is the united states spreme court strict or loose interpitation?
604219
I would think they are strict.
762208
This might be an unpopular answer, and personally, I don't like the amount of illegal immigration going on.... but.....\n\nThe court system has two puropses. The first is to determine guilt or innocense when a crime is comitted. The second is to interpret law to determine if it is in fact constitutional. If a law preventing immigration is unconstitutional, then it cannot legalle be enforced. If we wish to enforce our immigration laws, we first must insure that they are in fact constitutional.
559527
Well, in America, it isn't a crime to disagree. I think. But you still shouldn't play 'dodge traffic'. You'll get killed by Bush likers.
604001
good question. why does it bounce above and below regular in the usa? not just by pennies, but by a lot.
930236
Spied upon? The US must maintain a due diligence against all enemies foreign and domestic. We thus must allow law enforcement certain privileges to protect all of us. If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.
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.
752367
No, because the Supreme Court won't LET us manage our country. They decide when they'll let us have the laws we want to have. It's all up to them.
795443
yup. \nThe Supreme Court IS the judicial branch.
722055
Well the "Supereme Court of the United States" can declare any law of the legislature (i.e. Congress) and executive (i.e. The President) null and void, if it is against the constitution. This power of the Supereme Court is called "Judicial Review". A famous case in this connection is the case of "Marbury vs Madision".
723787
I am afraid I do not surf the net enough to have a link for you, however one party ruling is just that "ruling" there is no checks and balances. This means that they do whatever they want and no one can tell them no. They could make it illegal for you to pee and there would be no one else there to say you can't do that!
698308
America should acknowledge international law, which says these waters are Canadian. Hopefully it will be resolved amicably, but beware - America was sent packing when it attacked British North America (as it then was) in 1812 and 1819.
1046892
No court has ruled that the US does not have sovereign immunity.  The US may, by statute, waive sovereign immunity in certain types of cases, but courts will not find a waiver unless it is clear that the statute waived immunity.\n\nLikewise, a US State has sovereign immunity and again waiver will not be implied, but must be explicit.\n\nHave you tried naming the Secretary of HUD and the corresponding Hawaiian official?   If you name the individuals, the court may be able to grant you injunctive relief as to future events and actions, but will not be able to grant you damages for past actions.
867344
One of the seminal cases on anti-suit injunctions, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984), provides a detailed analysis of comity. \n\nLaker filed an antitrust action in the United States against several defendants, including domestic, British, and other foreign airlines. The defendants filed suit in the United Kingdom seeking an anti-suit injunction barring Laker from proceeding with its action in the United States. Meanwhile, the district court granted Laker an injunction barring the defendants from proceeding in the United Kingdom. The D.C. Circuit upheld the importance of comity, stating that "comity serves our international system like the mortar which cements together a brick house." Id. at 937. However, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court:\n\n"Comity" summarizes in a brief word a complex and elusive concept -- the degree of deference that a domestic forum must pay to the act of a foreign government not otherwise binding on the forum. . . . However, there are limitations to the application of comity. When the foreign act is inherently inconsistent with the policies underlying comity, domestic recognition could tend either to legitimize the aberration or to encourage retaliation, undercutting the realization of the goals served by comity. No nation is under an unremitting obligation to enforce foreign interests which are fundamentally prejudicial to those of the domestic forum. Thus, from the earliest times, authorities have recognized that the obligation of comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act. Id.\n\nThere may be different views among circuits as to the relative importance to be given to comity in deciding whether to file an anti-suit injunction. Compare Quaak, 361 F.3d at 17 ("We deem international comity an important integer in the decisional calculus"), and Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 (anti-suit injunctions should be granted "only in the most compelling circumstances"), with Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) ("We decline . . . to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action").\n\nLaker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 also states that courts "have a duty to protect their legitimately conferred jurisdiction to the extent necessary to provide full justice to litigants. Thus, when the action of a litigant in another forum threatens to paralyze the jurisdiction of the court, the court may consider the effectiveness and propriety of issuing an [anti-suit] injunction".
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
213258
not without a court being involved
299287
As a rule, you have to raise every issue you have in a case, whether it is a state or federal court. You can't wait to see if you lose in state court on state issues and then go to federal court to try again. The court has "pendent jurisdiction" over the other court's issues. It can make a difference what the issue is, though, since state courts may not have the jurisdiction needed, for bankruptcy, for example.
946502
actually it was in the media. During the Clinton administration. A proposal was made to connect all state level enforcement to centralized federal level but I do not think it was ever completed