What late Supreme Court Justice was a leader in this case?
87924
Justice Thurgood Marshall
365540
Pick any case that the Supremes have accepted for argument but not yet heard.  Do a complete review of the history of whatever the point of law is.  Talk about the oposing views.  Resolve the question however the hell you want.  Predict that the Supremes will come to the same conclusion.  Give it to the editors.  Go get drunk.
647535
I'm not sure if you can find this information easily (maybe if you call your local Republican or Democratic party headquarters or your local courthouse?).\n\nRegardless, hopefully the Judge hands down his ruling independently based on the evidence and precedent, not his political leanings.
1755
The Warren Court era, generally thought of as '63-69, though he (Earl Warren) was on the court for Brown v. Board of Education in 1955
569347
John Roberts (Chief Justice) and Samuel Alito
57443
John Roberts\n\nBio:\nJohn Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. Roberts previously was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, spent 14 years in private law practice and held positions in Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel.
209430
Supreme court justices aren't considered a political position so they aren't denoted by party affiliation. One can assume he is Republican since he was appointed by Reagan both to a lower court and to the Supreme Court.\n\nAll the Supreme court justices were appointed by republicans except Ginsburg and Breyer.\n\nBTW. The Supreme Court Justice's political affiliation does not always translate into doing what that party wants on the court. Some of the more liberal justices to serve on the court in the past 50 years (Earl Warren, Stevens, Souter) have been Republican. Conservative Byron White was a lifetime Democrat.
457378
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - John Roberts (2005)\n\nAssociate Justices of the Supreme Court -\nJohn Paul Stevens (1975)\nAntonin Scalia (1986)\nAnthony Kennedy (1988)\nDavid Souter (1990)\nClarence Thomas (1991)\nRuth Bader Ginsburg (1993)\nSteven Breyer (1994)\nSamuel Alito (2006)
127083
There are thousands of women in our justice system.  The most high-profile one at the moment is probably Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a Supreme Court justice.  Another prominent one was Sandra Day O'Conner, who was a Supreme Court justice, but she has recently stepped down.
366424
Not too many years after being President, William H. Taft was appointed Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.  Among the Associate Justices he worked with were Oliver Wendell Holmes and William Brandise. (spelling)
144684
John Roberts is the Chief Justice, Samuel Alito is the new judge. Both appointed by G.W. Bush.
85645
The short answer is that John Roberts is the new Chief Justice of the United States.\n\nThe long answer?  John Roberts was originally nominated to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  When Rehnquist died in office, the President changed Roberts' nomination papers to fill Rehnquist's seat instead.  The President then nominated Harriet Miers (who would withdraw) and Samuel Alito to the remaining seat.
721913
Stephen G. Breyer\nRuth Bader Ginsburg\nClarence Thomas\nDavid H. Souter\nAnthony Kennedy\nWilliam H. Rhenquist\nAntonin Scalia\nSandra Day O'Connor\nJohn Paul Stevens
1021782
Looks like 9-0\n\nBURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., post, p. 570, and POWELL, J., post, p. 571, filed concurring opinions. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which STEWART and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 572. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 617. [541]
460265
Marbury v. Madison set a precedent of judicial review in 1803.  Marbury sued Madison (then Sec. of State under Thomas Jefferson) for not delivering his court appointment papers.  Marbury was one of the "Midnight Judges" that President John Adams was assigning to a federal court before the Federalists lost power. Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to issue a "writ of mandemus" (order Madison to do something) for Madison to deliver his conscription.  John Marshall (Chief Justice presiding over the case) wrote the option for the case. The case established judicial review (ability to declare a law unconstitutional) by declaring the writ of mandemus law unconstitutional. The case also said that Marbury deserved to have his papers delivered but that it couldn't order Madison to deliver them.
748963
Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsberg, Breyer.
168235
U.S. Supreme Court\nHAMMER v. DAGENHART\n 247 U.S. 251 (1918)\nDecided June 3, 1918.\n\nMr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. \nA bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by a father in his own behalf and as next friend of his two minor sons, one under the age of fourteen years and the other between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, employes in a cotton mill at Charlotte, North Carolina, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of Congress intended to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Act Sept. 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 675.... \nThe attack upon the act rests upon three propositions: First: It is not a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce; second: It contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; third: It conflicts with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. \nThe controlling question for decision is: Is it within the authority of Congress in regulating commerce among the states to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of manufactured goods, the product of a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of fourteen have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or before the hour of 6 o'clock a. m.? \nThe power essential to the passage of this act, the government contends, is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. \nIn Gibbons v. Ogdon, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, and defining the extent and nature of the commerce power, said, 'It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.' In other words, the power is one to control the means by which commerce is carried on, which is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving and thus destroying it as to particular commodities. But it is insisted that adjudged cases in this court establish the doctrine that the power to regulate given to Congress incidentally includes the authority to prohibit the movement of ordinary commodities and therefore that the subject is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They rest upon the character of the particular subjects dealt with and the fact that the scope of governmental authority, state or national, possessed over them is such that the authority to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate.... \nIn each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. In other words, although the power over interstate transportation was to regulate, that could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to effect the evil intended. \nThis element is wanting in the present case. The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the states who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. \nCommerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation