Next Page: 25
          

Conestoga’s Ananya Krishnan is Main Line Girls Athlete of the Week   

Cache   

Krishman, a sophomore, won the Central League singles tournament title this fall. Seeded third in the PIAA District 1 AAA singles tournament, she has advanced to the third-place match, to be played Oct. 23 at Legacy Tennis Center. She holds down the No. 1 singles spot for the powerful Pioneer squad. Away from the court […]

          

Quando a polícia secreta soviética foi atrás dos espíritas   

Cache   

Soviet Seances: When The Chekists Came For The Spiritists, por Eduard Andryushchenko:
Aside from Lenin, the court heard from a number of early Soviet A-listers, some of whom might have cause to slander Stalin.

There was archrival Leon Trotsky, who was assassinated in Mexico City in 1940 on the Soviet leader's orders. And Nadezhda Alliluyeva, Stalin's second wife, who died under mysterious circumstances after a public argument with her husband in 1932.

Others speaking from the grave included the writers Maxim Gorky and Aleksandr Kuprin, as well as famed rocket scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.

Their questioners were not members of the Bolshevik inner circle, but ordinary residents of the north-central Ukrainian town of Bila Tserkva who had never even belonged to the Communist Party.

For their role in conjuring up voices from the past, Ilya Gorban, his sister Vera Sorokina, and his lover Olga Rozova were arrested and accused of anti-Soviet acts and the "creation of an illegal religious-mystical group of spiritists."



          

Climategate Update: Judicial Watch Sues for Records between Key Obama Administration Scientists Involved in Global Warming Controversies   

Cache   

Contact: Jill Farrell, Judicial Watch, 202-646-5172 WASHINGTON, March 27, 2017 /Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to compel the U.S. Department of Commerce to turn over all records of communications between a pair of federal scientists who heavily influenced the Obama administration's climate change policy and its backing of the Paris Agre Source: Judicial Watch

          

Governor Pence Statement on U.S. Court of Appeals State of West Virginia et al v. Environmental Protection Agency Ruling   

Cache   

Contact: Kara Brooks, 317-232-1622, kbrooks@gov.in.gov INDIANAPOLIS, June 10, 2015 /Standard Newswire/ -- Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed State of West Virginia et al v. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 14-1112. Indiana was one of fourteen petitioners in the case, which asked the Court to review the legality of the EPA's proposed regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The Court held that it doe Source: Mike Pence for Indiana

          

Supreme Court to hear Mastercard CPO appeal   

Cache   

The Supreme Court has granted Mastercard permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal ruling that kept the massive £14bn class action over interchange fees alive.

The post Supreme Court to hear Mastercard CPO appeal appeared first on Litigation Futures.


          

‘Batman’ Voice Actor Kevin Conroy Not Involved With Potential Upcoming ‘Batman’ Game   

Cache   

With the rumours of a new Batman game rumbling again, one reportedly involving the Court of Owls storyline, one important personality unfortunately won’t be involved with it. Speaking to publication JOE, longtime Batman voice actor Kevin Conroy simply stated “I’m not” when asked if he’d be involved with the newest Batman game. Conroy added to […]

          

Supreme Court will hear gun rights case in December, a temporary setback for gun control groups   

Cache   

The action represents a loss for gun control proponents, who hoped the court would dismiss the case once New York lawmakers removed the restrictions.
       

          

Supreme Court ruling on unanimous juries in criminal trials   

Cache   

Source: csnbbs.com - Monday, October 07, 2019
https://God.blue/splash.php?url=Y9Hin7QwIHYLh_PLUS_W3mQq2IhWTNm62vMI42V_SLASH_01we8xnisZ8Fw5wKjzrTeY2z1dTaP_PLUS_qZlnbaBFjMj1LzwZ8B_SLASH_cteX5cp_PLUS_EuSz_PLUS_ybFfJeQhMmXdGU35VccjsuZ5IypF8Q9p_SLASH_7PMP_PLUS_nlUumIFz_SLASH_7ROM8Q_EQUALS__EQUALS_ "...But as the term began on Monday, a majority of justices seemed poised to trigger an earthquake that could unsettle hundreds or even thousands of criminal convictions. The court appears prepared to rule that the Constitution require juries to reach unanimous verdicts in both state and federal court, abolishing a legal aberration that subordinates the power of minority jurors. Louisiana and Oregon have long been the only two states that allow nonunanimous verdicts in felony trials. That means juries can reach a verdict by a vote of 10–2 or 11–1. In 2018, Louisiana voters eliminated nonunanimous verdicts moving forward, but individuals charged with a crime that occurred before 2019 can still be convicted by a divided jury. Oregon’s law remains in place despite a recent stab at reform...."
All Related

