#Supreme Court lawyers

[lawandlegal]

Are you searching for the best criminal lawyer in Delhi?

Advocate Narender Singh provides expert legal services for criminal defense, bail petitions, and appeals at the Supreme Court. Protect your rights with the best legal representation today!

[utkrishthalaw]

Best supreme court lawyers in Delhi

Utkrishtha Law is widely recognized as one of the best Supreme Court lawyers in Delhi, celebrated for his exceptional legal acumen, unwavering commitment to justice, and impressive track record in high-stakes litigation. His profound understanding of the law, combined with a strategic and methodical approach to litigation, has established him as a formidable presence in the courtroom. Driven by a deep belief in the transformative power of the legal system, Utkrishtha is dedicated not only to winning cases but also to promoting fairness and ethical justice.

[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.

[onlytiktoks]

@a-captions-blog

[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

[ifelllikeastar]

Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He also played a key role in ending racial segregation in schools and advancing civil rights in the United States.

Born Thoroughgood Marshall on July 2, 1908, in Baltimore, Maryland, and died on January 24, 1993, in Bethesda, Maryland, at the age of 84.

[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?

[apocryphalia]

low key really emotional right now listening to the oral arguments from us v. skrmetti yesterday bc chase strangio's voice sounds like mine

and if he can get up in front of the whole ass supreme court being visibly (or audibly) trans and argue for effectively his own right to exist... the rest of us can do fucking anything.

[jasondamien93]

🏳️‍⚧️✊

[lawandlegal]

Choose best Advocate For Supreme Court of India

Facing a challenging legal battle? Advocate Narender Singh provides expert legal services for corporate law, criminal defense, and property disputes in the Advocate for Supreme Court of India. With a strong track record of success, he fights for justice on behalf of his clients. Get the right legal support now!

[utkrishthalaw]

On record supreme court lawyers

Utkrishtha Law is a distinguished name among the most accomplished On Record Supreme Court lawyers in Delhi, celebrated for his unparalleled legal expertise and commanding courtroom presence. His remarkable ability to tackle intricate legal challenges with precision and clarity sets him apart, earning widespread recognition as a legal luminary. With a sharp intellect, strategic brilliance, and persuasive advocacy, Utkrishtha consistently delivers exceptional results for his clients, solidifying his reputation as a formidable force in the legal arena.

[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.