Are Supreme Court justices in the United States allowed to drink at work?
968132
I sure hope so, I wouldn't want them to die of dehydration. If your talking about alcohol, That would be only When Ted Kennedy is at the courts
301704
If it is against the dress code at work, I don't recommend it, but if there is nothing in the dress code saying that  you cannot wear a short advertising alcoholic beverages or t shirts then that should be up to you
920548
Tell your supervisor right away. Alcohol at work is never tolerated.
795443
yup. \nThe Supreme Court IS the judicial branch.
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
837909
your question doesn't make any sense. Are you drinking on the job today?
515934
It hasn't gotten to the Supreme Court yet.  Read the Fouth Amendment and case law surrounding it if you want an understanding of it.  I had to use it several years ago and convinced equal employment officials that my employer couldn't divulge the fact that I was scheduled for a standard drug test to anyone else in my workplace.  So, sometimes it can be interpreted fairly liberally although it isn't worded specifically to support such a claim.  It depends on who you have to convince.  I doubt my case would have stood up in court even though it would have stood up in the eyes of the media.  Research the topic for yourself before you believe what anyone (government or media) has to say about the issue.
758166
Well, it is C. the supreme court.
989545
Good Samaratin laws should protect you, unless you have training as a qualified medical profesional.  They could sue you , shoot, if a woman can sue McDonolds for spilling coffee on her own lap you can sue for pretty much anything, but if you hired a decent lawyer, I doubt it would go anywere.
643709
the age of majority in the us is 18 the age where you can be independant without consideration to any one else.\nyou just cant by liquor by the drink in alot of PLACES,AND CAN GO TO WAR AND DIE FOR YOUR COUNTRY
1107670
The nine members of the Supreme Court are referred to as Justices.  They have drivers which double as bodyguards.  They pick them up at their residences in the morning and drive them to the Supreme Court building.  There are armed guards throughout the building and its perimeter.  \n   Once the session has ended for the day, their respective drivers take them home or wherever else they may be going.  They do not have secret service detail for their private residences, unless it is warranted by some threat.\n   Recently, Justice David Souter was required to have protection at his home.  Protesters were trying to have his house condemned in response to the Court's decision over an eminent domain case in the northeast with which they were extremely displeased the with outcome of the trial.
541653
There is only one Supreme Court of the United States.  Each State may also have its own Supreme Court to be the final authority on State Law, but the Federal Court system has only one Supreme Court.\n\nThe Supreme Court issues the highest ruling which cannot be appealed.  You can't present a case directly to the Supreme Court.  You have to present a case that says a lower court incorrectly ruled on a case.  Then the Supreme Court has to agree to hear the case.  If they do hear it, they'll issue a ruling that either lets the lower court's ruling stand, sends it back to the lower court for reconsideration (sometimes with additional instruction), or they may overturn the lower court's decision.
1052641
I have one helpful tidbit:\n\nYou cannot drink at 18\nAt 21 you can\n\n(18th and 21st amendments)\n\nHope that helps. Plus a summary:\n\n1st Freedoms of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly\n2nd Right to bear arms\n3rd No Quartering soldiers in private homes (Privacy)\n4th Searches and seizures; warrants\n5th Due process of law\n6th Rights of the accused\n7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases\n8th Excessive bail & fines; cruel & unusual punishment\n9th Unenumerated rights retained by the people\n10th Powers reserved to the states or to the people\n11th Immunity of states to foreign suits\n12th Revision of presidential election procedures\n13th Abolition of slavery\n14th Citizenship, state due process, state equal protection\n15th Racial suffrage\n16th Federal income tax\n17th Direct election to the United States Senate\n18th Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by 21st amendment)\n19th Women's suffrage\n20th Term Commencement for congress (January 3) and president (January 20)\n21st Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment; state and local prohibition permitted\n22nd Presidential term limit\n23rd Representation of Washington, DC in Electoral College\n24th Suffrage and prohibition of poll taxes\n25th Presidential disabilities\n26th Age suffrage\n27th Variance of congressional compensation\n\nGood luck.
432407
It was an amendment to the US Constitution that prohibited the sale of alcohol.  It was later repealed.
768869
Some questions include:\n1) Did the Consumer order a drink containing alcohol or a drink that normally contains alcohol?\n2) Did the bartender knowingly serve alcohol against the wishes of the consumer?\nIf the answer to number 1 is yes, then it would be hard to convict.\nIf the answer to number 2 is yes then it could be possible to convict, but very unlikely. Why?\n1) Warning labels on alcohol states "According to the surgeon general, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects" (Doesn't state "Can not" vs "should not", and that it is a risk not a definite).\n2) At what point did the consumer know she was served alcohol?\n3) How does the bartender know the medical condition of the consumer?\n4) How was the alcohol purchased?\n5) What was the intent of the bartender?
1168513
If you mean the United States Supreme Court, it has 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices.
762823
I believe so.   But the U.S. Supreme Court believes otherwise.  So, who you gonna listen to?