Search for: "The Presiding Justices of The First, Second, Third and Fourth Departments"
Results 121 - 140
of 643
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2013, 2:46 pm
The following day, the jury found the defendant guilty of kidnapping in the first degree, five counts of rape in the first degree, four counts of sodomy in the first degree, one count of robbery in the third degree, and one count of assault in the second degree. [read post]
9 Aug 2021, 6:43 am
The first CDC order was set to expire on Dec. 31, 2020. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 2:20 pm
But the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 3:39 pm
Second, the court misread Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Kerry v. [read post]
3 Feb 2018, 7:46 am
” The second and third paragraphs interpret the Committee’s release of the memo to the President and vote to publish it as a “request for declassification pursuant to the President’s authority. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 8:03 am
Although the weight of authority supports Trump’s standing here, the Justice Department’s long-standing position on congressional standing would seem to call for a different result. [read post]
29 May 2019, 10:18 am
” And he noted again that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel had determined “that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing. [read post]
22 Nov 2014, 1:51 pm
Blackman’s analysis struck me as quite interesting: The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel’s memorandum justifying President Obama’s new executive action recognizes that prosecutorial discretion is not “unlimited. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 10:22 am
She grouped the factors into three categories: (1) where the Constitution textually commits the resolution of an issue to one of the political branches (Baker‘s first factor), courts lacks authority to decide; (2) where there are no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards” for resolving the issue, or where resolution requires an “initial policy determination” (Baker‘s second and third factors), courts lack the ability to… [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 5:01 am
First, “courts should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers”; second, subpoenas should be “no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective”; third, Congress must offer evidence to “establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose”; and fourth, “courts should be careful to… [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 10:08 am
Department of Justice; and Craig Newmark, creator of the Cyber Civil Defense Initiative. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 11:12 am
The Justice Department’s own Office of Legal Counsel authored careful and exhaustive memos in 1973 and 2000, both of which concluded that the House of Representatives has exclusive constitutional authority to bring criminal charges against the president. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:00 am
Such an action could survive Justice Robert Jackson’s second tier of Youngstown. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 5:30 am
The heart of the matter, as Justice Blackmun recognized in his opinion for the Court in Department of the Navy v. [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 9:20 am
Second, when would any charges have been filed? [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:10 am
Fourth, some Justices might worry that if the Court holds that Trump is ineligible to be President, it could be the very rare case in which important actors in the constitutional system refuse to accept the Court's decision as determinative. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 11:18 am
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision in El-Hady v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 12:31 pm
In our hypothetical, a well-connected constituent of a member of Congress had been indicted by the Department of Justice. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 4:26 am
If they're second-, third- or fourth-generation officers, they could have even more expectations to live up to. [read post]
22 May 2018, 5:20 am
If the answer to the first hypothetical is of course not, what principle of federal jurisprudence would compel a different answer to the second hypothetical? [read post]
