Supreme court justices : Videos
Supreme court justices : Photo Gallery
Supreme court justices : Latest News, Information, Answers and Websites
How many SUPREME COURT JUSTICES will vote to listen to the Obama case?
Two cases are now pending in the Supreme Court, and one of them will be privately reviewed on December 5th. IF 4 justices vote to listen to the case, it will go into a full-fledged review.
So, how many justices do you believe will vote in favor of taking the case to a review?
Answer: If you let your little fingers do the walking, you can find the actual Supreme Court docket of pending cases:
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=obama&x=28&y=24
Where you will discover first case 08A391, an application for an injunction, which was DENIED by Souter.
Also 08-570, where it says "response" due by December 1. The FEC et. al. waived their right to respond; in other words, "this is not worth our time."
And here are the cases due to be argued (Berg's case is nowhere to be found):
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/index.html#October
There is no "private review" scheduled. I would be interested to see where you got that information.
Category: Elections
LETTER; Invitation to a Dialogue: Cameras in the Supreme Court?
To the Editor: Re “ Supreme Court TV? Nice Idea, but Still Not Likely ,” by Adam Liptak (Sidebar, Nov. 29): There are good reasons for not allowing cameras in the Supreme Court that do not stem from “paternalism or self-interest.” The judiciary is the most trusted branch of government, polls show. This respect is helped by
LII Supreme Court Collection: Current SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Supreme Court Toolbox. Become an LII sponsor. Stay Involved
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES who disagree with the decision of the Court may explain their reasoning within the conc?
Supreme court justices who disagree with the decision of the Court may explain their reasoning within the concurring opinion.
TRUE? FALSE?
Answer: Yes.
It is called a dissenting opinion.
Category: Government
LETTER; TV at the Supreme Court: A Law Professors Brief
To the Editor: Re Exceptional Court Coverage (editorial, Nov. 18): If ever there was a Supreme Court case that should be televised, it is the one that will decide the fate of the health care law. Millions of Americans will be affected by the result. Since this is not a trial, there will be no witnesses to be intimidated or jurors to be
What was the “clear and present danger” test, and who were the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES associated with it?
What was the “clear and present danger” test, and who were the Supreme Court
justices associated with it? Is it the law today?
Answer: Clear and present danger is a doctrine used to test whether limitations may be placed on First Amendment free speech rights. It was established in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Charles Schenck, general secretary of the American Socialist Party was arrested and convicted for sending 15,000 anti-draft circulars through the mail to men scheduled to enter the military service. The circular called the draft law a violation of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery. It went on to urge draftees not to "submit to intimidation," but to "petition for repeal" of the draft law.
The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military recruitment under the espionage act. Schenck admitted that he had sent the circulars, but argued that he had a right to do so under the First Amendment and was merely exercising his freedom of speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes held that Mr. Schenck was not covered by the First Amendment since freedom of speech was not an absolute right. There were times, Holmes wrote, when the government could legally restrict speech. According to Justice Holmes, that test is "whether the words...are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger."
Category: History
Justices Consider Patents for Individualized Medicine
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered a major patent case , one that asked whether observed correlations between drug dosages and medical treatment were subject to patent protection. The patent in question concerns the relationship between thiopurines, which are drugs used to treat gastrointestinal disorders, and metabolites - By ADAM LIPTAK
Rick Perry Forgot How Many SUPREME COURT JUSTICES There Are ...
In his latest "oops" moment, Rick Perry forgot how to say Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name and then referred to the "eight unelected" justices of the Supreme Court in an interview with the Des Moines Register ...
Rick Perry Misstates Number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES - Politics ...
Political News and Headlines From ABC News Radio.
What Do the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Think of Cameras in Court ...
Last spring, Chief Justice John Roberts compared the Supreme Court’s progress regarding a decision on cameras in the courtroom with the pace of a turtle ...
Supreme Court rules in RoyOMartin case
"With regard to this consideration, we find that the claims (in the Price suit) are so highly individualized that class certification likely will be unfair to members who have claims stronger" than others in the lawsuit, Supreme Court Justice John L.
LII Supreme Court Collection: Current SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Current U.S. Supreme court justices. Chief Justice. John Roberts. Associate Justices. Samuel Alito · Stephen ... Supreme Court Toolbox. Become an LII sponsor ...
Rick Perry misstates number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES in meeting with editorial board
Rick Perry, hoping to revive his campaign by appealing to Christian conservatives in Iowa, today defended his assertion that President Obama has declared a “war on religion,” and said he would organize a national day of prayer in a time of ...
