Continuation of back-alley abortions, which often result in a significant health care crisis or death. While the US and state governments aren't required to use tax money for abortions; they can't refuse to treat someone suffering the after-effects of a botched abortion.
There would probably be a black market for abortion pills, which women intent on having an abortion would likely purchase over the internet, if necessary. The internet has thus far proven impossible to regulate effectively.
Women who might have had abortions because they didn't have the means to care for a child would live in poverty and require significant social services and other government support to survive.
Adoptions would increase, but supply might overwhelm demand, allowing adoptive parents to be choosier about selecting a baby, and leaving those with health and potential emotional problems (based on known background, drug exposure, etc.) wards of the state.
Like it or not, there would be a pool of unwanted children who may not be absorbed by the foster care system, and who would grow up in institutions without loving parents to care for them.
The social and financial burden on society would be huge. Those who are pro-life would probably complain about big government and deficit spending, without realizing the policies they promote would be largely responsible for the situation.
In summary: making abortion illegal would not stop abortion, only make it more dangerous or change the way abortion is accomplished; making abortion illegal would create a black market for abortion drugs; making abortion illegal would increase the burden on society through higher costs of health care and other social programs. Someday, people may recognize that certain negative aspects of society will endure, regardless of laws or individual religious beliefs.
no
There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.
There are hundreds of inferior courts that exist in the United States. These courts are in place to serve under the supreme court.
Somehow it all traces back to the constitution
Special leave petition means that you take special permission to be heard in appeal against any High Court/tribunal verdict. Usually any issue decided by the State High Court is considered as final, but if there exist any constitutional issue or legal issue which can only be clarified by the Supreme Court of India then, this leave is granted by the Supreme Court & this is heard as a Civil or Criminal appeal as the case may be. Going to the Supreme Court in appeal should not be considered a matter of right by any one but it is matter of privilege which only the Supreme Court will grant to any individual if there exist an important constitutional or legal issue involved in any case that was not properly interpreted by the concerned High Court against whose judgment you approach the Highest court of the country not otherwise
There are no explicit requirements in the U.S. Constitution for a person to be nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience, or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not need to even have a law degree.
Yes, if appropriate precedents exist for the case before the court. The US Supreme Court sets binding precedents, meaning lower courts are required to adhere to them (but don't always do so) under the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand).
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that police officers cannot conduct a full search of an arrestee of the opposite sex following a lawful arrest, unless exigent circumstances exist. This decision was made to protect individual privacy rights and dignity.
The US Supreme Court is the institution that has extended existing rights and even created new rights by declaring some laws violate Constitutional rights because it is the highest court in the United States. The US Supreme Court hears cases which need Constitutional review or where the US Constitution is silent on a subject only because the issue did not exist when the US Constitution was written.
I would first contact The Clerk of The Court for information as to whether these documents even still exist. If they do, they are quite likely archived somewhere other than in the courthouse.
The Constitution doesn't really establish any courts; Article III, Section 1 mandates (requires) the creation of a Supreme Court. The Judiary Act of 1789actually established the Supreme Court and a rudimentary federal judicial system. The Supreme Court didn't exist in the period between the Constitution's adoption (September 17, 1787), ratification by the states (June 21, 1788) and passage of the first Judiciary Act (September 24, 1789).Article IIISection 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.While differentiating between the words "establish" and "mandate" may seem like unnecessary semantics, it's important to remember the Constitution forms a foundation and a set of guiding principles for the US government, but leaves most of the details to Congress and the President (the Supreme Court doesn't play a direct legislative role in government).
The examples of a government corporation are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US Postal Service. The Supreme Court is not a government corporation; it is the highest court in the United States responsible for interpreting the law. The North Intelligence Agency does not exist.