In The Supreme Court On Remand From The Us Supreme Court: Fill & Download for Free

Samuel WorcesterThe Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings. For example, many public schools held classroom prayers long after the Court had banned government-sponsored religious activities. This has presented problems at times.“In Worcester v Georgia, the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. After the decision was handed down, President Jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"“In an April 1832 letter to John Coffee, Jackson wrote that "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."“In a letter in March 1832, Virginia politician David Campbell reported a private conversation in which Jackson had "sportively" suggested calling on the Massachusetts state militia to enforce the order if the Supreme Court requested he intervene, because Jackson believed Northern partisans had brought about the court's ruling.““The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision.““ Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.““ Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Supreme Court cases were to be remanded back down to the lower court for final execution of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Supreme Court could only execute the final judgment in cases where the lower court failed to act on the Supreme Court's directive.““ Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling had been issued in March 1832, the court recessed for the term, and would not convene again for the following term until January 1833.”“The Supreme Court's March 3, 1832, ruling ordered that Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler be freed from prison.”“ On March 17, Worcester's lawyers petitioned the Georgia court to release Worcester, but the court refused.““ Over the following months, Worcester's lawyers petitioned the newly elected governor of Georgia, Wilson Lumpkin, to offer an unconditional pardon, but Lumpkin declined on the basis that the federal government was overstepping their authority.”On December 22, Georgia repealed the law that had put Worcester and Butler in prison, allowing them to petition for a pardon without having to take an oath to leave the state of Georgia or Cherokee land.On January 8, 1833, the missionaries petitioned for their pardon, but it did not contain an admission they had broken state law, and Lumpkin believed its wording was insulting to the state of Georgia. Representatives for both sides negotiated for a new letter to be drafted by the missionaries, which was delivered to Lumpkin the following day. In the final letter, Worcester and Butler appealed to the "magnanimity of the State" of Georgia to end their prison sentences.On January 14, Lumpkin issued a general proclamation, not a formal pardon.Worcester and Butler were freed from prison.Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

This question has deep rooted part which many of us didn't even know till now.If you think he is been transferred for Kapil Mishra case, you are wrong, so wrong.To under stand this remember a triangle :Justice Murlidhar ( High court judge) — > Usha Ramanathan (wife of justice Murlidhar and partner of NGO with Gautam Navlakha ) → Gautam Navlakha (urban naxal and arrested for planning to assassinate prime minister of India)Hon. Courts has collegium system for transfer of judges. Hon. Supreme Court ordered on Feb 12 for his transfer, how Kapil Mishra is involved now here.Order from Supreme Court. Story doesn't end here. Story reveals untold truths now, once his transfer order came entire bar association came to protest this order, entire PIL lobbyist came to defend Justice S Murlidhar. And all his deep secrets started coming out. There are 5 main lobby who were in unrest after his transfer order came I will also tell why they are so insecure. Here are list of lobby who work together:Delhi high court bar association.Few Judges in Hon. supreme court (not going to mention names)Congress party.Hard core dedicated towards Congress Media channel ( obvious understood who are they)Foreign funded NGO group who were part of Sonia Gandhi national advisory council.Harsh Mander , remember this name to understand his role in most of “Urban Naxal” support group).All together to save each other.lets see how it works.Start with wife of Hon. Judge Murlidhar, Usha Ramanathan she works in NGO who are associated with Anti- Aadhar, human rights activist , she is working with proved urban naxal Gautam Navlakha, remember Gautam was involved in Bhima Koregaon violence and also arrested with proof as his group was planning to assassinate prime minister of India. How came Justice Murthidhar here, when this Gautam Navlakha case came in high court, same judge Murlidhar was hearing , lobbyist attempted its best for his arrest but case was very strong with proof, so instead or arrest he gave house arrest order. Pune police on 28th august 2018 arrested Gautam Navlakha , they wanted to get transit remand and take him to Pune on next day(29th August 2018). So to halt his arrest and transfer on 29th august early morning 6 AM , he came to court and halted that as Pune police cannot take him to Pune. his one of excuse was all papers you submitted is in Marathi, Gautam cannot understand Marathi so you need to convert it to English first.Justice Murlidhar was also associated with Naaz Foundation : Same who worked for same sex relation advocate, there were same who worked