When swearing in a Supreme Court Justice, what book, if any, does the Justice place his/her hand on?
536260
No book.\nHe just raised his right arm and "affirmed".
204396
Go here:\n\nhttp://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/immbillintro12605.pdf\n\nand then scroll down to a link that is lit up in blue which should take you to the actual pdf document with every last word on it.\n\nHappy reading. (169 pages)
742348
You are incorrect. The Cheif Justice presides over the Sumpreme Court.  The Court rules on the constitutinoality of laws passed by the legislature and signed by the president.  It's system of checks and balances and no branch of government "presides" of another.
246073
i dont know of a book but i think you should look up some old cases an pertend that you are the lawer but make notes for both partys and have some one be the lawer for one side and you be the other
1011217
Great question...I'm stealing it for debate class. Also, what if it is someone who does not acknowledge the bible (any other religon) do they need to swear on their own text?
741490
See US Constitution:  Bill of Rights.\n\nAs written, not as perverted by activist justices.
616184
Your county law library -- the librarian can help you.  If you don't have a county law library, by some chance; call some law firms -- they often maintain libraries.\n\nIf you need help determining what book to look in, where -- e-mail me.  If I have time to look online, I will & will edit this or e-mail you.\n\n[EDIT]  I did a relatively quick search and found these:\n\nHustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).  This case can be found (word for word) at:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=485&invol=46\n\nIn it, you will find a lot of cases that were relied on to support this decision, so look for the cases cites.  (U.S. = Supreme Court cases; F. or F. Supp., = Federal (district) cases.) \n\nI forget exactly what's at this site.  I think it's another case, with case law cited also:  http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/tortsF01/IIEM.htm\n\nThere is general info at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress  \n\nPut IIED (abbreviated and/or spelled out, in quotes) in the search box at www.findlaw.com -- you might find some cases.\n\nI'll let you know if I find anything else.\n\n[EDIT]  This site has to do with bullying in the workplace.  9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  \nhttp://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050920.html\n\n[EDIT]  If you find a U.S. Case you want to read, go to this page.  I believe you can pull up the case (word for word) by clicking on the appropriate link (on this page) and then the name/cite of the case.  \nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/casefinder.html\n\n\n\n[EDIT]  I found more for you.  Amongst websites (below) that you may be interested in, there are Cases cited.  The cases cited all have Federal cases (cited) within them, so look at the body of the decisions for more case law.  The case I've cited may not be (exactly) what you want, but cases within them may be.\n\nThe U.S. Legal Landscape: Evolving Towards Protecting Employees Against Bullying At Work; Possible Theories Of Employer Liability: How Employers Could Be On The Hook \nThe Hostile Working Environment Harassment Theory:  EEOC v. National Education Association Alaska, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005) at\nhttp://www.lorman.com/seminars/teleconference.php?product_id=152654&topic=LB\n\n\nThis is an excellent site for info (perhaps).  The case I've cited below com from it: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/studies.html\n\nTwo US Supreme Court summer 1998 decisions that made employers responsible ("vicarious liability") for harassment and discrimination by management who act as "agents" of employers:\n\n(1)  Burlington Industries vs. Ellerth,  123 F.3d 490 (1998), affirmed.  This decision fixes "vicarious liability" for illegal harassment on the employer. Supervisors are agents of the employer.    http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/ellerth.html \n\n(2)  Faragher vs. City of Boca Raton, 111 F. 3d 1530 (1998), reversed and remanded.  This decision assigns liability for illegal harassment to the employer whether or not the employer was aware of its occurrence.  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/faragher.html\n\nAlso:  http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/eeocnea.html   This case illustrates an alternative motivational theory in which an abusive bully takes advantage of a traditionally female workplace because he is more comfortable when bullying women than when bullying men.   CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.  [This may be the same case I cited above, or related to, 422 F. 3d 840 (9th Cir. 2005).  Read the entire Ruling (in .pdf format) -- a lot of federal cases cited.]
169146
TJustices sit according to seniority. The Chief Justice sits in the center. The Associate Justices on sit on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate left, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the right farthest away from the Chief Justice. \n\nIf you looked at the current court, left to right:\n\nBreyer, Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito.
902816
D\nArticle Three describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court.
822083
I'm trying to do this by memory, so here goes. ........\n\n"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must conceive that the judiciary, from the nature of its power, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse, no influence over either the strength or wealth of a society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive department even for the efficacy of its judgments."\n\nI hope I got that right.\n\nIn terms of REstating Hamilton, instead of just quoting him, I'll explain that Hamilton meant that the judiciary has the weakest power of the three branches of government. The judiciary is weakest because it cannot make the other two branches do anything. The judges merely hand down "judgments," which do not have the force of law unless the executive branch chooses to obey the judiciary, and the executive branch doesn't have to do so. Even when Congress has made a law that the judiciary subsequently says is unconstitutional, the executive can choose to continue enforcing that law, effectively thumbing its nose at the judiciary.
820324
Affidevit in a court.
901998
u gotta give the court caption and the court name before someone can comment
238656
Our Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President.  They go through confirmation hearings in Congress and are approved by a vote of the Senate.  They are appointed for life or until their voluntary retirement as that of Sandra Day O'Connor within the past couple of months.
256465
Justice Stevens because he violates his oath to protect the constitution by using foreign law to determine cases instead of the constitution and the Federalist Papers
99465
The new Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is John Roberts.
208008
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/SENSEN_104_XML.pdf\n\nor for a summary\n\nhttp://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdf/immbillsection.pdf
1052829
Where did you read that- in 2nd Opinions ch 3