Ranking the Politics of Supreme Court Justices
Four of the five most conservative justices since 1937 are on the bench today
Reader Comments
religious affiliation on the Supreme Court bench
Today the United States Supreme Court is heavily Roman Catholic in its personnel. Of the Justices, 6 are Catholic, 2 are Jewish and 1 is Protestant.
How long?
Camielle
They are nominated for life terms, by the President to be confirmed by the Senate, whenever a vacancy occurs through the death, resignation or removal by impeachment of an existing Justice. So they have each been there for different times and each will remain there until they die, resign or are removed by impeachment (which has never happened).
How long?
how long have the supreme court justices been on the court? i'm doing research for school but i cant exactly seem to find it anywhere..if anyone finds it send it my way. thanks!
Names of Justices
People who (a) don't KNOW the names of the SCOTUS justices already, AND aren't competent enough with Google (or even Wiki) to find out on their own, only embarrass THEMSELVES by whining over a triviality, and bitching out the OP, at that!
Names of Justices
When you list names of Justices, PLEASE list the WHOLE name. Roberts is a very common name. What is his/her first name and middle initial?
us law
The Federal Court judges do not seem to care about the 'Law' or the Supreme Courts decisions clarifying those laws ( 29cfr-1625 23 , Fed rules of court procedure 8 a 2, EEOC Fed reg 77438-47 )
They just roll over laws cited without explanation and Summarily Dismiss. My Court case is Public knowledge and should be, please print.
I filed a lawsuit against the Company that laid me off, 1 month after I requested an ‘’Alternative Dispute Resolution’’ review for, Age Discrimination.
The Judge in the Federal Court of New Hampshire and the appeals judge in the first circuit in Boston Ma., Went against the rule of law in Summery Dismissal of my case I will now go to the Supreme Court, however the Supreme Court only hears’ only one percent of submitted cases and the Federal Courts across the Country by on line record go against the rules of law as well as recorded Supreme Court decisions clarifying said law, over one percent of the time. This needs to be brought to the attention of the Citizens of the U.S. Are lawful guides ‘Judges’, are our enemies.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Docket No. 1:07-CV-00351-sm
US COURT OF APPEALS ,BOSTON MA. DOCKET NO. 08-1595
Question;
HAS the Judge acted improperly and abused his discretionary power, particularly regarding 8(a) and 8(e), and with a lack of appropriate judicial clarity in improperly granting defendants' motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), so as to prejudice Petitioners in their rights, or in their pursuit of justice? The Court, through its deliberate failure to consider appropriate and correct law and fact which were called to the Court's attention, improperly dismissed the action of Petitioner? In its dismissal, with prejudice, of the action brought by Petitioners, has the Court violated their rights, in fact: under the First Amendment to petition the courts for redress of grievances; b) under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to equal protection of the laws. c) Under the Seventh, Amendment to a trial by jury. COMMENTARY
It is not enough for the Judge to state in Summary Disposition that, ‘’despite budros protestations, evidence is required to stave off summary disposition’’.
It is the Judges obligation to the Pro Se Citizen, especially in the light of the Pro Se stating in Discovery that evidence was sent to the Defendant; (transcripts of Emails sent to budro by BAE people regarding work status and pending layoff, all of which displays persecution by ‘Human Resource’ people as well as age discrimination as well as retaliation.)
, but not to the Court due to the ‘Pro Se Guide books’ statement the ‘’no evidence shall be sent to the Judge except in actual trial’’. (See documents included)
The Judge should have helped guide the Pro Se by informing the Pro Se that the Judge would hold ruling for a time period and that the Pro Se must copy the Judge that Email and other evidence.
It is not enough for the Judge to say that budro had signed a facially valid ADEA release waiver and not mention the EEOC Federal Regulation cited by budro that states, ‘’the waiver cannot be deemed valid on its face but rather with evidence presented to the jury in trial’’.
The Judge’s Summary Disposition was effective and expedient but how can a Citizen view it as justice?
The Pro Se is a non lawyer begging aid and redress from the Judge, a Master of the law, Rules and Regulations. If the Master in not there to guide and judge justice and law but only there to buttress an impenetrable wall that the puny Pro Se Citizen can only push against and peer up. What is our justice system?
Of course the Pro Se may be completely wrong in its interpretation of its lawful rights regardless of how simple the rule wording seems. Is that not the Judge’s job? To state why each point of law by word is valid or non valid?
Plaintiff and defendant could input into the court computer the sworn to pleas and answers with jurisdiction and transcripts of Email evidence. And the computer compare that to all to the words of law. And the computer than, spit out ‘won & lost’, the ultimate in fairness and justice, Correct? Not in my opinion, what errors would have been inadvertently programmed into the computer we can but wonder at. The human masters (Judges) are our best tools we Citizens call on those tools.
These cases should not require a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ to our US Supreme Court when the Constitutional law has already been clearly defined with Federal Regulations and Federal Rules of Court procedure.
This is the most widely socially important reason
The U.S. Supreme Court should here this prayer for redress. If the Inferior Courts across the Country are going against the word of law (Constitutional and Common) over 1% of the time by courts record on line in one year. And the U.S. Superior Court by its own instruction booklet reviews only 1% of ‘Writs for Certiorari’ in one year.
What does that mean for U.S. Citizens?
Justice by quota?
Four Horsemen
Actually, three of the Four Horseman were on the Court after 1937. Butler and Sutherland left in 1938. McReynolds hung on until 1941. Only Van Devanter was gone by 1937.
Judicial activism and foreign "potentates"
Not too long ago the Pope issued a statement saying that public catholic officials who supported abortion were automatically excommunicating themselves. Well, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are self-professedly devout catholics -- so can they be suspected of judicial bias?
Given some of Scalia's public statements. it would certainly seem likely in his case? Perhaps it's time that these four either issued a statement that their religion is secondary to their oath to uphold the constitution (a la Kennedy when he ran for president) -- or recused themselves from any future abortion cases.
It's a list of post-1937 justices
The Four Horsemen all sat in the court before 1937. The list only covers justices who were sitting on the Supreme Court after 1937.
The Fourt Horsemen
How is it possible that none of the Four Horsemen (Sutherland, Van Devanter, McReynolds and Butler) are on the list? That O'Connor and Powell could even be on the list shows that the methodology used in this study must be flawed.
