was there a vote taken that kept justice souter from loseing home to domain??
85660
Revenge?\n\nNo, it is not revenge.  It is economic growth for that community to have a resort hotel founded on the principle of Liberty and personal property rights.  Souter will be paid a "fair market value" for his home, so according to his own legal opinion, his rights are not being trampled!
780103
I think there may be The Rutheford Institute, and Jay Sekulow's American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ)...there are others as well. Use Google!  (I wonder what happened?)
261742
All the time.  There was the whole line of commerce clause cases and "the switch in time that saved nine."  \n\nThe Court doesn't like to seem mercurial or indecisive.  Frequently, when it wants to change its stance on an issue, it does so in terms that make it seem like it's "clarifying" its opinion or modifying it or applying it to new facts.  Frequently, they just start chipping away little by little until, after a number of years, nothing is left of the old decision even though there was no one decision that reversed it.
1132989
Mr. Abdulaq,  Many years ago my ancestors had there homeland literally stolen from them,  no vote at all was taken.  We were FORCED onto reservations where we live to this day in peace and harmony.  We chose not to make our own lives miserable by fighting the will of the gods or of God.  Be of peace and good will and you will find favor with the gods or of God.
882125
I didn't mind Property I, which at my school dealt with creation versus finding property, and lost/misplaced items. Call me strange, but I even enjoyed future interests and the Rule Against Perpetuities. I just had a great professor that made it funny.\n\nWhat I couldn't wrap my head around was zoning, or nuisance laws. Fortunately, neither of those came up on the California bar last July, and I'm hoping (knock on wood) neither come up on the Oregon bar in February.
38811
He is expected to be confirmed this month.  He will take over for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  He will not be able to rule on any cases that has been heard by the court with Justice O'Connor.  Those cases might have to be reheard by the court if there is a tie, since only 8 members of the court can vote on those cases.
213039
You can't remove a seated judge unless you can prove something so scandelous that the public outcry forces a recall.  This is fairly rare.
203050
This is what happend in the United States when an activist Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a "Living Document".\n\nSeveral democrats have been recently quoted as having concerns about Judicial nominees because the courts can "make laws".\n\nThis is not true.  Judges "interpret" law.  \n\nLiberal activist judges "interpret" law like Clinton "interprets" fidelity and integrity.\n\nCongress "makes" law.  Citizens "make" case law.
943709
Looking more closely at this issue, I can see why you want a specific source.\n\nThe only person who I can find that claims Justice Thomas said this is Frank J Ranelli, in his piece "One Nation Under “Whose God is it Anyway?” from October 27, 2006.  As a columnist, he doesn't seem to feel the need to cite his sources.\n\nAnd the thing is, IF Justice Thomas did say this, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he has said at other times.  Specifically, in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow he puts in a long opinion about what the constitution has to say about the government's ability to suppress or endorse religion (link 1, below).  The specific quote that interests me is this:\n\n"The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."\n\nIn other words, Justice Thomas is of the opinion that it is PERFECTLY OKAY for any one or even all states to declare a state religion and eforce it.  Just not the federal government.  In other sections of his opinion on that case, he even says that other decisions which made other forms of religious expression illegal are just plain wrong.\n\nThus, if he DID make the statement that Ranelli says he did (which I cannot find an actual source for anywhere), it would seem to be contrary to his views expressed when he is actually doing his job.  A legally enforced, punishable, state-based religion is apparently peachy keen to him.  Yikes.
208240
No.  It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 238-182 and was referred to the Senate where it is currently located in the Judiciary Committee.
148013
As flamedragon correctly points out, he didn't win, he lost. Darrow and his clients, Scopes and the ACLU, always knew they would lose the case and that was their intent. They wanted to lose the case and they did lose it.\n\nThe whole intention was for Darrow and Scopes to lose the case so it could be appealed to the Supreme Court and the law it was tried under proved unconstiutional.
708820
What a travesty of justice, the judge needs to be disbarred and thrown bodily off his/her bench.  I think its very patriotic of the mayor of Hazelton that he decided to continue the fight, this is what all Americans need to do, take the fight to the legal system, challenge the status quo, set precedents that serve the best interests of this country.  Any one want to take up residence in Hazelton to displace the criminal trespassing element?, That would be very patriotic.  Thanks for the informative article.
231676
What state?  What ruling?
120205
YOU BET I DO!!!!! The reason for this ammendment is to prevent liberal activist judges(On all levels) from legislating from the bench!!!  The Howard Dean left has lost all elections & the only avenues they have left are the biased liberal media & the courts!
898075
I can't find the text of the decision online, but if you have access to LexisNexis or Westlaw, the citation for the case is 595 F. Supp. 1521. You could also go to a law library and look it up in the Federal Reporter. The ruling was made by a Connecticut Federal District Court in 1984.
954225
Indeed, very dangerous. Judges are intended to interpret the law but have been using their power to create the law. That is very bad. Impeachment or recall are the only real options for activist judges.
590578
Probably not, but I think they did rig the votes.  It doesn't matter, because he has people calling him already.  Maybe that's why they let him go.