![law argument](https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/33665053/skeleton-argument","murl":"https://img.yumpu.com/26503335/1/358x462/presentation-notes-student-press-law-center.jpg)
Yesterday 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.
![law argument](http://hsmmlogistics.com/research-paper-on-jim-crow-laws.html","murl":"https://ecdn.teacherspayteachers.com/thumbitem/Jim-Crow-Laws-Article-Questions-DBQs-Civil-Rights-Movement-US-History-1665001-1500875422/original-1665001-2.jpg)
The 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.