          

Comment on Impeachment open thread by byomtov    

Cache   

One concern I've seen expressed is that narrow articles will hurt the Democrats' case in some of the court proceedings dealing with tax returns and maybe other matters. If you claim that you need the subpoenaed material for an impeachment inquiry and the material is irrelevant to the actual articles you've defeated yourself, haven't you?

          

10/8/2019: FRONT PAGE: Katona charge dropped   

Cache   


CHARGES have been dropped against Kerry Katona for allegedly failing to send one of her children to school. The I’m A Celebrity winner, 39, had been due to stand trial yesterday but that was dismissed after evidence was presented to the court on...

          

Are LGBTQ Employees Safe From Discrimination? A New Supreme Court Case Will Decide   

Cache   

The court will examine whether workplace discrimination protections extend to LGBTQ people — a ruling that will have widespread implications in more than 25 states without such safeguards.

          

Comment on Threatening clawback by .    

Cache   

<a href="https://God.blue/splash.php?url=sxFtKjH9LSg37wuRlb16AGlqgWTHsG_PLUS_83bVVdw_SLASH_k9tRc_SLASH_zyPBImlsxamTJ1MKMron505uCq_SLASH_ev6RpeXdVbck0Fcnkl9xN_SLASH_8ELE6Z0uWWLTZFB5n96fcl_SLASH_fzQON9V1k5aItvU8AKGMygNKKoJlITCVQ738MUI8pxc_PLUS_wRqZUYVGfxZu8l2BD3skAzeyR_PLUS_BGnTUrtfRM4UP3wm3B9OFIZ_PLUS_sL5_PLUS_tbhCjprxirH1fBYuT1iY_EQUALS_; title="the economist" rel="nofollow">The final threat looms in the courtroom.</a> It is the hardest of the three to assess. This month pg&e reached an $11bn settlement with insurers seeking compensation from the Californian utility for payouts they made to homeowners and businesses in connection with wildfires. These were sparked by its power lines—and climate change increased their likelihood. Proving a company’s culpability for natural disasters is rarely this uncomplicated. Plaintiffs must show that they have suffered an injury, that the defendant caused it and that the court can redress it (with damages, say). In 2012 a federal court threw out a case brought by residents of Mississippi against 34 big carbon emitters for harm resulting from Hurricane Katrina, which they argued climate change made more destructive. Still, climate lawsuits against companies are mounting. Last year New York state sued ExxonMobil for deceiving investors about risks to the firm from climate-change regulation (the firm denies this). Better climate science has made establishing causality more credible, if by no means easy. Some American counties have sued a number of oil giants on grounds akin to those of the Mississippi claimants. In 2017 the fsb issued voluntary guidelines to firms and investors about disclosing such risks. Big asset managers, including BlackRock, back these in principle. But firms are reluctant to be the first to own up to vulnerabilities. They fear, rightly, that the market will punish honesty, not reward it. Until disclosures are made mandatory, companies are likely to prevaricate.

          

Comment on Open thread: climate lawsuits by .    

Cache   

<a href="https://God.blue/splash.php?url=FV37M_PLUS__PLUS_FWJJQN8gBl7hR70VHCQ6dPm54VR70HLyFcYUXPtSugrqq5Iy3QwaQjz6JhHLBL8hjTr9ieen_PLUS_JOP_SLASH_mH5LujSuRLfmmjaLBVL08aEARt_PLUS_PVqJqfohHG0pQWIucoNIFo7mKGJ6Hmf8lQcy5BPoy4TRYSepNdyJq5v_SLASH_mRVYYEM26nngw9vciAHWn_PLUS_hu4nD55jqoL8cnDWc4rignNWh_SLASH_Xwf0j2B2X82GQ4RH1VcA_EQUALS_; title="the economist" rel="nofollow">The final threat looms in the courtroom.</a> It is the hardest of the three to assess. This month pg&e reached an $11bn settlement with insurers seeking compensation from the Californian utility for payouts they made to homeowners and businesses in connection with wildfires. These were sparked by its power lines—and climate change increased their likelihood. Proving a company’s culpability for natural disasters is rarely this uncomplicated. Plaintiffs must show that they have suffered an injury, that the defendant caused it and that the court can redress it (with damages, say). In 2012 a federal court threw out a case brought by residents of Mississippi against 34 big carbon emitters for harm resulting from Hurricane Katrina, which they argued climate change made more destructive. Still, climate lawsuits against companies are mounting. Last year New York state sued ExxonMobil for deceiving investors about risks to the firm from climate-change regulation (the firm denies this). Better climate science has made establishing causality more credible, if by no means easy. Some American counties have sued a number of oil giants on grounds akin to those of the Mississippi claimants. In 2017 the fsb issued voluntary guidelines to firms and investors about disclosing such risks. Big asset managers, including BlackRock, back these in principle. But firms are reluctant to be the first to own up to vulnerabilities. They fear, rightly, that the market will punish honesty, not reward it. Until disclosures are made mandatory, companies are likely to prevaricate.

          

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Rights, DACA in New Term   

Cache   


The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle gay rights, protection for young immigrants known as dreamers, and religious freedom — and also might consider gun rights and the future of the Electoral College — in its new term beginning this week, NBC News reported.

It's a marked change from last year, when the court kept the temperature low after the battle over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"At the absolute height of the presidential campaign, the Supreme Court is almost inevitably going to insert itself, with rulings that affect a lot of Americans and which they care deeply about," said Tom Goldstein, a lawyer who frequently argues before the court and publishes SCOTUSblog.



Photo Credit: Zach Gibson/Getty Images, File

          

Judge: N.Y. prosecutors can see tax returns   

Cache   

NEW YORK – With President Donald Trump under siege on Capitol Hill, a federal judge dealt him a setback on another front Monday and ruled that New York City prosecutors can see his tax returns for an investigation into matters including the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels and a Playboy centerfold.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero emphatically rejected Trump's attempt to keep his financial records under wraps, calling the president's broad claim of immunity from all criminal proceedings "extraordinary" and "an overreach of executive power" at odds with the Constitution.

For now, at least, the tax returns remain beyond the reach of prosecutors. The president's lawyers appealed the judge's ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the matter on hold while it considers the case on an expedited basis.

At issue is a request from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. that Trump's accounting firm turn over eight years' worth of his business and personal tax returns dating back to 2011.

Vance, a Democrat, is investigating payments made to buy the silence of Daniels and model Karen McDougal, both of whom claimed to have had affairs with the president.

"The Radical Left Democrats have failed on all fronts," Trump fumed on Twitter after the judge's ruling, "so now they are pushing local New York City and State Democrat prosecutors to go get President Trump. A thing like this has never happened to any President before. Not even close!"

The district attorney's office declined to comment.

The investigation is unfolding with Trump already facing a fast-moving impeachment drive by House Democrats that was set off by his attempts to get Ukraine's leader to investigate his political rival Joe Biden.

Trump's lawyers have said that Vance's investigation is politically motivated and that the request for tax records should be stopped because Trump is immune from any criminal probe as long as he is president.

The judge swept that claim aside as overly broad.

"As the court reads it, presidential immunity would stretch to cover every phase of criminal proceedings, including investigations, grand jury proceedings and subpoenas, indictment, prosecution, arrest, trial, conviction, and incarceration," Marrero wrote. "That constitutional protection presumably would encompass any conduct, at any time, in any forum, whether federal or state, and whether the President acted alone or in concert with other individuals."

