Vores kunder ligger øverst på Google

Google Ads Specialister fra Vestjylland

Vi er 100% dedikerede til Google Annoncering – Vi har mange års erfaring med Google Ads og den bruger vi på at opsætte, optimere & vedligeholde vores fantastiske kunders konti.

100% Specialiseret i Google Ads
Vi har mange års erfaring fra +300 konti
Ingen lange bindinger & evighedskontrakter
Jævnlig opfølgning med hver enkelt kunde
Vi tager din virksomhed seriøst

82 resultater (6,44811 sekunder)

Mærke

Butik

Pris (EUR)

Nulstil filter

Produkter
Fra
Butikker

Supreme Court Appointment Process (Update) - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Supreme Court Opinions - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Supreme Court Nominations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Supreme Court Nominations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is important because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are usually infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President''s years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. Such job security in the government has been conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, helps insure the Court''s independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature -- the sharing of power between the President and Senate -- has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Court appointments without the Senate''s consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such "recess appointments," however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate''s next session. The last recess appointments to the Court, made in the 1950s, were controversial because they bypassed the Senate and its "advice and consent" role. The appointment of a Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. From the first appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 122 out of 158 Court nominations. Of the 36 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. Over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for excellence in a nominee. However, politics also has played an important role in Supreme Court appointments. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake.

DKK 866.00
1

Law of Church & State in the Supreme Court - David M. Ackerman - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Law of Church & State in the Supreme Court - David M. Ackerman - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

From the fall of 1980 to the present the Supreme Court has handed down over 60 decisions on the issues of church and state -- more than in any previous comparable period. In many of its decisions the Court has been sharply split, with the Justices vigorously arguing their various viewpoints. But the changes in the Court''s composition have had a demonstrable effect: The Court has substantially narrowed the scope of the free exercise clause as a constraint on government action and has overturned a number of its prior establishment clause rulings. On both clauses the Court''s interpretations are now giving government much more discretion to take actions that affect religious institutions and practices. Nonetheless the Court is sharply divided on how to interpret and apply both the free exercise clause, and the establishment clause, and the outcome of particular cases is often unpredictable. The period since 1980 has been a profoundly important time for the law of church and state in the Supreme Court. The arguments both on and off the Court about the proper relationship of government and religion have been spirited and extensive, and the Court has issued dozens of rulings on specific issues. This book summarises the doctrinal debates and shifts on the religion clauses that have occurred on the court during this period. It summarises and examines as well the legal effect of each of the decisions the Court has handed down concerning church and state since 1980. An Appendix lists each of the Justices voted on the decisions.

DKK 722.00
1

Supreme Court Appointment Process - Denis Steven Rutkus - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Supreme Court Appointment Process - Denis Steven Rutkus - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is an infrequent event of major significance in American politics. Each appointment is important because of the enormous judicial power the Supreme Court exercises as the highest appellate court in the federal judiciary. Appointments are infrequent, as a vacancy on the nine member Court may occur only once or twice, or never at all, during a particular President''s years in office. Under the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. Such job security in the government has been conferred solely on judges and, by constitutional design, helps insure the Court''s independence from the President and Congress. The procedure for appointing a Justice is provided for by the Constitution in only a few words. The "Appointments Clause" (Article II, Section 2, clause 2) states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Spreme Court." The process of appointing Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature -- the sharing of power between the President and Senate -- has remained unchanged: To receive lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is played midway in the process (after the President selects, but before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Court appointments without the Senate''s consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such "recess appointments," however, were temporary, with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate''s next session. The last recess appointments to the Court, made in the 1950s, were controversial, because they bypassed the Senate and its "advice and consent" role. The appointment of a Justice might or might not proceed smoothly. Since the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 120 Supreme Court nominations out of 154 received. Of the 34 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while nearly all of the rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were withdrawn by the President or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. Over more than two centuries, a recurring theme in the Supreme Court appointment process has been the assumed need for excellence in a nominee. However, politics also has played an important role in Supreme Court appointments. The political nature of the appointment process becomes especially apparent when a President submits a nominee with controversial views, there are sharp partisan or ideological differences between the President and the Senate, or the outcome of important constitutional issues before the Court is seen to be at stake.

