Search for: "Drew Kennedy" Results 221 - 240 of 475
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2015, 6:13 am by Amy Howe
” The Human Rights at Home Blog hosted a two-part commentary by Jeremiah Ho and Margaret Drew on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s rhetoric in the Court’s decision striking down state bans on same-sex marriage. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 3:16 am by Lyle Denniston
Kennedy argued at the time that the court should keep looking for such a workable standard, but it has abandoned the effort. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 11:53 am by Amy Howe
Breyer’s dissent drew what can only be described as scorn from Justices Scalia and Thomas, both of whom wrote their own concurring opinions (each joined by the other) just to respond to Breyer. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 5:16 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
In the words of Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority and as the author of the third in a trilogy of gay rights cases: The Constitution . . . does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. . . . [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 9:21 am by Amy Howe
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote today’s opinion for the Court, which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 8:26 am by Ronald Collins
By the same token, if the Court’s 2013 Term 5-4 rulings drew cheers from conservatives, then this Term’s rulings may have produced jeers. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 2:00 pm by Peter Margulies
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the Court, drew support from the court’s opinion in 1962’s Glidden Co. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 10:00 am by Ryan Scoville
The majority suggested the risk of misperception is relevant as a type of functionalist consideration: Pointing to evidence that § 214(d) drew objections from Palestine and protests in the Gaza Strip, and invoking a need for “one voice” in foreign affairs, Justice Kennedy concluded that the statute is unconstitutional not simply because it purports to compel the President to issue statements that contradict his policy on the status of Jerusalem, but also because… [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 7:08 am by Roy Black
Vince not only wrote engaging books, but drew detailed descriptions of the courtroom scenes and trial strategy. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 10:32 am by Lyle Denniston
From that exclusive authority to “speak with one voice for the nation” about recognizing other governments, the Kennedy opinion drew the separate conclusion that what is said on U.S. passports that might make a statement about what nation is recognized as sovereign is up to the president. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 3:30 am by Daniel Shaviro
Wynne, decided on May 18, 2015, in which an unusual Supreme Court majority composed of three conservatives (Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts) and two liberals (Breyer and Sotomayor) converged to strike down a Maryland income tax rule as discriminatory against interstate commerce. [read post]
28 May 2015, 11:01 am
Kennedy with the Senate’s Judiciary Committee; Counsel to Senator Ernest F. [read post]
27 May 2015, 5:00 am
On May 26, the Supreme Court finally drew a line in the sand on indirect patent infringement defenses. [read post]
1 May 2015, 7:28 am by Jennifer R. Dixon
  The 5-4 decision, which drew dissents from Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito, held that Canon 7C(1) was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling State interest–preserving public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 12:18 pm by Joseph Grodin
Four Justices (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito) would have held Florida’s rule invalid on First Amendment grounds. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 8:51 pm
Bursch reiterated that states do not recognize marriage as a way to bestow dignity, which drew a sharp response from Kennedy: “Well, I think many States would be surprised, with reference to traditional marriages, they are not enhancing the dignity of both the parties. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 5:28 am
The Solicitor General drew a laugh with the response "Well, this Congress? [read post]