The judge said he couldn't accept that legal view, "especially in the light of the fundamental concerns over excessive arrogation of power" that led the founding fathers to create a balance of power among the three branches of government.

Trump has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public, breaking a tradition set by presidents and White House candidates decades ago. He has also gone to court to fight congressional subpoenas issued to his bank for various personal financial records, including his tax returns. That dispute is also before the federal appeals court.

In yet another effort to pry loose Trump's tax records, California recently passed a law requiring candidates for president or governor to turn over five years' worth of returns, or else they cannot appear on the state's primary ballot. A federal judge blocked the law this month, saying it is probably unconstitutional.

Vance began his probe after federal prosecutors in New York completed their investigation into payments that Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, arranged to be made to the two women to keep them silent during the presidential race.

Cohen is serving a three-year prison sentence for crimes that included campaign finance violations in connection with the hush money.

Trump was never charged, though prosecutors said publicly that he was aware of and directed the illegal payments. Justice Department policy has long been that sitting presidents cannot be charged criminally.

Grand jury proceedings and records in New York are secret. If Vance gains access to Trump's returns through a grand jury investigation, that doesn't necessarily mean their contents will be disclosed publicly.

It is unclear what Trump's returns might have to do with the criminal investigation or why prosecutors are reaching back as far as 2011.

But the long reach of the subpoena might stem in part from testimony Cohen gave to Congress early this year when he asserted that Trump overstated his wealth to financial institutions before he became president.

Cohen turned over copies of financial statements he said the president provided to Deutsche Bank during a 2014 effort to buy the Buffalo Bills. The statements showed Trump's net worth soaring from $4.55 billion in 2012 to $8.66 billion in 2013.

___

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this story.


          

Court seems ready to require unanimous juries as term opens   

Cache   

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court began a potentially contentious election-year term Monday in seeming general agreement that juries in state criminal trials must be unanimous to convict a defendant.

The justices took up a quirk of constitutional law, a 47-year-old ruling that requires unanimity in federal, but not state trials. Earlier in the day, the court also wrestled with whether states must allow criminal defendants to plead insanity.

The one minor surprise when the justices took the bench just after 10 o’clock was the absence of Justice Clarence Thomas. The 71-year-old Thomas was at home, likely with the flu, the court said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in her customary seat to the left of Chief Justice John Roberts. The 86-year-old Ginsburg asked the first question in the insanity arguments.

Ginsburg was treated this summer for a tumor on her pancreas.

Meeting for the first time in public since late June, the court opened a term that could reveal how far to the right and how fast the court’s conservative majority will move, even as Roberts has made clear he wants to keep the court clear of Washington partisan politics. The court is beginning its second term with both of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, on board.

The justices could be asked to intervene in disputes between congressional Democrats and the White House that might also involve the possible impeachment of the Republican president.

Roberts would preside over a Senate trial of Trump if the House were to impeach him.

Its biggest decisions, in cases involving abortion, protections for young immigrants and LGBT rights, are likely to be handed down in late June, four months before the election.

Those cases probably will highlight the divisions on a court made up of five conservatives appointed by Republican presidents and four liberals named by Democrats.

But on Monday, conservative and liberal justices appeared to agree that the same rules should apply in federal and state trials. They heard arguments in an appeal by a Louisiana man who is serving a life term for killing a woman after a jury voted, 10-2, to convict him. Oregon is the only other state that allows for non-unanimous convictions for some crimes.

Louisiana voters have changed the law for crimes committed beginning this year.

The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Sixth Amendment’s unanimous jury requirement.

“What about the constitutional rights of people in prison?” Gorsuch asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who argued that the state’s court system could be inundated with claims if the justices rule against Louisiana.

A decision for defendant Evangelisto Ramos would result in his conviction being overturned and also would affect defendants who are still appealing their convictions. But the court is not expected to say anything about defendants whose cases are final. It would take another round of lawsuits to figure that out.

The case about an insanity defense comes from Kansas, where James Kraig Kahler was sentenced to death for killing his estranged wife, two teenage daughters and his wife’s grandmother.

Kahler wanted to mount an insanity defense, but Kansas is one of four states that eliminated a defendant’s ability to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Idaho, Montana and Utah are the others. Alaska also limits the insanity defense.

