This seems like an attitude favoring a sort of totalitarian bureaucracy which, under a President of the same stamp, would try to coerce an uncooperative Congress or Supreme Court.

For lawyers, reflecting perhaps their parochial preferences, there has been a special fascination since then in the role played by the Supreme Court in that transformation -- the manner in which its decisions altered in `` the switch in time that saved nine '', President Roosevelt's ill-starred but in effect victorious `` Court-packing plan '', the imprimatur of judicial approval that was finally placed upon social legislation.

his requesting, and often getting, higher wages, better working conditions, better schools -- changes that were slowly emerging even before the Supreme Court decision of 1954.

the Honorable Robert Wagner, Sr., at that time a justice of the New York Supreme Court, was on the reception committee.

The editorial concerned legislative proposals to ease the tax burden on DuPont stockholders, in connection with the United States Supreme Court ruling that DuPont must divest itself of its extensive General Motors stock holdings.

-- Indonesia Military Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence passed on Alan Lawrence Pope, an American pilot.

I fought like a tigress but by the time I appealed my case to the Supreme Court ( 1937 ), Mr. Roosevelt and his `` henchmen '' had done their `` dirty work '' all too well, even going so far as to attempt to `` pack '' the highest tribunal in the land in order to defeat little me.

But the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear my case!!

For almost a hundred years we relied upon state courts ( subject to review by the Supreme Court ) for the protection of most rights arising under national law.

In 1910 it required the convening of a special three-judge court for the issuance of certain injunctions and allowed direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, like Congress, showed misgivings concerning this aspect of government by injunction.

On review the Supreme Court, via Mr. Justice Frankfurter, found southern racial problems `` a sensitive area of social policy on which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to adjudication is open ''.

To insure uniformity in the meaning of national law, however, state interpretations are subject to Supreme Court review.

Only when a decision is rendered by the District Court of Appeal ( or, of course, the Supreme Court ) is a binding precedent established.

It is an issue which may well reach the Supreme Court of the United States before judicial finality is achieved.

As a school district, the District of Columbia has had desegregated schools since 1954, shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

On the one hand do we argue the Supreme Court decision required only that a child not be denied admission to a school on account of his race??

Probably a lawyer once said it best for all time in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The struggle was resolved in 1819 in the Supreme Court in one of the most intriguing cases in our judicial history.

`` It is a duty '', said Hough, `` not to let pass this opportunity of protesting against the methods of taking and printing testimony in Equity, current in this circuit ( and probably others ), excused if not justified by the rules of the Supreme Court, especially to be found in patent causes, and flagrantly exemplified in this litigation.

In 1912 the United States Supreme Court adopted a new set of rules of equity which became effective on February 1, 1913.

There is little doubt that they were promulgated by the Supreme Court as a direct result of the Selden patent suit.

Under Formby's plan, an appointee would be selected by a board composed of the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the House, attorney general and chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

The fight over the Warwick School Committee's appointment of a coordinator of audio-visual education may go to the state Supreme Court, it appeared last night.

An arrestee's silence is not a waiver, but on June 1, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police are allowed to interrogate suspects who have invoked or waived their rights ambiguously, and any statement given during questioning prior to invocation or waiving is admissible as evidence.

In one case, the Quebec National Assembly invoked this power to override a Supreme Court decision ( Ford v. Quebec ( A. G .)) that held that one of Quebec's language laws banning the display of English commercial signs was inconsistent with the charter.

This bill was invoked in Ontario ( and then Supreme Court of Canada docket 33819 ) in the case of Les Editions Ecosociete Inc., Alain Deneault, Delphine Abadie and William Sacher vs. Banro Inc., in which the publisher Ecosociete pled ( supported by the BCCLA ) that it should not face Ontario liability for a publication in Quebec, as the suit was a SLAPP and the Quebec law explicitly provided to dismiss these.

Recognizing that the amendments did not follow the Supreme Court's ruling, the provincial legislature invoked section 33 of the Canadian Charter ( also known as the notwithstanding clause ) to shield Bill 178 from review by courts for five years.

In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted " Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power ' not to be lightly invoked.

The public trust doctrine was invoked by the California Supreme Court in a case restricting the amount of water Los Angeles could divert from tributaries of Mono Lake.

However, the judiciary procedures were again suspended on 9 July 2001 because of alleged health reasons, and finally the Supreme Court invoked in 2002 a " moderate dementia " of Pinochet which enabled him not to be judged in this case.

In United States copyright law, the principle of requiring originality for copyright protection was invoked in the 1991 ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service.

* 1927 – Five Canadian women file a petition to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking, " Does the word ' Persons ' in Section 24 of the British North America Act, 1867, include female persons?

In May 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court provided an opinion after it was asked to certify a question referred by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: “ Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, may filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling Web sites containing constitutionally-protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron .” The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that NCRL ’ s internet filtering policy did not violate Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.

Although the Greenman rule was transmitted to most other states via Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second ( published in 1964 after Greenman ), the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt Section 402A's " unreasonably dangerous " limitation upon strict liability in 1972.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Qualifications Clause as an exclusive list of qualifications that cannot be supplemented by a house of Congress exercising its Section 5 authority to " judge ... the ... qualifications of its own members " or by a state in its exercise of its Section 4 authority to prescribe the " times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Qualifications Clause as an exclusive list of qualifications that cannot be supplemented by a House of Congress exercising its Section.

Section 1 explicitly requires one Supreme Court, but does not fix the number of justices that must be appointed to it.

Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court.

Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party ; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state.

Pursuant to a parallel clause in Article One, Section Eight, such authority is exclusive: for example, the Supreme Court has held that states may not tax such federal property.

In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some have argued that Section 2 was implicitly repealed by the Fifteenth Amendment, but the Supreme Court has acknowledged the provisions of Section 2 in recent times.

In Perry v. United States ( 1935 ), the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond " went beyond the congressional power.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.

Section 5, the last section, was construed broadly by the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. Morgan ( 1966 ).

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad,, the Supreme Court ruled that ( 1 ) the Sixteenth Amendment removes the Pollock requirement that certain income taxes ( such as taxes on income " derived from real property " that were the subject of the Pollock decision ), be apportioned among the states according to population ; ( 2 ) the federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law ; ( 3 ) the federal income tax statute does not violate the Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 requirement that excises, also known as indirect taxes, be imposed with geographical uniformity.

* March 12 – Craig vs. Missouri: The United States Supreme Court rules that state loan certificates are unconstitutional because they were bills of credit emitted by a state in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution.

Section 13A of the act was fully applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., in an opinion authored by Justice Owen Roberts.

In Bush v. Vera, the Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, rejected Texas's contention that Section 5 required racially-gerrymandered districts.

Even if a similar bill is enacted, its practical effect may not be clear: proponents of the bill have argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, but opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights ( since amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2 ).

Section 2 has been the source of every Supreme Court ruling directly addressing Twenty-first Amendment issues.