with “whether Malvo, now 34, must be resentenced in Virginia in light of a pair of recent Supreme Court rulings restricting life-with out-parole sentences for crimes dedicated by juveniles.” Ariane de Vogue reports at CNN that “the justices struggled for greater than an hour discussing the influence of their very own prior instances as well as the small print concerning Virginia’s sentencing scheme.” Audio protection of … Read More

View More Rule 28. Oral Argument