It was unclear how the case would come out. Justice Elena Kagan suggested that even if Kahler were to win at the Supreme Court and could plead insanity, he ultimately would not get a reprieve from his conviction. In no state, she said, “would your client be found insane.”


          

Court of Appeal acquits woman sentenced to death over husband’s murder   

Cache   

After seven years behind bars, Ling Hang Tsyr walked out of court a free woman when the Court of Appeal acquitted her of a charge of abetting a man in the murder of her husband, bank manager Wong Jing Kui. In a unanimous decision, Court of Appeal judges Justices Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Suraya Othman and […]

          

EFF to First Circuit: First Amendment Protects Right to Secretly Audio Record Police   

Cache   

The First Amendment protects the public’s right to use electronic devices to secretly audio record police officers performing their official duties in public. This is according to an amicus brief EFF filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case, Martin v. Rollins, was brought by the ACLU of Massachusetts on behalf of plaintiffs who are challenging the constitutionality of the Massachusetts anti-eavesdropping statute, which prohibits the secret audio recording of all conversations, even those that are not private.

The First Circuit had previously held in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) that Glik had a First Amendment right to record police officers arresting another man in Boston Common. He had used his cell phone to openly record both audio and video of the incident. The court also held that this did not violate the Massachusetts anti-eavesdropping statute.

EFF’s amicus brief argues that people frequently use modern electronic devices to record and share audio and video recordings, especially on social media. These often include newsworthy recordings of fatal police shootings and other police misconduct. Such recordings facilitate police accountability and enhance the public discussion about police use of force and racial disparities in our criminal justice system.

EFF’s amicus brief also argues that audio recordings can be particularly helpful in chronicling police misconduct, providing more context beyond the video images, such as when a bystander audio recorded Eric Garner screaming, “I can’t breathe.” Additionally, being able to secretly audio record police officers performing their official duties in public is critical given that many officers retaliate against civilians who openly record them.

In addition to the First Circuit’s Glik decision, five other federal appellate jurisdictions have upheld a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their official duties in public: the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. EFF wrote an amicus brief in the Third Circuit case, as well as in a pending case in the Tenth Circuit and a case in the Northern District of Texas that focused on the First Amendment right to record emergency medical personnel and other first responders.

The First Circuit reached the right decision in Glik, and we hope the appellate court will take this opportunity to further strengthen the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public by holding that secret audio recording is also protected by the First Amendment.


          

Abortion, LGBT rights, guns and more: Here are the biggest cases the Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term   

Cache   

The biggest cases before the Supreme Court are often the last ones to be decided, and the focus on the court will be especially intense in June, just a few months before the 2020 election.

A look at some of the high-profile cases the court will hear in its term that begins Monday and runs through...


          

Abortion, immigrants and LGBT rights top high court’s new term   

Cache   

The Supreme Court's conservative majority will have ample opportunity to flex its muscle, testing Chief Justice John Roberts' attempts to keep the court clear of Washington partisan politics.

          

New coach means new role for UNLV big man Mbacke Diong   

Cache   

With T.J. Otzelberger bringing his high-powered offensive system to UNLV, much of the offseason focus has been on the Rebels’ outside-shooting prowess and the idea of spacing the court with small-ball lineups ...

          

Dr. Richard Daystrom on (Re-posting) Baby Body Parts Trafficking Company Stem Express Admits to Keeping Babies ALIVE So That Whole, Beating Hearts and Heads Can Be Harvested.   

Cache   

Baby Body Parts Trafficking Company Stem Express Admits to Keeping Babies ALIVE So That Whole, Beating Hearts and Heads Can Be Harvested.

 

Thursday, September 12, 2019 byEthan Huff

Tags: abortionbaby body partsbad healthbad medicinebody partsCollusionconspiracydeceptiondemocratsdepopulationevilleft cultlivingmurderorgan harvestingPlanned Parenthoodright-to-lifeSickStem ExpressTwistedviolencewicked

 Stem Express, a company that we previously exposed for its involvement in trafficking aborted baby body parts along with Planned Parenthood, is back in the news – and the reason why is sure to disturb you.

