If a Supreme Court justice were to argue using a precedent, they would reference a previous ruling that addresses similar legal questions or issues. This involves analyzing the facts, legal principles, and reasoning of the earlier case to support their argument or decision. The justice might highlight how the precedent aligns with the current case's circumstances, demonstrating its relevance and the need for consistency in the law. Ultimately, this approach reinforces the doctrine of stare decisis, which promotes stability and predictability in the legal system.
Site other cases that came to similar conclusions
That Scott had no right to argue in court
No. The U.S. Attorney General is head of the Department of Justice and the top law enforcement officer for the United States, but does not typically argue before the Supreme Court, except under special circumstances. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder. The U.S. Solicitor General (and staff attorneys), who is also a member of the Department of Justice, represents the government before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, while not a true member of the Court, is sometimes called "the tenth Justice."
Because the supreme court decides weather or not a new law (a bill at the time) is constitutional or not. they make the final choice
Precedent reflects past cases that have been decided on, usually by the Federal or State Supreme Courts, whose decisions reflect some similarity to the defenses case. Based on the decision made the defense attorney can argue that the same decision applies to his/her case.
Borack obama
Ruther B. hayes
Borack obama
he is a person you hope had a good morning and did not argue with his wife.when you are facing charges and he is your judge.
Rutherford B. Hayes
Journalists often object when courtrooms are closed because they argue that only if all the facts and occurences of a case occur in public can justice be seen to be done. Journalists argue against keeping court cases secret because they say it is in the interests of justice that people can see what happens in the court.
Lead Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and future US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's best-known case as a lawyer may have been Brown v. Board of Education, (1954), which he argued before the Court twice - in 1952 and 1953.For more information on Brown v. Board of Education, see Related Links, below.