I use “we” loosely because Swisher’s intended audience is not you or me, but instead those with power: she writes about and for them. Over the course of a long and storied career closely reporting on the tech industry and its titans, she has aped their motions, sat at their dinner tables, drunk their wine, gone to their weird parties, played with their baubles, repeated their lies, and offered them counsel. Swisher may style herself as Silicon Valley’s critic laureate, but she’s much closer to the court fool.

During his stay in Constantinople, Busbecq wrote his best known work, the Turkish Letters, a compendium of personal correspondence to his friend, and fellow Hungarian diplomat, Nicholas Michault, in Flanders and some of the world's first travel literature. These letters, together with Melchior Lorck's woodprints describe his adventures in Ottoman politics and remain one of the principal primary sources for students of the 16th-century Ottoman court

L’universitas magistrorum et scholarium Parisiensis

By describing Franche-Comté's rivers, salt mines, vineyards and other surroundings, Febvre created an accurate and true-to-life portrayal of the atmosphere and outlook of the time. With this approach, Febvre was also able to reveal a negative influence that the French Government of the time played in the life of this province. This approach to history is known as histoire totale, or histoire tout court. Later, Febvre's work would be a paradigm for the "Annales School" and would become a new way of historical thinking.

Zunächst war ich ein Jahr am Oberverwaltungsgericht Lüneburg zurOrganisation eines Referenz-Systems für Verwaltungsgerichtsent-scheidungen; das Gericht sollte sehen können, was an obergerichtli-chen Entscheidungen jeweils vorlag

outreach and recruitment programs can still target specific groups (e.g., via schools or districts that predominantly serve students of color), so long as they do not award admissions spots solely based on an individual student’s race

PARIS — Europe’s top human rights court condemned the French government on Wednesday over its refusal to bring home the families of two Islamic State fighters, a landmark ruling that may push France and other European countries to speed up the repatriation of nationals held for years in squalid detention camps in northeastern Syria.

§ 1003.36 Record of proceeding. The Immigration Court shall create and control the Record of Proceeding.

In addition, at least two justices have ties to the oil industry writ large. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s father was a Shell attorney for nearly three decades and served in leadership positions with the American Petroleum Institute, and Justice Samuel Alito owns stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 (Alito recused himself from the Baltimore case but Barrett did not).

Another example of that, because you might say, are there othercases like that, Miranda. So Miranda is reaffirmed a lot, but thenin the Dickerson case in 2000, Chief Justice Rehnquist writes theopinion, considering the stare decisis factors and reaffirming Mi-randa. Even though Chief Justice Rehnquist, by the way, had beena fervent critic of Miranda throughout his career, he decided thatit had been settled too long, had been precedent too long, and hereaffirmed it

o that is why both of those cases, Planned Parenthood v. Caseyand Dickerson, are cases where I would refer to them as precedenton precedent.Senator F EINSTEIN. So you believe it is correctly settled, but isit correct law in your view?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, there is on that case or onDickerson, or on cases like Citizens United or Heller or UnitedStates v. Lopez or Kelo, just the whole body of modern SupremeCourt case law, I have to follow what the nominees who have beenin this seat before have done.

has been reported that you have said that Roe is now settled law.The first question I have of you is what do you mean by ‘‘settledlaw’’? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law?Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could beoverturned, and has your views changed since you were in theBush White House?Judge KAVANAUGH. Senator, I said that it is settled as a prece-dent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles ofstare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mindabout Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times overthe past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most impor-tantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.And as you well recall, Senator, I know when that case came up,the Supreme Court did not just reaffirm it in passing. The Courtspecifically went through all the factors of stare decisis in consid-ering whether to overrule it, and the joint opinion of Justice Ken-nedy, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Souter, at great length wentthrough those factors.