Rick Perry Can't Remember Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor ...
In yet another oops moment for flailing Republican candidate Rick Perry, the Texas Governor froze up during an interview Friday with the Des Moines Register editorial board when trying to come up with the name of Supreme ...
Perry flubs name, number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and couldnt remember Justice Sonia Sotomayors name in an editorial board meeting with The Des Moines Register newspaper. Perrys repeated stumbles are keeping ...
Politics | Perry flubs name, number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ...
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and couldnt remember Justice Sonia Sotomayors name in an editorial ...
Oblivious Supreme Court poised to legalize medical patents
... the Supreme Court considered whether to allow patents on a physicians use of ... Justices Scalia and Breyer showed some skepticism that patents could cover the ...
Would it bother anyone if 8 of the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES were women?
If all the Supreme court justices suddenly died of swine flu and Obama picked 8 women and 1 man to replace them, would men be ok with that? What if they were all minorities, would that bother anyone?
Answer: Not as such.
If they were picked BECAUSE they were women and/or minorities, absolutely.
Category: Law & Ethics
How can SUPREME COURT JUSTICES disagree?
I admit my knowledge of the legal system is very limited, but thats why Im asking this question. My understanding of the supreme court is that they are supposed to interpret the law/constitution.
I just dont understand how there can be a 5-4 decision; it seems completely arbitrary to me. Why dont they just call it something along the lines of a "hung judiciary?" It seems fairly obvious that either a) the justices arent doing their job properly or b) the law isnt covered by the constitution and any interpretation from the constitution is extremely stretched.
If b) is the case why dont we amend the constitution or do something. It just seems strange to me that such important decisions can be made by a swing vote. I guess maybe its better than how a new law would be passed. But is the reason we allow them to implement as low 5-4 decisions just because we dont have any better options?
Unrelated, but it also seems strange to me that every election we seem to elect a leader that nearly half the population dislikes. This system seems weird to me too. I guess I cant think of anything better, but it seems like somebody should be able to; unless everybody is just interested in maintaining the status quo.
Answer: Well the legal system used by the UK, America, Australia, HK and other former British colonies not only allows for this sort of thing, it encourages it.
Some legal systems, such as China and much of Europe codify the laws, so that there is a very specific set of rules.
But the American legal system works on the principle there is the written law then there is the interpretation of the law (eg case law).
Eg, if there is a law that says you can't use offensive language, then it is up to the judges to interpret the meaning of offensive. For example with the common use of the F word on TV and in movies many judges believe it is no longer offensive to use this word.
In addition there are often a range of laws that conflict. For there might be something in the constitution that protects freedom of speech and another law that stops you spreading lies. These two laws are in fact in conflict.
In addition, you are right, many aspects of the consitution are in fact written very generally. Eg, the right to bear arms. The wording of this ammendment is very ambigious. What is meant by "bearing arms". Does it mean the right to own them, or the right to carry them in schools (eg teachers in some states are allowed to go armed). It seems that the wording implies the right to bear arms is only associated with a militia, but the grammar allows anyone to bear arms.
Yes, constitutions and laws can be ammended and improved. But often laws are badly written. Attempts to make things too explicit often makes the laws inflexible allowing people to escape punishment because of the letter of the law, or people going to jail when they are really done nothing wrong.
Yes, the legal system seems very odd. But think about everybody who kicks out the British (the Chinese in HK, Ghandi in India and the US) all say take your pansy soccer football, your warm beer and you annoying accents and go home, but they keep the legal system.
This system is complex, but it works. It is flexible. Courts can react to things that are happenning in the world without waiting for governments to do anything.
These interpretations are done while listening to experts present their arguments.
These happen over legal issues that are not clear (which is why they get challenged all the way to the supreme court).
One problem is that the judges are political appointments. If there is a Republican president you get conservative judges, and now you are getting left wing judges. This is part of it as well.
Finally the alternative is to have a highly beauracratic process, where anonymous bueracrats make rules (eg, this is how tax law works).
Anyway, I don't know if this answers your questions or confuses you more. But yeah, a lot of what you say is right, but also this is a system that works effectively in most cases.
Category: Law & Ethics
Rick Perry flubs name, number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
DES MOINES — Presidential contender Rick Perry said there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and flubbed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name in an editorial board meeting at The Des Moines Register. Perry met with the board Friday. He struggled for ...
Perry flubs name, number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES | The ...
