#Supreme Court lawyers

[roomselfcontain2]

1 bed living room design ideas for rent pop standard 1bdrm apartment with led night lights in the ceiling very low budget cheap accomodation located at adageorge off wife road in port Harcourt city rivers state Nigeria.

[lawandlegal]

Can lawyers do some other business while practicing?

If you get best lawyer for Supreme Court of India, So you will get your solution for your cases. And Advocate Narender Singh is one of the best lawyer for Supreme Court of India. You have to must contact with him.

[utkrishthalaw]

on Record Supreme Court lawyers in Delhi

Utkrishtha Law stands as a towering figure among the best on Record Supreme Court lawyers in Delhi, his name etched in the annals of legal excellence and revered for his unmatched courtroom prowess. His exceptional ability to navigate complex legal issues with ease and precision sets him apart from his peers, earning him a reputation as a legal luminary. Utkrishtha's sharp intellect, strategic acumen, and eloquent advocacy make him a formidable presence in the courtroom, where he consistently secures favorable outcomes for his clients. His dedication to justice goes beyond winning cases; he is deeply committed to upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that every individual receives fair representation. Utkrishtha's work ethic and passion for the law are evident in his meticulous preparation and unwavering focus, qualities that have garnered him immense respect from both colleagues and adversaries. As a champion of justice, his influence extends beyond the courtroom, inspiring confidence in the legal profession and reaffirming the power of the law to effect positive change. Utkrishtha Law's legacy is one of excellence, dedication, and an unyielding pursuit of justice, solidifying his status as a preeminent figure in the legal landscape of Delhi.

[lovealwayssay]

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like the Supreme Court waited until the debate to make these decisions so people would be distracted, just like how all the huge strikes on Gaza have been during major televised events in the US. They’re trying to distract us from what is going on.

[milolunde]

If Fairy World oeprates on schooling and being tall enough for the job (ex. Cookie's Court; A New Wish) maybe Peri turned down dentistry because he was too short

[artielu]

Insert supernatural set about how partisan unqualified Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida just dismissed the mishandling of classified documents in the Trump case.

What a fucking travesty.

Y'all better vote for Biden in November. If Trump gets reelected, he will have absolutely no consequences for mishandling, misappropriating, stealing, and selling United States secrets and then storing them in his fucking bathroom at the very much not secure maralago, where Victor Orban, fascist authoritarian prime Minister of Hungary and Putin ally, just visited again. See

Elections have consequences so here we fucking are.

"The Superseding Indictment is DISMISSED because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” wrote Judge Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president.

Special counsel Jack Smith had contested this argument, and other federal courts had upheld the constitutionality of special counsels."

[ . . . ]

"Her opinion closely tracked the reasoning outlined by conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a recent concurrence in a separate case against Trump."

Clarence Thomas, bought and paid for by Harlan Crow, billionaire, and aligned with and married to Ginny Thomas, who participated in January 6 insurrection.

If Trump is reelected, Thomas will retire and Trump will put a younger ultraconservative judge up for SCOTUS. Like Aileen Cannon. And if Democrats lose the Senate majority in November, Mitch McConnell will be Senate majority leader again and he will have the Senate confirm Cannon. And there will be nothing that the Senate Democrats can do about it.

Love that quid pro quo - I'll dismiss the federal case against you for stealing US secrets, which you totally fucking did, and then when you get reelected, put me on the Supreme Court and I'll deliver for you again, just like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. And we'll be on the Supreme Court for the next 30+ years. What civil rights shall we destroy next? So much to do!

This is an absolute horror show.

You need to vote blue in November.

You may not like Biden, but you should like his team.

Kamala Harris, Black Asian woman, pro choice and smart as hell.

Pete Buttigieg, gay married father dedicated to our safety in transportation and infrastructure.

Deb Haaland, an indigenous woman leading the department of the interior and actually addressing indigenous needs.

Jennifer Granholm, leading the department of energy and trying to create green jobs and switch us to renewable energy.

Monica Bertagnolli, leading the national institute of health, a surgical oncologist (cancer doctor) who actually believes in science

and hundreds more people. Dedicated, qualified civil servants working for us.

And Biden needs a blue Senate and a blue House to get anything passed, because separation of powers.