DKK 687.00
1

Court Nominations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Court Nominations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

This book sheds light on whether Senate processing of lower court nominations, particularly to the courts of appeals, has tended over recent decades to slow down in presidential election years. The report begins by reviewing recent debate, and historical events dating back to 1980, concerning whether the Senate and its Judiciary Committee customarily observe a practice referred to as the "Thurmond rule". Next, the report provides narratives on each presidential election year from 1980 to 2004, reviewing Senate and committee actions taken on court of appeals and district court nominations in each of the years. The book then compares these years quantitatively, examining the number and percent of nominations processed and the last dates of committee and Senate action taken. Findings include the following: Senators of both parties at different times have spoken of their expectations of a drop-off in processing of judicial nominations occurring earlier in presidential election years than in other years. However, there is no written Senate or Judiciary Committee rule -- nor was any bipartisan agreement reached during the 1980-2004 period -- concerning judicial nominations in presidential election years. The Senate has, on average, confirmed fewer court of appeals nominees in presidential election years than in any other year of a presidential term between 1977 and 2007. In the presidential election years from 1980 to 2004, there was no consistently observed date after which the Judiciary Committee or Senate ceased processing lower court nominations; however, in the three most recent completed presidential election years, the Senate confirmed its last court of appeals nominee in July or earlier, while in the four preceding presidential election years, the Senate confirmed its final court of appeals nominee in October or later. On average, fewer court of appeals nominations received hearings, were reported, and were confirmed in the three most recent completed presidential election years (1996, 2000, and 2004) than in the four preceding presidential election years (1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992). From 1980 to 2004, the Senate confirmed, on average, more nominations (and a greater percentage of pending nominations) in years when the Senate majority was of the President''s party than years in which partisan control of the presidency and the Senate was divided. The report also outlines relevant considerations for Senators in deciding whether to seek to speed or slow the judicial confirmation process in a presidential election year. These considerations include the public policy views of the incumbent President (and his successor), patronage considerations for Senators of both political parties, the appearance of a partisan judicial confirmation process, and whether a slowdown might greatly affect the judicial vacancy rate.

DKK 534.00
1

U.S. Circuit & District Court Nominations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Law of Church & State in the Supreme Court Revisited - Kimberly D Jones - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Pregnancy Discrimination & the Supreme Court - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

International Criminal Court - Jennifer Elsea - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

International Criminal Court - Jennifer Elsea - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first global permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for ''the most serious crimes of concern to the international community''. The United Nations, many human rights organisations, and most democratic nations have expressed support for the new court. The Bush Administration firmly opposes it and has formally renounced the US obligations under the treaty. At the same time, however, the Administration has stressed that the United States shares the goals of the ICC''s supporters-promotion of the rule of law- and does not intend to take any action to undermine the ICC. The primary objection given by the US in opposition to the treaty is the ICC''s possible assertion of the jurisdiction over US soldiers charged with ''war crimes'' resulting from legitimate uses of force. The main issue faced by the current Congress is whether to adopt a policy aimed at preventing the ICC from becoming effective or whether to continue contributing to the development of the ICC in order to improve it. This book provides a historical background of the negotiations for the Rome Statute, outlines the structure of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as contained in the final Statute, and describes the jurisdiction of the ICC. The book further identifies the specific crimes enumerated in the Rome Statute as supplemented by the draft elements of crime. A discussion of procedural safeguards follows, including reference to the draft procedural rules. The book then goes on to discuss the implications for the United States as a non-ratifying country when the ICC comes into being, and outlines some legislation enacted and proposed to regulate US relations with the ICC.

DKK 356.00
1

International Criminal Court - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

International Criminal Court - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

One month after the International Criminal Court (ICC) officially came into existence on July 1, 2002, the President signed the American Servicemembers'' Protection Act (ASPA), which limits U.S. government support and assistance to the ICC; curtails certain military assistance to many countries that have ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC; regulates U.S. participation in United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping missions commenced after July 1, 2003; and, most controversially among European allies, authorises the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of certain U.S. and allied persons who may be detained or tried by the ICC. The provision, withholding military assistance under the programs for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) from certain States Parties to the Rome Statute, came into effect on July 1, 2003. The 109th Congress reauthorised the Nethercutt Amendment as part of the FY2006 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3057/P.L. 109-102). Unless waived by the President, it bars Economic Support Funds (ESF) assistance to countries that have not agreed to protect U.S. citizens from being turned over to the ICC for prosecution. H.R. 5522, as passed by the House of Representatives, would continue the ESF restriction for FY2007. The Senate passed a measure as part of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122, S. 2766) that would modify ASPA to end the ban on IMET assistance. The ICC is the first permanent world court with nearly universal jurisdiction to try individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and possibly aggression. While most U.S. allies support the ICC, the Bush Administration firmly opposes it and has renounced any U.S. obligations under the treaty. After the Bush Administration threatened to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution to extend the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia on the ground that it did not contain sufficient guarantees that U.S. participants would be immune to prosecution by the ICC, the Security Council adopted a resolution that would defer for one year any prosecution of participants in missions established or authorised by