Presidential contender Rick Perry said there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and flubbed Justice Sonia Sotomayor's (SOHN'-ya soh-toh-my-YOR') name in an editorial board meeting at The Des Moines Register.
Supreme Court rejects inmates argument
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of a Republican county judge who is running for chief justice and was accused by a capital murder defendant of allowing an alcoholic juror to drink during his trial. Death row inmate Jeremy Bryan ...
State Supreme Court justice proposes private discussion - JSOnline
Madison - A state Supreme Court justice wants to make it easier to keep some of the often-fractious courts discussions private. Wisconsins Supreme Court in 1999 ...
Perry misstates number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES | Trail Blazers ...
Gov. Rick Perry made a serious miscalculation in an editorial board meeting this afternoon with the Des Moines Register that was live-streamed. He referred to the eight justices on the U.S. Supreme Court when there are nine. ...
Supreme Court Hears Messerschmidt v. Millender
WASHINGTON — Police officers in Los Angeles stormed Augusta Millender’s home early one morning in 2003. They were looking for Ms. Millender’s foster son, Jerry Bowen, and for a shotgun he had used in a domestic assault. They found neither. But they did seize a gun owned by Ms. Millender, who was 73. The gun was legal, and she said - By ADAM LIPTAK
Supreme Court
Section 16 of Amendment 80 describes the qualifications for an Arkansas Supreme Court justice:
Supreme Court of the United States
Biographies of Current Justices; Members of the Supreme Court; The Supreme Court Building; More.. Visiting the Court. Plan Your Visit; Visitors Guide to Oral Argument;
How did the Republican Agenda affect the appointment of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES in the 1970s?
I need some homework help. Heres the entire question:
How did the Republican Agenda, begun by the Nixon administration, affect the appointment of Supreme court justices in the 1970s? Did the appointments promote this agenda?
Answer: republicans attempted to appoint conservative judges, who would interpret the constitution in a strict manner. (democrats try to appoint liberal judges, who will be more activist in nature) a study of the judges appointed since FDR will show that a good portion of them have been a "disappointment" to the president and/or his party, as they have turned out to be more liberal (or at least less conservative) than wanted by the republicans, and more conservative than wanted by the democrats who appointed them
about the only thing that can be said for certain of the supreme court judges, whether that were appointed by a republican or democrat, is that they knew they could not be fired, and so they voted the way they wanted to vote, usually voting their conscience, no matter who put them on the bench
Category: Homework Help
FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Supreme Court: Present Justices
Sandra Day O'Connor is the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. When she joined the high court, she found a familiar face in the late Justice Rehnquist. ...
Legal Writing Advice From the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Bryan Garner's 2006-2007 interviews with Supreme court justices on the topic of legal writing can be viewed online as well as read in Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, volume 13. The print transcript has the added benefit of ...
Can Congress force Supreme Court to let in cameras? - CSMonitor.com
A proposed law ordering the US Supreme Court to provide live television coverage of its public proceedings threatens to spark a constitutional showdown ...
Should we increase and improve security for the conservative SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
Obama has shown he still uses Chicago-style politics. The constitutionality of the health care bill signed yesterday will be decided by the Supreme Court. Currently the Supreme Court has a majority of conservative Justices. Obama and the (majority) dimocrats get to appoint any replacement Justices if an "unfortunate accident" happens to one or more conservative Justices. Should we be increasing security for them?
Answer: Five of them, anyhow.
I dont think the four that ignore the Constitution are in danger.
Category: Politics
Perry Flubs Name, Number Of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES « CBS ...
Presidential contender Rick Perry said there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and flubbed Justice Sonia Sotomayor's name in an editorial board meeting in Iowa.
What is a likely result of two conservative SUPREME COURT JUSTICES being replaced by two liberal judges?
What is a likely result of two conservative Supreme court justices being replaced by two liberal judges?
A. Earlier decisions will be overturned.
B. More conservative rulings will be given in the future.
C. The Court will become more balanced.
D. More liberal rulings will be given in the future.
Answer: The Supreme Court will attempt to keep up with current times while adhering to the values expressed in the Constitution. Individual freedoms will be emphasized, in keeping with past liberal rulings.
Category: Politics
Out with Supreme Court Justice Alexander and in with a new dilemma
So the state thinks he’s an old geezer, eh? At the end of the year, Justice Gerry Alexander will retire from the Washington State Supreme Court because he’s reached the state’s mandatory retirement age for judges. According to the ...
Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court
Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court. John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States ...
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia ...
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States. Its membership consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and ...
Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court
supremecourtus.gov is the official web site for the Supreme Court of the United States. This site is a source for information about the Supreme Court Cases, Oral ...
Political Animal - Another Perry flub: 8 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
It's generally not too much to ask that major party presidential candidates know how many Supreme court justices there are. Alas, Rick Perry, who's already struggled to be coherent on a wide range of issues, flubbed this one, ...
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ...
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States. Its membership consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight ...
Supreme Court Hears Montana Case
Wednesday morning the nine Supreme court justices heard arguments in the case of PPL Montana vs. the State of Montana. The case will determine who owns Montanas Rivers and if PPL will have to pay millions in taxes on hydroelectric power plants.
Perry’s Anti-Gay Rights Focus Is Divisive Even to Staff
OKATIE, S.C. — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas’ hard turn the past two days on gay issues, in which he has suggested that gay rights are inconsistent with both American and Christian values, has generated enormous criticism from lesbian and gay organizations and some religious groups, and has even helped split Mr. Perry’s top campaign - By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
How can the people remove the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES that vote in favor of the government and not the people?
It appears we have in place Supreme court justices that feel a deeper obligation to the government than the people of this country and we should come together and rid ourselves of all these self serving thieves and liars we have in the courts and public offices.
Answer: You Can't.
You are stuck with the justice that is selected by the President and approved by the Congress.
Also- keep in mind-- for every Supreme Court decision you don't like - there is someone else who agrees with it.
Here is a list of current Supreme court justices and who appointed them:
John Paul Stevens - Ford
Antonin Scalia - Reagan
Anthony Kennedy- Reagan
David Souter - George HW Bush
Clarance Thomas- George HW Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton
Stephen Breyer - Clinton
John Roberts Jr- George W Bush
Samuel Alito - George W Bush
As you can see - most of the supreme court is made up of Republican appointees. In the next 4 years, it is expected that several justices may retire. Keep this in mind when you vote. The next president will appoint the replacement. You may want to consider voting Demacrate to allow for some balance on the court. Because like to or not, Presidents appoint Justices who support their political positions. A diversified court is a good thing. It makes sure that both sides are considered in the decisions.
Category: Elections
Why dont Americans demand term limits on congressman and the ability to vote SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
We dont need another Ted Kennedy or Strom Thurmond in this country. Why not limit them to 2 terms. What is wrong with the people electing justices to the supreme court? Most president only pick judges that agree with their way of thinking. Also a judge serving for life is ridiculous. They should have 2 terms as well.
Answer: We've demanded it, almost all of them have said they were for term limits at one time or another. But when it comes down to it, they just aren't all that interested in voting themselves out of one of the world's greatest gravy jobs.
The judiciary is supposed to protect the minority from the whims of the majority. Having them elected would defeat the purpose behind the checks and balances.
Category: Government
U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Listed below are the current Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Click on the Justice's name for a short biography. John G. Roberts - Chief Justice of the United ...
Are lab analysts witnesses? Supreme Court considers - latimes.com
This post has been updated. See note at the bottom for details. Supreme court justices were sharply divided Tuesday concerning whether a lab analyst who ...
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals, each of which is assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court to Hear Texas Election District Case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday evening agreed to hear a tangle of lawsuits over how Texas should conduct elections for its Legislature and for Congress next year. The court stayed orders from a special three-judge court in San Antonio, which issued electoral maps late last month that seemed to help Democrats and Hispanic voters. - By ADAM LIPTAK
Members of the Supreme Court
Home | About the Supreme Court | Members of the Supreme Court of United States ... Current Chief Justice and Associate Justices are marked with green dots ...
Should three key SUPREME COURT JUSTICES bow out of health care ...
Three Supreme court justices have been asked to recuse themselves, or step aside, from the Obama health care case, which is expected to be decided next year.
Supreme Court Justice certifies Fusco as official winner of Rome Mayor Race; Mayor Brown issues statement
UTICA, N.Y. (WKTV) - One month after election day, the Rome Mayors race comes to an official end in an Oneida County Courtroom on Wednesday. State Supreme Court Justice Bernadette Clark denied Rome Mayor James Browns petition for a recount, making ...
When interpreting a law and applying it to a specific case, should SUPREME COURT JUSTICES take into account su?
When interpreting a law and applying it to a specific case, should Supreme court justices take into account such factors as the circumstances that existed at the time of the laws creation, and whether those circumstances have changed? Why or why not?
