In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Delaware: Fill & Download for Free

Dear Politically Interested Questioner,Engaged citizens often ponder which yoke more strains the public body: judicial tyranny, or legislative tyranny. Come, let’s examine:Judicial ActivismArthur Schlesinger, Jr. is credited with first using the term "judicial activism," in a 1947 Fortune Magazine article, although he didn’t actually define it. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1324&context=californialawreviewIn the political context, it’s usually considered an insult to call a judge an activist. Such a judge (the argument goes) “decides cases on the basis of his own policy preferences rather than a faithful interpretation of the law, thus abandoning the impartial judicial role and ‘legislating from the bench.’” Judicial activism | lawMany voters and legislators voice disdain for activist judges. Of course, if the offending “activism” results in a ruling that aligns with their political/philosophical/religious beliefs, the protest’s volume is usually diminished, if not muted:Can we agree that, like a pudding, the test of judicial activism is in the tasting?Regardless of whose ox is being gored, I much prefer the tyranny of judicial activism over the tyranny of (as you put it, Kind Questioner) “accountable” legislators.A quick look at these repugnant laws set aside by “activist judges,” IMHO, makes my position a no-brainer.States Where Kanye Could Not Have Married TaylorNot until the Supreme Court’s decision in “Loving v. Virginia,” (1967) did these sixteen states abandon their devotion to prohibiting miscegenation: Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Texas Tennessee Virginia West VirginiaKanye most likely is happy with Kim, and Taylor seems content to fret over lost boyfriends forever, but these laws were nevertheless abhorrent, yes?States Where You Couldn’t Have Anal Sex (and I’m not just being salacious)As ridiculous as it may sound, fourteen states had valid laws prohibiting sodomy until 2003, when the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that the government probably shouldn’t have a role in which orifice a consenting couple used for sexual pleasure (disclosure: that’s not the exact language of the decision, but it should have been).(Edit note: Thanks to Andrei Istrate and Buddha Buck for catching my error on this. I’d written a draft commenting on how Lawrence overturned Bowers, and in editing deleted the wrong case. Good catch gentlemen!)Your Kid Can’t Go to School HereThis is Linda Brown:Her parents wanted her to attend a decent school in their neighborhood, state law (Kansas) prohibited it. A future (and the first Black) Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, sued on Linda’s behalf in 1954.Thurgood kicked some serious Topeka School Board tail feathers in what many believe is the most important case ever brought before the Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education:I’d like to say that after 1954, it was all lollipops and rainbows for the Linda Brown’s of America, but sadly no.Yet, the point holds: it took a judicial decision to get the ball rolling on school desegregation. If we’d waited for the state legislators across the country to address this issue we’d still be faced with racially segregated schools in America, legally supported by the government, and most likely signs like these would still be common throughout the American South:( Edit note: Thanks to Wyatt Wye for catching my error in placing Ms. Brown in Arkansas rather than Topeka, Kansas, where she lived at the time of the Brown v Board of Ed case. Quora readers are the best.)Want to Vote? Step Right Up and Pay the Poll TaxIf you wanted to vote in the Jim Crow American south, it cost you. This requirement hit poor Blacks harder than most Whites. Once again those pesky activist judges had to step in and right things - as the Supreme Court did in Harman v. Forssenius (1965), overturning a Virginia law.You Like This House? Sorry, Your Skin is Too DarkSome discrimination stemmed not directly from legislative acts, but still relied on the power of the state (“the law”) for their enforcement.Many homeowners feared the infiltration of their neighborhood by “undesirable” Blacks, and used the power of restrictive covenants (contained in property deeds) to prohibit a homeowner from selling to a Black:In 1948 the Supreme Court held that these attempts to contractually bind homeowners were unenforceable. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948).You Love Someone And Want to Marry Them? Not if You’re Gay!Race relations wasn’t the only area where courts stepped in to protect individual rights. After a lot of judicial back and forth, in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. Obergefell v. Hodges. This ruling overturned a ban against such marriages in 14 states.For many of us in America, this image of a young couple expressed our feelings:Just as an earlier generation had rejected the bigotry of anti-miscegenation laws, we exclaimed, “Hate Is Not a Family Value,” and welcomed the Obergefell decision.SummaryI guess I’ve rambled on enough. With a bit more research I’m sure I could find many other examples where an “activist judge” wisely and compassionately overruled an “accountable” legislator.Sure, judges can go too far. And yes, I often worry about an unelected judge having too much power over public policy. And of course I prefer activist judges who agree with me (duh).That said:Even as I sit here today and contemplate a generation of likely “Trump Court” desecrations of the civil and individual rights victories dating back to the mid-1940’s - I still fear, much more, the tyranny of a future legislative body unfettered by judicial review.Thanks for playing Quora with me!Steve Jennette

