Chief Justice: Fill & Download for Free

It means that former Justice Ginsburg cannot be assigned to the Second Circuit because she is no longer on the Court. Reassignments happen routinely whenever there is a change in personnel on the Court.Justice Ginsburg’s death left a vacancy on the Court that led to a game of “musical chairs.” The rules for the game may become clear if you understand that it’s customary whenever possible to assign Justices responsibility for Circuits where they have previously served as judges or have other connections.Here’s how the primary round of our game of “musical chairs” operated.Justice Ginsburg, who is assigned to the Second Circuit dies. Her death creates a vacancy in the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor, who previously served as a circuit court judge in the Second Circuit, gets reassigned to the Second Circuit. Her reassignment creates a vacancy in the Sixth Circuit.Justice Kavanaugh gets reassigned to the Sixth Circuit. His reassignment creates a vacancy in the Seventh Circuit.Justice Barrett gets assigned to the Seventh Circuit, where she previously served as a circuit court judge.The other changes in circuit assignments are merely a consequence of domino effects from the results of the primary round in our game of “musical chairs.” They have no other significance and will have no impact on the Court’s substantive rulings in the cases that appear before the Court.

Zero.Trump is trying to assert authority he does not have; but more importantly, he trying to exert authority over states he must win to get reelected.Every attempt to exert dominance is fraught with not simply error but a point of criticism for his miscalculation. It is a no-win strategy. No one wants to see political analyst explain how a candidate, here Trump, lost NC or FL or MI or PA or WI by second guessing the boots on the ground medically speaking*.*70 Electoral Votes combined….more than twice his margin of victory in the Electoral College.UPDATE: Someone was rude and I felt the need to add to this answer.The precedent for my position is Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co v Sawyer (1952) is a 7–2 ruling made during the Korean Conflict that national emergency was insufficient without Congressional authority.Despite the 7–2, 5 Justices wrote their own concurrencing opinions including one by Justice Jackson which includes a potential work around with a tripartite system to allow for it (i.e. checks and balances). Most likely his clerk authored much of it. His Clerk was future Supreme Court Justice and Chief Justice William Rehnquist.BTW Trump's breach of the emergency stimulus package re: oversight is going to render deals and constitutional work-arounds moot.TLDR: Trump does not; he won't be able to; and politically he's burned all his bridges.

I used to always wonder why Modern Indian History is filled with Gandhi, Gandhi, and Gandhi. Well I mean I love Him and have immense respect for him but does he not take a major chunk of the credit for Indian Freedom?However, after self-studying the facts and reading and cross-checking documents and info, at last, I came to the conclusion that Mr. Gandhi wasn’t the only Man who brought India freedom as portrayed in History books.I genuinely think he is Overrated.I am not undermining his contribution but when you hear the news that even Ghana (a nation in African Continent), where as we all know how Gandhi fought against racial discrimination or Apartheid, has itself removed his statue from their own University Campus terming Gandhi as “Racist”, surely makes you ponder over your History knowledge.I think maybe there are two reasons why Gandhiji is more popular in India than other Freedom Fighters. Firstly, a BS Congress propaganda(no doubt) and secondly, to project the International community and maintain India’s image as a Peace-Loving and Non-Violent Nation which it has been since the reign of ancient Ashoka The Great to modern M.K.Gandhi - both of them following Non-Violence.I was reading an interview from a book whose title I am not able to recall right now, It was a conversation between the Ex-British PM Clement Attlee from the Labour Party (yes the dude who signed the papers for Indian Independence) and Mr. PB Chakraborthy, the then Governor of Bengal.In 1956, Clement Attlee had come to India and stayed in Kolkata as a guest of the then governor. PB Chakraborthy was at that time the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and was also serving as the acting Governor of West Bengal. He wrote a letter to the publisher of RC Majumdar's book, A History of Bengal.In this letter, the Chief Justice wrote(and I quote), "When I was the acting Governor, Lord Attlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India."Mr. Chakraborthy adds, "My direct question to Attlee was that since Gandhi's Quit India movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave?" (In fact, even Dr. B.R Ambedkar was astonished how India was suddenly given freedom by the Britain- the dates of which were preponed from 1948 to 1947).Justice Chakraborty further says, “In his reply, Attlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and Navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji,"That's not all. Mr. Chakraborthy adds, "Towards the end of our discussion I asked Attlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Attlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, mi-ni-m-al ! "This startling conversation was first published by the ‘Institute of Historical Review’ by author Ranjan Borra in 1982, in his piece on Subhas Chandra Bose- ‘The Indian National Army and the war of India's liberation’.British Military intelligence reports in 1946 indicated that the Indian soldiers were fuming over the INA trials and hence Britain came to the conclusion that Indians could not be relied upon to obey their British officers (Naval Mutiny was just one example; many might not know but there was a mutiny by the Royal Indian Air Force at Karachi in 1946). They feared the movement started by INA, although extinguished, could potentially ignite more anger within the Indian Soldiers. There were only 40,000 British troops in India at the time. Most were eager to go home and in no mood to fight the 2.5 million battle-hardened Indian soldiers who were being demobilized. The Britishers who already got their treasury Chest empty due to WWII had no other option or strong will of defending yet another battle/war/revolution. The easiest option they had was - granting Independence asap and maintain cordial relations with the post-Independent India.This frustration of the Brits can be corroborated by C.R. Attlee's crisp and clear instructions to Lord Mountbatten : "Keep India united if you can. If not, save something from the wreck. In any case, get Britain out".But let me make this clear once again, The idea behind mentioning this fact is not to in any way undermine the significant contribution of Mahatma Gandhi or Pandit Nehru in India’s freedom but to spark a debate about the real significance of the role played by Netaji's Indian National Army. School textbooks are dominated by the role played by the non-violent movement while the role of the INA is dismissed in a few cursory paragraphs.In this age of Information boom, do these guys really think they could outsmart the Indian Public by hiding facts? I bet if Gandhi fought the General Elections today, he wouldn’t have won it by a huge Margin.The Ashokan Emblem with the motto “Satyameva Jayate”(Truth alone Triumphs) was adopted for a reason. No matter how well you hide the facts, Truth will always find its way.India will see the day when all her Freedom Fighters will get their due share of respect and honor which maybe till now is reserved only for a few but not for long.Sources - Statue of 'racist' Gandhi removed from Ghana university campusNetaji, not Gandhiji drove British away. Ambedkar would have agreedThe British PM Who Oversaw India's IndependenceAn Upvote will encourage me to write more. Edit - Thank You for the 147 upvotes. Means a Lot. :)Peace