Answer: No. If the circumstances change, then it is the lawmakers responsibility to change the laws, not the courts. The laws are created for a reason, and how the law is written, and what the intent of the law was when written should be all that is considered.
Category: Law & Ethics
Supreme Court rejects Iromuanyas appeal
And the states evidence on intent was strong, Nebraska Supreme Court Justice William Connolly wrote. Because jurors concluded that Iromuanya intended to kill Jenkins, the intent transferred to his killing of Cooper, the court found. "So while the ...
EDITORIAL; The Supreme Courts Recusal Problem
Liberals in Congress have called for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the review of the health care reform law because his wife, Virginia, has campaigned fervently against it. Conservatives insist that Justice Elena Kagan should remove herself from the case because, they claim, as solicitor general she was more involved in shaping the - Editorial charges that it is time for Supreme Court to follow the model of lower federal courts by adopting a transparent process for reviewing and deciding recusal requests; holds that the justices undermine their credibility and public trust without clear conflict guidelines. (M)/
Supreme Court reviews Arizona immigration law
Supreme court justices met behind closed doors on Friday to decide whether theyll hear a challenge to Arizonas strict anti-illegal immigration law, according to news reports. A decision may come as soon as Monday, ABC news reported. SB1070, signed into ...
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR; The Bill of Rights Doesnt Come Cheap
Palo Alto, Calif. ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Williams v. Illinois, the latest in a string of cases addressing whether the Sixth Amendments confrontation clause -- which gives the accused in a criminal case the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him -- applies to forensic analysts who produce - Op-Ed article by Stanford University law Prof Jeffrey L Fisher notes that the Supreme Court will consider whether the Sixth Amendments confrontation clause, which gives the accused in a criminal case the right to confront witnesses who testify against him, applies to forensic analysts; argues that forensic analyst should have to defend their reports in court. (M) - Jeffrey L. Fisher is an associate professor of law at Stanford. - By JEFFREY L. FISHER
Perry flubs number of SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, name of one
DES MOINES, Iowa — Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Friday there are eight Supreme court justices, not nine, and couldnt remember Justice Sonia Sotomayors name in an editorial board meeting with The Des Moines Register. Perry, a GOP presidential ...
How does the current president have the ability to affect the make-up of the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?
How does the current president have the ability to affect the make-up of the Supreme court justices? How would a change in justices affect potential challenges to the Constitution?
Answer: the only way the president will be able to affect the current makeup is if those freaks, thomas, scalia, or alito retire and are replaced with liberals.
Category: Government
Who were the most important SUPREME COURT JUSTICES in history?
Im trying to study for nerd bowl, and the number of Supreme court justices is overwhelming. Who were the most important justices?
Answer: Marshall
Taney
Frankfurter
Holmes
Hughes
Douglas
Warren
Scalia
Category: History
Supreme Court Spars on Use of Lab Reports in Expert Testimony
WASHINGTON — The lawyers were listless and the justices lively at a Supreme Court argument on Tuesday on how prosecutors may use crime laboratory reports at a trial. The issue was making its third appearance at the court since a groundbreaking 5-to-4 decision in 2009 that said such reports may not be used in criminal trials unless the - By ADAM LIPTAK
today in public education have the goals the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES been fufilled today?
In 1954, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka) that led to a Significant educational and social reforms through out the united States. Based on the state of public education today, do you feel that the goals the Supreme court justices were hoping for have been achieved.
Answer: Yes, bu there are still gross imbalances that lead to an achievement gap faced by minorities struggling out of poverty still today, often without well developed social networks to provide influence and support in the inter-urban communities. Cultural views and stereotypes held by society at large further compound this.
Category: Government
Supreme Court : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News
Politics and economic affect the way in which constitutional claims are presented to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for the Justice Department, ...
How ethical are these SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? - The Washington Post
John Steele discusses the recent ethical conerns about Supreme court justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan.
Health-care case brings fight over which SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ...
Just a little more than an hour after some House Democrats recently demanded an inquiry into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethics, Senate Republicans ...
Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Image 27. Side view of the Courtroom as seen from the Clerk's desk. Supreme Court Image 5. Contemplation of Justice' at sunset. Supreme ...
Admissible Evidence, or a Backdoor Ploy? Justices Ask
WASHINGTON — The lawyers were listless and the justices lively at a Supreme Court argument on Tuesday on how prosecutors may use crime laboratory reports at a trial. The issue was making its third appearance at the court since a groundbreaking ...
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court. ... from many Justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. ...
Which SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are likely to retire soon?
I will like to know which US Supreme court justices are likely to retire soon - like in the next 5 years and why you think so.