to revoke article 377. When Justice was advocate he worked with Bhopal gas tragedy people, he has soft corner for all NGO people.Harsh Mander : he is one of most culprit person in role for Urban Naxals and his support group. While Delhi riots were on going, he filled PIL in Delhi high court , before even asking police to submit report on Delhi violence, he forced jusge to arrest 3 people to invoke violence in Delhi, Kapil Mishra , Anurag Thakur, and Pravesh Singh Verma, when Judge asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta as if you have seen such videos of speech by these 3, he denied as he is not watching televisions , Judge played those video in court room including police official.Judge before asking for report from police on violence asked police to lodge FIR against Kapil Mishra. And when argument came as other people also gave hate speech, like Waris Pathan, Owaisi, Swara Bhaskar, court said there is no such video available at moment. and debate went other ways.Lobbing in supreme Court :Understand Bhushan Steel case from September 2018, Niraj Singhal was accused for NPA, he looted big money of government of India, got bail from high court, and Supreme court halted that bail order immediately. But question is who gave bail to Niraj Singhal, judges were : S Murlidhar , Vinod Goyal, they gave interim relief. Hon. SC said then , is high court is on some rush, as case hearing is ongoing, and next hearing was on 1 day later in SC itself.Hon SC words “ we have only observed as urgent mentioning of the court case has made before the bench tried over by learned Chief Justice of India, and hearing hereon continued even court hours. matter is listed on next day itself, Priority case , court should have reference and should awaited in present proceedings rest with the high court was moved on the evening of 29th august 2018 at around 5:20 PM “Draw this timings , they are opening court in early morning 6 AM and after hours also for big culprits.Now in Anti- Modi gang, what media highlighted, ohh Kapil Mishra, did this so court ordered this, and Modi government is doing this, not a single media highlighted background of lobby behind his stay and all past works. PIL was filled by Harsh Mander ( who also made a bill during UPA 2 to down play all blast series happening during UPA 1 and 2 regime , as all Hindu will be arrested in NSA if caught in any violence, in his draft he also made point as all Hindu will be default assumed as terrorist if any blast happen ever in India , and Hindu women need to proof in rape case if any Muslim did that, bring 4 eye witness to proof rape.High court right now gave 4 weeks time to police to submit report on details of Delhi violence.Constitution start with “We the people of India” not with “we the lobbyist of India”This is a very complex case to understand.Edit 1: I will give credit to Sandeep Deo, Vivek Agnihotri, Subramanyam Swamy for exposing most of these urban naxals. Sandeep Deo wrote 9 books till now, most popular is “ Kahanai Communisto ki part 1” that explain how communists works world wide and how they planned to break India.Edit 2:Thank you for such appreciation and comments , I tried to also answer on reason of failure from intelligence in bureaucracy and luteyns hand in this Delhi violence.Manuj Singh's answer to Why didn't Amit Shah follow the Rajdharma in tackling the Delhi Riots 2020?His website for such information -Hindi News, खबरें, समाचार, इंडिया स्पीक्स, Stories behind the news, Indigenous Studies Portal, India Speaks daily: War against Fake news, Fake narration and Fake perception.His YouTube channel :India Speaks Daily

This is a really important question, because unlike the lower courts, the Supreme Court has almost complete discretion in setting its own agenda. The Court receives thousands of petitions per term, and grants cert on maybe around hundred of them, or even less. So the Court's case selection process is critical, arguably even more important than its decisions on the merits. The cases the Court selects will define the questions and issues the Court will address that term. This is a pretty simplified answer, but I'll try to at least survey this huge topic.There are some vague "guidelines" that generally inform how or why the Court might grant cert on a particular case [1]:Two or more courts of last resort (U.S. courts of appeals or state supreme courts) rendered conflicting decisions on the same important federal question.[2][3]A court of appeals or state court made a decision with respect to an important federal question that conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.A court of appeals or state court made a decision with respect to an important federal question in an area that the Court has not adequately addressed in the past, but which should be settled or clarified.Note: the Court also has original jurisdiction in state v. state cases.Of course, these are only guidelines. In reality, the Court can grant or deny cert whenever it wants to, and for any reason. The process is quite secretive (for both practical and strategic reasons), and what we know about it is what the Justices or their clerks have chosen to reveal. Apart from the above criteria, the Court is more likely to grant cert when:The United States is a petitioner in the case. (The Court is tends not to ignore issues the Solicitor General wants resolved.)A lower court strikes down an act of Congress. (The Court sort of has to intervene here...)Lots of amicus briefs