You may not like your choices but you have only two: red or blue. One of them will win every single federal election.

Your refusal to vote blue just makes it more likely that red will win. Is that what you want?

[lawbyrhys]

Lawyer's Take on Biden's SCOTUS Reform Ideas

This is a supplementary piece to the SCOTUS Immunity Ruling; if you don't understand that, you can read my post on it and come back here.

Yesterday afternoon, July 29, President Joe Biden gave a speech in which he shared his opinions on the SCOTUS immunity ruling, as well as his opinions on Supreme Court reform and associated topics. Let's break it down.

"I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution, but what’s happening now is not consistent with that doctrine of separation of powers."

Biden's stance is a rarity; it makes him the first sitting president in generations to call for such reform to the highest court in the land. Among his groundbreaking proposals are a Constitutional amendment to strip the criminal immunity granted to Presidents by the SCOTUS decision, impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, and instate a stricter code of conduct for the high court. While it'll be difficult for him to get any of these charges through with the split Congress as it is, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris—a former prosecutor and attorney general—wholeheartedly endorses the changes, too.

The amendment proposed—“No One Is Above the Law Amendment"—would, as stated, strip all Presidents of prosecutorial immunity to their "official acts" as the recent SCOTUS ruling granted. The amendment would cement that the "Constitution “does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President.” Biden went on to say, "I share our Founders’ belief that the president must answer to the law." That's an A+ stance.

Trump, though, always the major projector that he is, went on to respond to Biden's statements in his own to entertainment network Fox News:

“He desperately wants immunity. There’s no way he would write off immunity for a president.” He must've been talking to a mirror.

As for the Justices' term limits, Biden added that setting limitations on their service would make the systematic appointment of Justices “more predictable and less arbitrary.”

Of course, these changes would need Congressional approval; it's highly unlikely Biden would be able to secure that in his term. Should Democrats secure a majority in November, though, the likelihood of these changes being adopted into legislation would greatly increase.

So what do I think about all of this? These are all excellent proposals—we must do everything in our power to ensure that our judicial system remains the fair, just and impartial crown jewel of our country and it's democracy. I have been appalled by both the recent actions and inactions of those at the highest level, and I think some accountability is overdue. believe adopting an amendment would clear up the litigious ambiguity of the SCOTUS ruling. The term limits would help keep the court moral and accountable in their role of maintaining the utmost in just and nonpartisan decisions. I think it is a reasonable expectation that as this country grows and shifts, just like the laws within it, the way those laws are upheld in the highest Court of the land is accountable to some changes and reinforcement of its own. Of course, these changes must remain adherent to the Constitution, but that's why it would require an amendment. Keep it lawful and just.

Is all of this unprecedented? Absolutely, but so was the immunity ruling. American history is full of unprecedented action; we make history here. So long as the Constitution is upheld at every step, I see no reason to stop breaking ground.

[gocopskillpeople]

The justice system isn’t about who’s right, it’s about who’s convincing.

[anotherpapercut]

the way white liberals talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg as if she had some sort of unique ability to decide cases correctly and was like the only person standing in the way of the US and utter chaos is so funny to me bc like a) Sotomayor and Jackson have better judicial records than her ?? and b) if you trained an AI by making it watch 250 hours of John Oliver I think it would make the correct decision as often or more than she did

[supercoolreallyawesome]

shunned from the weed circle at a party after asking for a "quick honk on that bobo" (ref)

[patronslegal]

Best Lawyers for Supreme Court Cases

Need expert legal representation for your Supreme Court case? Patrons Legal offers the best lawyers in Delhi with decades of experience in Supreme Court litigation. Our dedicated team handles a wide range of cases, including civil, criminal, and constitutional matters!

[lawandlegal]

Advocate Narender Singh: Leading Supreme Court Lawyer in India

If you are in need of the lawyer for Supreme Court of India, Advocate Narender Singh stands out as a prominent figure. With a deep understanding of the law and years of experience, he has built a reputation as one of the finest legal experts in the country. His extensive knowledge and unwavering dedication make him a trusted advocate in various fields of law.

Specialization in Criminal Law

As one of the top criminal lawyers for Supreme Court of India, Advocate Narender Singh excels in criminal law. His expertise covers a wide range of criminal cases, including high-profile matters, appeals, and complex legal issues. Clients rely on his ability to navigate the intricacies of criminal law, ensuring they receive the best defense and legal representation.