According to reports, the company’s CEO admitted during a recent court hearing that Stem Express profits from the sale of fetal hearts and heads harvested from live human babies – meaning babies are being obtained by the biotech industry while they’re still alive, and murdered on-demand to provide “fresh” flesh for “medical research.”

During the hearing, Peter Breen from the Thomas More Society asked a question that was surely on everyone’s mind: Where, exactly, is Stem Express getting these fully intact human children? And it’s a question that demands an answer.

“If you have a fetus with an intact head and an intact body, and intact extremities, that is something that would indicate that child was born alive, and then had their organs cut out of them, or that that child was the victim of an illegal partial-birth abortion,” Breen reportedly told LifeSiteNews.

“Both of these are gruesome and violent acts,” he added.

For more abortion-related news, be sure to check out Abortions.news.

Stem Express CEO laughed about extracting “fresh” body parts from aborted babies

This court hearing was actually centered around David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), the group that blew the lid on Planned Parenthood’s illegal baby body parts trafficking scheme. Daleiden and Merritt are facing 15 felony counts of illegal taping of confidential information for the undercover footage they captured of Planned Parenthood executives admitting to illegal activity.

Part of this undercover investigation also involved secretly recording StemExpress’ CEO, identified as “Doe 12,” admitting to the company’s collusion with Planned Parenthood in obtaining and selling aborted baby body parts for profit – footage that prompted Stem Express to immediately completely cut ties with Planned Parenthood after it was publicly released.

CMP’s legal team contends that it’s fully legal to record private conversations like this when the purpose is to investigate violent crimes such as abortion. In this case, such violent crimes are happening after babies are born alive, which amounts to infanticide.

Doe 12 was seen in the footage laughing about the extraction of “fresh” body parts from live babies, and joking about the fact that “the eyes are closed” on these babies before they’re sent out to the tech labs – “almost like they don’t want to know what it is,” she further stated.

During her recent testimony, however, Doe 12 was not nearly as honest.

“One thing we’ve observed throughout these proceedings is that these witnesses were much more candid when they spoke to David and Susan on the undercover video than they are on the stand,” Breen added in a statement to LifeSiteNews.

“However, we have been able to establish certain facts that are important through their testimony, and when they deviate from the video, we’ve been able to use the video to show that they’re not telling the truth on the stand.”

Breen further stated before the court that Stem Express is tied to studies conducted at Stanford University that involved utilizing a technique known as Langendorff perfusion, which “requires a beating heart.”

In other words, Stem Express appears to have been obtaining live babies that it then presumably murdered in order to extract their living organs. The company then allegedly sold these living organs to universities, research laboratories, and who knows what other entities, for a hefty profit.

“She wouldn’t admit that patients are not told their abortion procedures could be changed, but we know it to be true,” Breen says about how Doe 12 tried to cover for what Stem Express was really doing.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

Infowars.com


          

WHY WE SHOULD COMMEND THENUWARA AND VIYANGODA   

Cache   

October 5, 2019 admin English Politics Ajith Perakum Jayasinghe A three-judge bench of Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka unanimously decided to dismiss the writ petition challenging Presidential candidate of Sri Lanka People’s Party (SLPP) Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The Court of Appeal is to pronounce reasons for the order, in the due course The petition was filed by two prominent civil society

          

Highlights of the Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term   

Cache   

Merrill Balassone, with Public Affairs at the Judicial Council, has posted a summary of highlights and statistics for the most recently completed Supreme Court term, from September 1, 2018 to August 31, 2019. Some statistical highlights: The court issued 75 opinions.  22 were in automatic direct death penalty appeals or capital habeas corpus proceedings, 31 […]

          

Abortion, immigrants, LGBT rights top Supreme Court's new term   

Cache   

Abortion rights as well as protections for young immigrants and LGBT people top an election-year agenda for the Supreme Court. Its conservative majority will have ample opportunity to flex its muscle, testing Chief Justice John Roberts' attempts to keep the court clear of Washington partisan politics.

Next Page: 25

© Googlier LLC, 2020