Answer: John Paul Stevens - 88
Ruth Ginsburg - 75
Antonine Scalia - 72
I think they're close to death, sorry to say. I think both Scalia and Stevens have had health issues recently.
Category: Government
Supreme Court temporarily blocks interim redistricting maps
He said simply granting the stay, which suspends enforcement of interim maps drawn by a three-judge panel in San Antonio until the Supreme Court issues a further ruling, offers no hint on how justices are leaning. Political operatives across the state said ...
How many SUPREME COURT JUSTICES will President Obama have the opportunity to appoint?
A. Obama will have the chance to appoint two in his first term and two more in his second term if he is reelected.
B. Supreme court justices serve lifetime appointments, so it is impossible to know in advance how many vacancies any one president will get to fill.
C. Obama will be able to appoint a new justice for every member of the Court over the age of 65.
D. Obama will be able to replace as many justices as he chooses.
Answer: "B" is the correct answer (do your homework, this stuff is actually kind of important).
However Justice John Paul Stevens is like 90 years old and supposedly retiring, so it's safe to say Obama is on deck for at least one Supreme Court nomination in his first term.
There were rumors that Bill Clinton was going to get picked but he personally denied them and recommended a younger person be nominated.
Category: Politics
Question for Justices: If Privacy Act Is Violated, When Is the Government Liable?
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Courtheard arguments on Wednesday in a case brought by a pilot whose H.I.V. status was disclosed in violation of a federal law that protects private information. The case involved, as a lower court judge put it, the collision of a good many laudable public policies, including ones to ensure the safety of the nations - Supreme Court hears arguments in case brought by private pilot Stanmore C Cooper, whose HIV status was disclosed when two government agencies cross-referenced information about pilots; case raises the question of when people can sue the government over violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. (M)2 - By ADAM LIPTAK
Chief Justice Randall Shepard will retire from Indiana Supreme Court
INDIANAPOLIS — Tacked to the back of a closet door in Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard’s office is the front page of a 1985 edition of the Evansville Press. “Shepard named justice,” reads the top headline on the page. “Local ...
Video of the Day: Perry Thinks There Are 8 Supreme court justices http://t.co/iljoQQvJ From: Carol_Wolfe - Source: twitterfeed
Perry flubs number of Supreme court justices, name of one http://t.co/P4ju06Tr From: Ellen_Logan - Source: twitterfeed
How could Rick Perry forgets Supreme court justices members? http://t.co/cMLw6i2M From: globaltrendsday - Source: gtdaily
Gov Rick Perry says the 8 Supreme court justices are unelected and unaccountable. There are 9 From: icarmagic - Source: Twitter for iPhone
RT @WesleyMcbride: The Supreme Court Cannot Have Its Own Conflict of Interest - Justices Thomas http:tcoS6RidT4w From: Elfredadggoz - Source: Mobile Web
Should three key Supreme court justices bow out of health care ruling? http://t.co/VeKZSdDg From: JuliaDaniels3 - Source: twitterfeed
Supreme court justices question SOCAN on song previews, communication right http://t.co/GtVGXSMP From: SnyderMaria - Source: twitterfeed
@thomhartmann on Corporate Personhood and How the Supreme court justices Have Become Kings bit.ly/sPUers From: HeistDoc - Source: TweetDeck
@thomhartmann on Corporate Personhood and How the Supreme court justices Have Become Kings http://t.co/00eaopq3 From: HeistDoc - Source: TweetDeck
@thomhartmann on Corporate Personhood and How the Supreme court justices Have Become Kings http://t.co/QtkFk1W2 From: Sherry_Reson - Source: TweetDeck
Supreme Courts new justices join the bench http://t.co/mtECojJx From: Harmon_Mary - Source: twitterfeed
RT @revsusanrussell: Dear RickPerry, Its 7 dwarfs; 8 tiny reindeer; 9 Supreme court justices & 10 commandments. Just for future reference. Youre welcome. From: ethanvf - Source: TweetDeck
Rick Perry clearly never thought about the federal government until this year, and he is not a quick study. http://t.co/OnLfHa05 From: wegreenlaw - Source: TweetDeck
Perry! Come on man! U said there were 8 Supreme court justices and you called one of them Montemayor! Do your research or go back 2 Texas From: CarloZayas - Source: HTC Peep
Embattled Inkster judge loses bid to disqualify state Supreme court justices http://t.co/XiUyvipo From: JoanOwens2 - Source: twitterfeed