Is it correct law?RESPONSE: Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), is a precedent of the Supreme Courtentitled to the respect due under the law of precedent. As I discussed at the hearing, the law ofprecedent is not a judicial policy but rather is rooted in Article llI of the Constitution.Adherence to precedent ensures stability and predictability in the law, and reinforces theimpartiality and independence of the judiciary.46. In the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that states may not intrudeinto the bedrooms of same-sex couples. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion explainedthat laws prohibiting intimacy between same-sex couples are unconstitutional becausestates "cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their privatesexual conduct a crime

is most-ly a sham. You know the game. In the Bush White House, youcoached judicial nominees to just tell Senators that they have ‘‘acommitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, that they will ad-here to statutory text, that they have on ideological agenda.’’ Fairytales.At his hearing, Justice Roberts infamously said he would justcall balls and strikes, but this pattern, 73–0, of the Roberts Fivequalifies him to have NASCAR-style corporate badges on his robes.Alito said in his hearing what a strong principle stare decisiswas, an important limitation on the Court. Then he told the Fed-eralist Society, ‘‘Stare decisis means to leave things decided whenit suits our purposes.’’

he President early on assured evangelicals his Supreme Courtpicks would attack Roe v. Wade. Despite confirmation etiquette as-surances about precedent, your own words make clear you do notreally believe Roe v. Wade is settled law since the Court, as yousaid, ‘‘can always overrule its precedent.’

Justice Kagan, when asked about Roe v. Wade, said the fol-lowing, ‘‘I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to commenton the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settledlaw entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to futurecases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come be-fore the Court in the future.

This reason, we believe—I believe—demonstrates that you arewilling to disregard precedent. And if that is the case because justsaying something is settled law, it really is, is it correct law?

I want to talk a little bit about one of the big deci-sions that we have the belief that although you told Senator Collinsthat you believed it was settled law, the question is, really, do youbelieve that it is correct law? And that is Roe v. Wade

22. We may note in passing the archaic nature of the US Supreme Court, whosejudges are named for life like the pope of the Catholic Church and the apostles of theMormon church. However, a pontifical bull of 1970 denied cardinals over eighty yearsold the right to vote in papal elections, which proves that all institutions can be re-formed, even the most venerable ones.

Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy. The men who cited Hale as they constructed the early American legal order refused to give women the right to vote or to otherwise enjoy full citizenship. Relying on that history of injustice as a reason to deny modern women control over their own lives is a terrible argument but apparently the best Alito can do.

On examination, you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed; your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.

Alito’s draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages’ worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.

Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.

A Bill that could alter the mediation landscape R.K. Vij January 10, 2022 00:02 IST Updated: January 10, 2022 00:46 IST R.K. Vij

Mike: So they were like, "Dude, you got to do something. You either going to jail or to fight it, the case. But you're going to jail. You've got to be in jail and you can't be out while you're fighting this case, or you do a voluntary departure and you go." At that time I felt like I wasn't any good to anybody. I didn’t want to be a burden on my family." So I just left. This is just something that I felt like I had to do. I knew if I ran away, I was never going to be able to provide for my kids, because I was always going to have to try to find a way to provide for myself. And I didn't want that for them. So I just did a voluntary departure. I just said, "Screw it."

Mike: They took me downstairs, checked me, and then they let me go. But then they told me that I had a court date. Little did I know in the next two days somebody came to pick me up from ICE, so I had to go with them. They placed me there for a couple of days, more. Two or three days more. I stayed in the ICE facility for two or three days and then they let me out and then that's when I had to go to court. Keep going to court. Keep going to court until finally I couldn't stall it anymore.

And that's the day I got caught up with the blunt in my ear and the security caught me. From there on, I had to go to court fighting the cases and then basically I just like—

“Let’s say a trial is listed and I have to cross examine a witness,” he said. “Now, what is the guarantee that the witness would be willing to go all the way to the court in such a time?” If witnesses do not appear, then the matter would merely be adjourned.

Just one observation:

The modern practice of the committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several southern senators attempted to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.[1][8]

A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

Professor Sean McMahon?

CBC Gem Premium Services Subscription Conditions

The law of defamation is a culmination of a conflict between society and the individual. On one hand lies the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, on the other is the right of individual to have his reputation intact. How far does the liberty of free speech and expression extend" And when does it become necessary for the law to step in to safeguard the right of the individual to preserve his honour. THE law of defamation seeks to attain a balance between these two competing freedoms.

SB 1070, the 2010 “show me your papers” law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration.

“routine burden of citizenship”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 – 697

while we take our solemn oath at the beginning of each year that we will hear impartially both accusers and accused, we depart so far from this in practice, that when the accuser makes his charges we give ear to whatever he may say; but when the accused endeavors to refute them, we sometimes do not endure even to hear his voice.2