What was Sandra Day O'Conner's judicial philosophy?
403641
A former Republican state legislator appointed to the high court by Ronald Reagan -- she was a conservative in a court that has drifted further and further to the right. Her vote was often critical in closely-divided, controversial decisions -- from environmental protection to civil rights to reproductive rights including the mother's-health exception.
489409
Judiciary is one of the three branches: legislative, executive, judicial. If legislative branch prepares laws, judiciary controls their fulfilment and punishes those who don't obey. Constitution stipulates the main democratic principles and judges should follow them when making final decision. Judges should first of all be just, impartial. However everyone makes mistakes, even absolutely just, reliable people may blame innocent person. So generally even very good rules have gaps....
264872
general principle: article 6 and 11 of the Maastricht threaty.\ncharter of fundamental rights (that is more a declaration of principles).\nthe Court of justice also protect human rights with his jurisprudence
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.
66048
Chief Justice Robert J. Sheran was a former SA in Chicago.\n\nChief Justice James Renwick McMillan learned law from the U.S. Secretary of War under President Lincoln.
609749
Although imaginative, your idea would violate the "cases and controversies" clause in Article 3 of the Constitution.  That clause has been interpreted to mean only actual cases in which a person who has really been affected or is about to be affected brings an actual controversy before the courts.  US federal courts can not try to imagine how a law or Presidential act is going to play out and just decide it's unconstitutional.  Somebody always has to file an actual lawsuit or be charged with an actual crime before the courts have any power to do anything in our system -- which sorta deflates the nonsense we hear about activist judges in this country.\n\nIn many other countries, including many European democracies, the system works differently.  Those countries often have "constitutional courts" that basically check laws as they're being made to decide whether they are going to be ok or not.  If not, they are often returned to parliament to be re-worked.  Of course, courts in general there work very, very differently from what we're used to in the US, and they are not always an independent branch like they are here.  That's why it makes sense to limit the power of our federal courts by making them more passive, removing their ability to have a voice on subjects where no real trouble has yet arisen.\n\nAlso, the Constitution's second Article gives the President a lot of trust and authority precisely so our country would have somebody in a position to handle emergencies quickly and without long debates.  The President has a duty to keep secrets, even from the courts unless -- yup, unless an actual case or controversy comes from a valid lawsuit or a criminal charge.  Making the President keep members of the judicial branch around with him to hear all his secrets would violate the separation of powers that is so important to the structure of our republic.\n\nIn any case, we do have judges who sit in special federal courts, where the judges have top security clearance and are supposed to review the President's activities, grant or deny him search warrants, and that sort of thing.  Sadly, this President has decided that, despite what the laws say, he can ignore that court and its judges.  I see little reason at this point to trust that he would cooperate with judges or obey their rulings in your plan any more than he already has in reality.
270932
Chief Justice Warren Burger \nAssociate Justices William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, William Rehnquist \n\n\n\nMajority by: Blackmun \nJoined by: Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell \nConcurrence by: Burger \nConcurrence by: Douglas \nConcurrence by: Stewart \nDissent by: White \nJoined by: Rehnquist \nDissent by: Rehnquist
116819
There are several. Here's a list of a few:\n1. Invasion of privacy. Often people claim that doing such invades their privacy and is unconstitutional.\n2. Freedom of Religion. Some religions allow the husband to beat the wife, and even set forth guidelines for how and when.\n3. Women's Fears. Women often recant. They claim that they were wrong and drop charges, etc. Usually they do so out of fear.\n4. Restraining Orders are WORTHLESS. It is only a piece of paper and the punishment for breaking one is close to nothing. Unfortunately the victim often ends up debilitated or dead.\n5. People have not passed effective legislation to punish violence.\n6. Legal Precedent. Judges must interpret the laws and consider legal precedent. A "radical" decision is easily contested by arguing precedent.\n\nThese are only a few problems. Many many more exist.
250216
is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.
817133
Whatever the judge says.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
140455
You may be thinking of the two strands of due process, procedural due process and substantive due process.  Procedural due process requires that the procedures used in your case be fair -- in criminal cases, e.g., you have a right to know the charges, confront witnesses, often have a jury trial, etc.   Substantive due process invokes the idea that there are some fundamental rights which cannot be taken away by law: one in the news these days is the right to privacy (and whether it extends to abortion, contraception, a right to die, gay marriage, etc.)\n\nEither strand can implicate the notion of a right to equality.  Under procedural due process you have the right to the same procedures as others similarly situated, and under substantive due process your rights can not be restricted based on unjustified distinctions between you and another class of people.
755419
I would listen to both the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's story. I would listen to how they both are talking, if they are stuttering a lot that a negative for me also if they are looking me dead in my eye also if they have all their papers(Records, Evidence, Etc.).\nOf course I would make sure each of there stories any possible sense at all. \nI would base my decision on what is right and correct. Also what I'm allowed to do. Also I would base my decisions on each persons Constitutional rights. If one of the people have a problem with my decision thats there problem. Also I would base my decisions on life lessons and what the her/she needs to learn.
532042
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)[1], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.\n\nThe decision in Roe v. Wade prompted a decades-long national debate over whether terminating pregnancies should be legal (or more precisely, whether a state can deem the act illegal if it chooses to do so); the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication; and the role of religious views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade became one of the most politically significant Supreme Court decisions in history, reshaping national politics, dividing the nation into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps, and inspiring grassroots activism.\n\nOpposition to Roe comes primarily from those who viewed the Court's decision as illegitimate for straying too far from the text and history of the Constitution, and those possessing beliefs about the personhood of fetal human life.\n\nSupport for Roe comes from those who view the decision as necessary to preserve women's equality and personal freedom, and those who believe in the privacy of individual over collective rights, although the opposition to Roe often reference the privacy of the individual when referring to the unborn child.
860322
In a recent courtroom drama, accused murderer Jack Merridew was almost attacked by fellow defendant Ralph Grant following his statement in the investigation surrounding the deaths on the island. (Nether) boys are in custody.\n\n(the) courtroom environment that had begun in silence erupted into a flurry of activity when Mr. Merridew provided details into the deaths of some of the boys which provoked an outburst by Mr. Grant. He got up from his seating screaming, “You’re such a liar!” His lawyer, Will Hayden, tried to calm him down. Mr. Grant flew out of his chair in a rage and could hardly be stopped. Running to the stand, intending to attack Mr. Merridew but being restrained by the police in time. \n\nsounds great to me! A worthy =)
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.
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.