are filed. (This signals that people care about the issue and the case is important.)The case is a "good vehicle" for a particular issue. (The facts are clear, the question and conflict straightforward, no jurisdictional or other procedural problems.)The issue has sufficiently "percolated." (It's an issue that's been widely discussed in lower courts, so that the most critical arguments are readily available to the justices.)Many other factors that I won't bother to list. (Gettin' lazy...)But ultimately, it's not that useful to think about how "the Court" selects cases when what we're really talking about are the decisions of nine individuals, with input from their clerks. Each justice has a different philosophy in how they approach case selection. Some, like Scalia, have been more upfront than others about how they vote. But as I mentioned earlier, it's a pretty secretive process overall, and there are institutional and individual steps involved:The clerks of the justices in the "cert pool"[4] divide up the new petitions for that week and write memos with recommendations, which are then circulated to the rest of the clerks and justices.The justices review the memos individually, and may do additional research on some cases if they feel it's necessary. They each decide which cases may merit further review and put these on the "discuss list," which is circulated among the chambers.The justices go over the cases on the discuss list at that week's conference. (The cases that don't appear on the discuss list are automatically denied.) There isn't usually much actual discussion; the "discussion" generally consists of a vote.The Rule of Four applies, which means that only four justices need to vote in favor of granting cert. This allows less popular litigants to be heard, but may lead to bad, 5-4 precedent on the merits. (Surprisingly, that doesn't happen often.) This actually results in some interesting strategic choices on the part of the justices, which I'll discuss next.In theory, justices should vote to grant cert when they believe the lower court erred, and they want to reverse the decision. However, the role of the Supreme Court has moved away from correcting errors, and towards shaping the law in specific ways. Different judges have different ideas about how doctrine should develop, either based on ideological or jurisprudential views. This makes their voting strategies a lot more complicated.For example, a justice may want to reverse a lower court decision that she thinks is wrong. This suggests she would want to grant cert. But if she knows that at least five justices will disagree with her on the merits, she'll vote against granting cert, because she doesn't want to create bad precedent. This is commonly referred to as "defensive denial."On the other hand, a justice that agrees with the lower court's decision normally wouldn't grant cert. But she may really want to affirm the decision, and create good precedent or even just write related dicta. If she believes at least four justices will agree with her on the merits, she might vote to grant cert with that intention. This is called an "aggressive grant."At the same time, the justices (sometimes) try to balance their ideological inclinations with their ideas of what role an ideal judge would occupy: the neutral decisionmaker. They want to appear legitimate, and they want to be consistent with their own views on their institutional role. So a justice may back away from an issue that's too politically divisive. Or she may vote to grant cert on a case she doesn't like, or that she'll lose on the merits, because it's an area of law that needs to be addressed.Remember, the Court has absolute discretion in choosing its own agenda. Each justice knows what he or she wants to see on the docket for that year, and seeks out those specific questions and issues in the petitions. They also know what they don't want to deal with, and set those cases aside.The justices consider a host of other factors, e.g. how likely it is that a better "vehicle" will arise on the same issue, how Congress and the president might react to a case, what the political salience of the issue is, etc.Cases that are selected unanimously are often some of the most divisive on the merits.So once the voting is complete, those petitions that earned at least four votes are granted cert and eventually added to the docket, scheduled to be argued, decisions are rendered, etc. Of course, there are a few different things that could happen along the way, e.g. dissents to denial of cert (attempts to persuade other justices to grant cert), GVR (grant, vacate, remand), DIG (dismissed as improvidently granted - which is embarrassing for everyone), CVSG (call for the views of the Solicitor General), holds, and other responses. But this is the basic gist of it.[1] See Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules.[2] A federal question is one that pertains to the Constitution, a federal statute, treaties with other nations, etc. "Important" is undefined here, and the justices may have differing opinions about what is or is not important enough.[3] For example, the Court granted cert on Schuette v. Coalition because it was a case where the 9th Circuit and 6th Circuit had ruled differently on exactly the same constitutional issue.[4] All of the justices except Alito are members of the cert pool. Traditionally, it's seen as a good idea to have at least a couple of pairs of eyes go over all the petitions.