How did the Supreme Court challenge the New Deal?
344704
The Supreme Court was made of strict conservative judges.  The New Deal policies were quite radical.  The Supreme Court basically rejected several of the New Deal ideas FDR put forth.  For example, the Supreme Court ruled the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act) unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court then rejected the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act).
42919
comes from Marbury v. Madison.  It gave the court the right to decide the constitutionality of a law
1138305
It created the "inferior" courts authorized in Article III of the Constitution.\n\nIt created 13 federal District Courts, and three appellate Circuits. It also determined the number of Justices on the supreme court, and established appellate review of circuit court decisions.
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
916617
1925-- Carroll vs. United States. Supreme Court allows searches of automobiles without a search warrant under some circumstances. \n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=267&invol=132
802114
You can appeal TO the Supreme Court, but you cannot appeal the final determination of the Supreme Court.  The only thing to do then is get Congress to change the law.
337293
The first instance of it was in 1866 appearing under the umbrella of civil rights laws.   \n  \nOriginally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... " \n\nIn 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. \n\nIn 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 which outlawed segregationist hiring policies by defense-related industries which held federal contracts. Roosevelt's signing of this order was a direct result of efforts by Black trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. \n\nDuring 1953 President Harry S. Truman's Committee on Government Contract Compliance urged the Bureau of Employment Security "to act positively and affirmatively to implement the policy of nondiscrimination . . . ." \n\nThe 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. The actual phrase "affirmative action" was first used in President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 which requires federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." \n\nIn 1967, Johnson expanded the Executive Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women. \nOther equal protection laws passed to make discrimination illegal were the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title II and VII of which forbid racial discrimination in "public accommodations" and race and sex discrimination in employment, respectively; and the 1965 Voting Rights Act adopted after Congress found "that racial discrimination in voting was an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of the country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution." \n\nMuch of the opposition to affirmative action is framed on the grounds of so-called "reverse discrimination and unwarranted preferences." In fact, less than 2 percent of the 91,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission are reverse discrimination cases. Under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications.
1002168
(taken directly from Wikipedia; words within < > are linked under sources):\n\nThe Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the <Judiciary Act of 1789>. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. \n\nIn 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the <Judicial Circuits Act>, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the <Circuit Judges Act of 1869>, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. \n\nINTERESTING NOTE: President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.
340101
The Supreme Court hears arguments from both parties to the case.  A party may decide to use public opinion as part of their argument, but decisions on constitutional questions are typically decided based on the text of the constitution, the historical reasons for adopting the provision in question & previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  Decisions from lower courts, both state and federal, are relevant considerations, but it's not necessary for them to decide.
573184
1.  A.  Traffic courts have limited jurisdiction.\n\n2.  D.  WPA was supposed to help America through the Great Depression.  What actually got America out of the Great Depression was the buildup necessary to fight World War II.\n\n3.  A.  Don't quote me, but I believe it's Oregon.\n\n4.  A, possibly C.  The rights read to someone are actually the Miranda rights, coming from the Miranda vs. Arizona case in 1966 (I'm not sure if that's the case that you're trying to quote in C).  The right to remain silent stems from the Fifth Amendment right to "not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself" (paraphrased).  Marbury alludes back to the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1801, where Marbury was a midnight appointment of outgoing president John Adams, who James Madison, the new Secretary of State, refused to grant credentials to.
962593
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. The Circuit Judges Act of 1869 again set the number of judges at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since.\n\nPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in his proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. His plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice; upon his death in 1945, all but one of the Court's members were his appointees.
1053297
The US Government (The Roosevelt Administration) came up with the New Deal.  There is plenty written on that and should be available on Google.  The New Deal brought more people out of poverty and into the middle class than any social policy ever has.
326885
The Wikipedia entry gives a good little background summary, something like this: \n\nIn late 1828, the state of Georgia was afraid the federal government would not be able to follow through on their promise to remove the Cherokee Nation from Georgia. So the state started taking steps to strip the Cherokee Nation of their rights, in the hopes of forcing them out. In the usual manner of things (lawsuits, lobbying, etc.), the case wound up in the Supreme Court.\n\nA Cherokee delegation selected William Wirt as their defense, and asked for -- and here I'm going to quote Wiki directly as it's hard to paraphrase ...\n\n"an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislature had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society". Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law..." and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee territory on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.\n\nThe injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a domestic dependent nation, over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdication in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee."\n\nThe other site I've linked to looks like the official ruling on the case. (With all its lovely legalese)
317742
First, spell it right:  Supreme Court.\n\nSecond, find what you are rebutting.\n\nThird, rebut it.
199989
I believe that FDR wins on both count.  FDR brought out the New Deal to helped to bring America out of the Depression that saw huge unemployment of the people.  FDR was also there for foreign affairs in forging a relationship with the Soviet Union and UK to find the Axis powers.
255314
You can read them here:\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZS.html
417983
That trial was ultimately heard before the Supreme Court. Their opinion is at the site below. The ruling goes over the District ruling in detail.\n\nEdit:\nDon't pay for that crap in the site above. It's just a poorly written essay about the cases, not the opinion itself, which is available freely below.