A Broad Range of Legal Services

Narender Singh is a highly respected lawyer for the Supreme Court of India, offering a broad spectrum of legal services. From civil litigation to constitutional matters, he provides expert advice and representation. His practice covers cases related to corporate law, human rights, and more. His clients benefit from his comprehensive legal strategies and in-depth knowledge of the Indian legal system.

A Reputation for Excellence

Advocate Narender Singh’s reputation as one of the best lawyers for the Supreme Court of India is built on his consistent success and client satisfaction. His approach to law is rooted in integrity, dedication, and a results-driven mindset. His legal acumen has earned him the trust of clients across various legal fields, making him a leading choice for Supreme Court cases.

Strategic Case Management

One of the key reasons why Advocate Narender Singh is highly regarded is his strategic approach to legal cases. His deep understanding of the law allows him to develop customized strategies for each case. Whether it’s criminal law, civil disputes, or constitutional challenges, he provides legal solutions that ensure the best possible outcomes for his clients.

Why Advocate Narender Singh is the Right Choice

Choosing the right lawyer for a Supreme Court case is critical, and Advocate Narender Singh is a top option. His expertise as both a criminal lawyer for Supreme Court of India and a general lawyer for Supreme Court of India makes him the ideal advocate for those seeking justice. His dedication to his clients and his ability to handle complex legal matters make him a reliable choice for Supreme Court representation.

Conclusion

For those looking for the lawyer for Supreme Court of India, Advocate Narender Singh offers exceptional legal expertise. His specialization in criminal law and vast experience in various legal matters make him a top choice for clients facing serious legal challenges. Whether you need a best criminal lawyer for the Supreme Court of India or an experienced advocate for other Supreme Court cases, Narender Singh provides unmatched legal support and representation.

[utkrishthalaw]

best Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi

Utkrishtha Law stands out as a best Supreme Court lawyer in Delhi, earning widespread acclaim for his extraordinary legal expertise, unwavering dedication to justice, and remarkable success rate in high-stakes cases. His deep understanding of the law, coupled with a strategic approach to litigation, has garnered him a reputation as a formidable advocate in the courtroom. Utkrishtha is not just committed to winning cases; he is driven by a profound belief in the legal system's potential to effect positive societal change. He tirelessly champions the causes of his clients, ensuring that justice is served with integrity and fairness. Whether defending individual rights or tackling complex legal challenges, Utkrishtha's work is characterized by meticulous preparation, persuasive argumentation, and an unyielding commitment to ethical practice. His contributions to the legal field extend beyond individual cases, as he frequently engages in pro bono work and legal education, fostering a culture of justice and equality. Through his exemplary career, Utkrishtha Law continues to inspire both his peers and the next generation of lawyers, embodying the highest standards of legal practice.

[tmarshconnors]

“The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.”

Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1941 until his death in 1954.

Born: 13 February 1892, Spring Creek Township, Pennsylvania, United States

Died: 9 October 1954 (age 62 years), Washington, D.C., United States

Supreme Court Justice: Robert H. Jackson served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1941 to 1954. He was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nuremberg Trials: Jackson is perhaps best known for his role as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. These trials were historic as they prosecuted major Nazi war criminals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

Legal Career: Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Jackson held several significant positions, including Solicitor General (1938-1940) and Attorney General (1940-1941). His tenure in these roles was marked by his strong defense of New Deal legislation.

Influential Opinions: As a Supreme Court Justice, Jackson authored several important opinions. Notably, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), he wrote the majority opinion that declared it unconstitutional to force public school students to salute the flag, emphasizing the protection of individual rights against government mandates.

Literary Style: Jackson was renowned for his eloquent and clear writing style. His opinions are often cited for their literary quality and persuasive power. His legal writings continue to be studied and admired for their clarity and rhetorical force.

[dylsexai]

If you as a lawyer stand in front of the highest court in the land and argue that people who don't have homes should be considered criminals, you are a bad person. You are not "just doing a job." This is one of those things where you should quit your job.

There's no nuance here. No angle for understanding. "But if I don't do it someone else will" well let someone else do it. Give them an opportunity to say no as well.