First of all, the direct answer to the question is that even according to the article cited in the question, the University of Delaware promised to seal those records until two years after Biden had retired from public office.Any claim that Biden’s temporary lack of public office between the end of the Obama administration and his run for President constituted retirement from public office doesn’t pass the sniff test.President Trump’s supporters and surrogates are claiming that the only reason that the University of Delaware and Joe Biden are not releasing all of his personal senatorial records, which he donated to the university several years ago, is that he has something terrible there to hide.Let’s forget for the moment that if there was something terrible in his records, he could have shredded it before making that donation.And let’s forget for the moment that if there were any substance to the claim, which she has made, that she filed a formal report, then that report would be in the custody of the Senate, not among Senator Biden’s private papers. (No such report has been found in the Senate’s records. If there were, you can be sure Senate Majority Leader McConnell would have helped find and publicize it.)And let’s forget that if there were actually any reason (probable cause) to think that there were anything incriminating in those papers, a subpoena could be sought to pry those papers loose.At the risk of being accused of “waddaboutism”, let us ask if this is an example of a specific example of a general rule, and let us consider what other examples of that kind of thing the President’s supporters and surrogates would apply that rule to.The President has asserted that he was the smartest, bestest student in his class at Wharton, and graduated at the top of his class. At the same time, he has threatened to sue the pants off of anybody who publishes his academic records, which are private by law. Do his supporters and surrogates insist that his academic records should be released?The President used to promise that he would release his tax records “in a couple of months”, or “as soon as the audit is finished”, or “right after the election”. There is a lot more reason to believe that his tax records will reveal evidence of criminal tax fraud than that Biden’s private senatorial papers will show evidence of sexual assault. Do his supporters and surrogates demand that those papers be released? Or do they defend his blocking legally mandated oversight by the House Ways and Means Committee?The State of New York thinks there is probable cause to think that the financial papers in the custody of Mazars will show evidence of financial and electoral fraud. They have gotten a subpoena to see those papers. The President is fighting that subpoena to the Supreme Court. Have his supporters and surrogates insisted that he stop fighting the subpoena, and simply release those records, on the grounds that if he didn’t break any laws there is nothing to hide?When the House was investigating criminal and unconstitutional abuse of Presidential authority with respect to the Ukrainian coercion, the President blocked testimony by the people who had the most direct knowledge about what had happened. Did his supporters and surrogates demand that those people testify, on the theory that if there was nothing wrong, then there was no reason to hide?When Special Counsel Mueller was investigating whether or not the President engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russians to influence the 2016 Presidential elections, the President refused to give a live interview to Special Counsel Mueller. Instead, he gave written answers to a set of questions, thus giving his lawyers a chance to scrub them clean. Most of the answers turned out to be some form of “I don’t recall”. Did his supporters and surrogates insist on having the President give live testimony to Mueller, on the theory that there was nothing to lose unless there was something he was hiding?Or are his supporters and surrogates simply every bit as hypocritical as the President himself?I know what I think.Q: Why does the University of Delaware refuse to release Biden's papers?

If Roe is overturned, abortion will become illegal in around 22 states. The blue states in the map below (California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland) have laws specifically protecting abortion rights, so Roe’s repeal would have no effect there. The orange states (North and South Dakota and Louisiana) already have laws prohibiting abortion, and these would take effect immediately upon Roe’s repeal. The pink states (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Michigan) have laws that would ban all or some abortions. Conservative legislatures in several of the other states would probably pass laws banning abortion shortly after Roe’s repeal.There’s no possibility that Congress will pass a law banning abortion nationwide in the forseeable future, so the only thing stopping women in states where abortion will be illegal from traveling to other states for abortions would be financial limitations. Several states currently have only a single abortion clinic, and volunteer networks already exist to transport women who need abortions to clinics who can’t otherwise travel to one. These networks would undoubtedly be expanded to cross state lines.Some states might pass laws making it a crime for residents of those states to have abortions in other states, or for anyone to transport a pregnant woman to another state with the intent of obtaining an abortion. Any such laws would be virtually unenforceable. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) already protects medical information, so a law enforcement agency in Louisiana, for example, would not be able to demand the medical records of Louisiana residents from clinics in California, nor would they have any way of knowing that a woman from Louisiana visited an abortion clinic there, or if she was only going to Disneyland.A state could require all women leaving and entering it to submit to a pregnancy test, with penalties for any woman who was pregnant when she left the state, but wasn’t when she returned. However, the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights would prohibit this as unlawful search and seizure.The abortion rate began to rise steeply in the late 1960s, when it was still illegal across much of the country. It peaked in the early 1990s and has been slowly falling since then, to the point that the rate today, after 45 years of legal abortion, is lower than it was before Roe was passed.So it’s entirely possible that overturning Roe won’t have much of an effect on the abortion rate. Women in the past risked their lives and freedom to have abortions, and they will surely do the same in the future. Also, Mifepristone, a drug which causes abortion, was not available in the past, but today can easily be ordered over the Internet, so women may not have to travel at all for abortions if the procedure is outlawed in their state.Overturning Roe would definitely gratify the pro-life contingent, although at the same time, it would take away a vital plank in the Republican platform. The Republicans have been promising to overturn Roe for nearly half a century; actually delivering on that promise would take away that motivation. If you’ve been leading an ox by holding a carrot in front of it just out of reach, actually feeding the carrot to the ox would be very foolish. So while many Republican legislators talk a good game about overturning Roe, they may not be so eager for this to happen. Also, the Supreme Court is notoriously reluctant to overturn precedent, and John Roberts may not want his court to be remembered as the Dred Scott court of the 21st century.