Is there a reason that the people involved in Supreme court cases in the 60's and 70's have switched sides
820603
Both of these particular cases involve religious conversions on the part of the plaintiffs.  McCorvey converted to Christianity in 1994 and was confirmed as a member in the Roman Catholic Church in 1998.\n\nThe details of the other case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) escape me, but something similar happened.
549334
A lot of rules have changed. Check out the CIS or DOJ or INS website (they change their title a lot) for the real scoop.
586329
The 60's-70's because it was the peak of feminist revolution. The 50's, women still strived for perfection, and by the 60's they realized it was all a false dream, i like this era b/c women began to have a voice.
119650
Depends on the region of US.  The South was openly segregated through the '60's.  That's part of what the civil rights movement was about.
910026
Because liberals never want the people to have their way, that is why we have roe vs. wade and other bad cases.  They want judges to decide for us.  Good luck with that in Taxachusetts.
752489
Yes, Nixon appointed the judges who would later make abortion legal. It seems that every judge is appointed by republicans who are usually conservative yet, the judges changed over the years. They aren't going to have the same beliefs they once had when they took office. They changed, it's a common fact. They tend to become more progressive.
835633
The Warren Court (1953–1969) made several rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a considerable change in the scope of substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) in public (ie, tax supported) schooling, that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot sponsor or impose official prayer on students (Engel v. Vitale) nor mandatory Bible readings either (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona), found that the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe) required equal protection of the laws to all, and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).\n\nThe Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was included in the Constitutionally protected right to privacy (Roe v. Wade), made several somewhat contradictory rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violated the cruel and unusual prohibition in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution (Furman v. Georgia), but later held that it was not unconstitutional after all if done in particular ways (Gregg v. Georgia).
1174877
Because there are many cases that politicians would like to influence to their own favor in addition to cases against the government that have to be handled by an independent judiciary for there to be any chance of faireness.
651511
It legalized seperating blacks from whites in public places and left blacks at substandard living conditions.  It was not just...and was over turned in brown vs. Topeka board of education.  Plessy is one of the worst surpreme court decision in our nations history we now recognize.  It goes to show how the law can be interpreted differently at different times.  It has implications now for the marriage laws and discrimination against gays.
471675
The reason you haven`t had any answers to this question, is because you are not specific enougth, there was no doubt hundreds (maybe even thousands) of laws passed in the 1970`s. Be more specific.
1058311
History shows they do. \nEven Kings and Queens have bowed down\n\n\nAnother Example-the 60's had big time protests that did.
184420
Typically they are using their best knowledge of how to use the law to defend a case that their client brings them.  If you are on the wrong side of that case it can suck.  If you are on the right side of the case you love that lawyer.  Especially if you've been screwed so many times without using one.
873579
I am not sure, but you should try looking on Oyez to find out about more supreme court cases.
603561
Outdated laws and political correctness have entirely and absolutely nothing to do with each other!\n\nOutdated laws exist because they are rarely if ever utilised and the body of law is so vast that they are probably long forgotten... \n\nWhen a situation arises that they may come into play and are now seen to be unjust then the government will usually legislate to amend and/or overrule the prior law in that area...\n\nLaw is an evolving process that is in a state of continual change... it just takes time to get to all the changes that need to occur and in law that time is often measures in hundreds of years not one or two...
66211
It is a regular political process.  True, the parties are bickering as usual, but there has always been controversy surrounding new Supreme Court justices.  If everyone's political party was swiched (Bush would become a Democrat, for example), the exact same ranker would be going on.  Justices are the top echelon of the legal system, so they are very important.  Also, they are appointed for life, so you had better make sure you're picking the right guy.  Unfortunately, Mr. Alito is being confirmed during a particularly nasty period of political polarization, so many of the questions and issues aren't real questions, they're sensationalist propaganda from both sides of the isle.  In case you missed the memo, abortion is NOT the only legal question of the day, yet that seems to be what most of the fuss is about.  Lastly, since they are appointed for life, this man has the potential power to influence American jurisprudential thought for perhaps the next 30 or 40 years.  Needless to say, he'll be making rulings long after Bush is gone, and the next guy, and the next guy. He'll also survive Republicans losing their majority in Congress, then gaining it, then losing it, etc.  So essentially, theres a big fuss because they are getting ready to install someone who is going to effecting law (and by extention politics) for many years to come.  I personally think the Court will be fine with Alito because, unlike the talking heads on CNN and FoxNews who seem fixated on abortion and other trivial matters, I've been watching the hearings live and reading the transcripts (I'm a law student), and he actually seems less polarizingly conservative and more qualified than even Republicans are admitting to.
979849
The 60's were definitely an era of change in more than one area. It was a revolution of sorts. Not all the boomers were into free love, sex, and drugs. Throw in the Vietnam War and there was a lot of controversy about the times, the generation, the beliefs at the time.....it was as each significant era distinctly its' own. I lived it, didn't agree with all of it, look back try to make sense of it all, and realize your kids just like you are gonna do what they are gonna do, and all the song and dance doesn't stop it merely changes. You usually don't learn from someone elses mistakes unfortunately. So ironic and humorous not really simply par for the course......of life.
630635
Dear Friend,\n\nJudges generally have discretion to recuse themselves from hearing any case in which they have a personal interest.  For example, if a family member, or the judge's church, or the company she worked with for decades came before her, the judge can and should ask another judge to take the case.  Certainly if the judge herself is a litigant, she cannot hear her own case.\n\nGenerally speaking, trial courts do have to hear whatever are filed in front of them.  Which particular judge hears which case is for the judges to decide.  Mostly this is done through random assignment to keep things fair.  However, for example, senior federal trial judges have the ability to say they don't want to take a particular sort of case... for example, criminal cases.  And if a judge has too crowded a docket, she can work with the clerk to have certain cases reassigned.  \n\nIntermediate appeallate courts usually hear everything as well, although they can decide for themselves whether to do so in panels of just a few judges -- or en banc, which means a hearing before all the judges of a certain area.  \n\nIt's not quite true that state supreme courts and the USSC have absolute discretion which cases to hear.  For example, death penalty cases are often appealed as of right to state supreme courts.  And the USSC is the only place that certain disputes, like those between sovereign States, can be heard.  But generally speaking those judges do have a LOT more say over which cases they hear.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nYour Friend, \nFrancesois