Supreme Court publiczne
[search 0]
Więcej
Download the App!
show episodes
 
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Miesięcznie+
 
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
  continue reading
 
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
  continue reading
 
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast

Robaire Taylor, Chris Young, Henri Taylor

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Miesięcznie
 
Any listeners out there...really want entertaining basketball content? Don't want to worry about the hosts - all on the show trying to force "controversial" hot takes, all in your earbuds, yelling back and forth to win an argument? Come to The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Check back with the SC trio; Robaire, Chris, and Henri, Wednesdays as we discuss the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
  continue reading
 
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aaron-larson2/support
  continue reading
 
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
  continue reading
 
Loading …
show series
 
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the most significant case on homelessness in decades. The case looks at challenges to laws in a small Oregon town fining homeless people up to $300 for setting up camps in public parks. The heart of the question is whether these laws classify as cruel and unusual punishment. Geoff Bennett and NewsHour Supre…
  continue reading
 
McIntosh v. United States Petitioner Louis McIntosh was indicted on multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses. The indictment set forth the demand that McIntosh “shall forfeit . . . all property . . . derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the [Hobbs Act] offenses.” The Government also later provided McIntosh with a pr…
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed t…
  continue reading
 
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The respondent, T.J.F., was charged with human trafficking and obtaining a financial or material benefit from human trafficking during a period from 2006 through 2011. The trial judge accepted that the respondent had engaged in threats, intimidation and injury towards the complainant; he characterized this as “past discred…
  continue reading
 
This week's episode covers the most recent abortion case before the Supreme Court, which covers less about the Constitution, and more about administrative law and the adversarial nature of the American legal system. Brett and Nazim discuss the basics underlying the case and also predict the outcome based a fairly one-sided oral argument. The law st…
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday on whether laws limiting homelessness are unconstitutional because they punish people for being unhoused. The case is about laws in a small city in Oregon, but the outcome could reshape policies nationwide for years to come. John Yang speaks with Charley Willison, who teaches public health at Cornel…
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Autor: Austin Songer
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause…
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Autor: Austin Songer
  continue reading
 
Petitioner James Rudisill enlisted in the United States Army in 2000 and served a total of eight years over three separate periods of military service. He became entitled to Montgomery Bill benefits as a result of his first period of service. Rudisill earned an undergraduate degree and used 25 months and 14 days of Montgomery benefits to finance hi…
  continue reading
 
DEVILLIER v. TEXAS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Argued Jan. 16, 2024—Decided Apr. 16, 2024 Richard DeVillier and more than 120 other petitioners own property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 between Houston and Beaumont, Texas. The dispute here arose after the State of Texas took action to use portions …
  continue reading
 
George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay $23,420 George Sheetz tried to get a residential building permit from El Dorado County. To do so, the County made him pay a $23,420 "traffic impact fee." The fee was part of the County's "General Plan" -- this plan was intended to address the impact that development has on public services…
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case looking at an obstruction law used to prosecute hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters. The obstruction statute is also key to various legal challenges facing former President Donald Trump. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Politico's Kyle Cheney, who has been following the Jan. 6 legal fallout. PBS NewsHo…
  continue reading
 
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns a subsidiary that operates terminals to store bulk liquid commodities, including No. 6 fuel oil, which has almost 3% sulfer. The UN adopted IMO in 2016, which set in in 2020. This regulation capped the sulfur content on fuel oil used in shipping to 0.5%. Macquarie did not discuss this IMO in its public docu…
  continue reading
 
Flowers makes baked goods that are then distributed across the country. Bissonnette owned the distribution rights in a certain part of the country. Their contract subjected them to the F.A.A.. After Bissonnette sued under Labor (wage) laws, Flowers moved to compel arbitration. Bissonnette said they're exempt because the F.A.A. exempts “contracts of…
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax. ★ Support this podcast on …
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
  continue reading
 
A case in which the Court will decide whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax.…
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use; whether the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions were arbitrary and capricious; and whether the district court properly granted preliminary relief. ★ Support this p…
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a major case that could further limit when and how women in America can get an abortion. The case centers on access to the most widely used abortion pill mifepristone. It's the latest in the ongoing legal battle over reproductive rights. William Brangham discussed the arguments with NewsHour Supreme Court analys…
  continue reading
 
After consuming alcohol, Mr. Wolfe drove his vehicle on the wrong side of a divided highway for a considerable distance at night. He caused a head-on collision that seriously injured Mrs. Niazi and killed her husband and daughter. Mr. Wolfe was convicted on two counts of criminally negligent operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 220(b…
  continue reading
 
This case involves a challenge to the validity of regulations adopted by the Agency to compensate air passengers for various delays, losses and inconveniences experienced in the course of international air travel. Parliament adopted the Transportation Modernization Act, S.C. 2018, c. 10 (“TMA”), which amended the CTA by creating the new s. 86.11. T…
  continue reading
 
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday over whether to restrict access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions. The case will be the first the court has heard on abortion since it overturned Roe v. Wade. Special Correspondent Sarah Varney reports on what's at stake. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.o…
  continue reading
 
For as long as America has had a constitution, there's been debate over how to interpret it. That's particularly true when it comes to hot-button Supreme Court cases. For nearly 30 years, Stephen Breyer served on the nation's highest court, deciding on cases with ramifications still being felt across the country today. Amna Nawaz spoke with Breyer …
  continue reading
 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Autor: Austin Songer
  continue reading
 
Loading …

Skrócona instrukcja obsługi