DKK 890.00
1

Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges - Denis Steven Rutkus - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Role of Home State Senators in the Selection of Lower Federal Court Judges - Denis Steven Rutkus - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Supported by the custom of "senatorial courtesy," Senators of the President''s party have long played, as a general rule, the primary role in selecting candidates for the President to nominate to federal district court judgeships in their states. They also have played an influential, if not primary, role in recommending candidates for federal circuit court judgeships associated with their states. For Senators who are not of the President''s party, a consultative role, with the opportunity to convey to the President their views about candidates under consideration for judgeships in their states, also has been a long-standing practice -- and one supported by the "blue slip" procedure of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators, in general, exert less influence over the selection of circuit court nominees. Whereas home state Senators of the President''s party often dictate whom the President nominates to district judgeships, their recommendations for circuit nominees, by contrast, typically compete with names suggested to the Administration by other sources or generated by the Administration on its own. Whether and how a state''s two Senators share in the judicial selection role will depend, to a great extent, on their respective prerogatives and interests. Senators have great discretion as to the procedures they will use to identify and evaluate judicial candidates, ranging from informally conducting candidate searches on their own to relying on nominating commissions to evaluate candidates. Contact between a Senator''s office and the Administration can be expected to clarify the nature of the Senator''s recommending role, including the degree to which the Administration, in its judicial candidate search, will rely on the Senator''s recommendations. If a President selects a district or circuit court nominee against the advice of, or without consulting, a home state Senator, the latter must decide whether to oppose the nomination (either first in the Senate Judiciary Committee or later on the Senate floor). From the Senator''s standpoint, opposition to the nomination might serve a number of purposes, including helping to prevent confirmation or influencing the Administration to take consultation more seriously in the future. On the other hand, various considerations might influence the Senator not to oppose the nomination, including the desirability of filling the vacant judgeship as promptly as possible and, if more home state vacancies are possible in the future, whether these might provide the Senator a better opportunity for exerting influence over judicial appointments. In recent years, the role of home state Senators in recommending judicial candidates has given rise to various issues, including the following: What constitutes "good faith" or "serious" consultation by the Administration? Should home state Senators always have the opportunity to provide their opinion of a judicial candidate before he or she is nominated? How differently should the Administration treat the input of Senators, depending on their party affiliation? What prerogatives should home state Senators have in the selection of circuit court nominees? Should the policy of the Judiciary Committee allow a home state Senator to block committee consideration of a judicial nominee?

DKK 514.00
1

Congressional Oversight & Authority Over the Federal Court, Judges & Justices - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Congressional Oversight & Authority Over the Federal Court, Judges & Justices - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

This book addresses Congress'' oversight authority over individual federal judges or Supreme Court Justices. Congressional oversight authority, although broad, is limited to subjects related to the exercise of legitimate congressional power. While Congress has the power to regulate the structure, administration and jurisdiction of the courts, its power over the judicial acts of individual judges or Justices is more restricted. For instance, Congress has limited authority to remove or discipline a judge for decisions made on the bench. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that judges have ''good behaviour'' tenure, which effectively has come to mean lifetime tenure for Article III judges subject to removal only through conviction on impeachment. It also examines Congress'' legislative authority with respect to the Judicial Branch. While Congress has broad power to regulate the structure, administration and jurisdiction of the courts, its powers are limited by precepts of due process, equal protection and separation of powers. Usually congressional oversight of the judicial branch is non-controversial, but when Congress proposes to use its oversight and regulatory powers in a manner designed to affect the outcome of pending or previously decided cases, constitutional issues can be raised. In recent years, Congress has considered using or has exercised its authority in an effort to affect the results in cases concerning a number of issues, including abortion, gay marriage, freedom of religion, ''right to die'' and prisoners'' rights. It also reviews the constitutional foundation of the federal courts, and the explicit and general authorities of Congress to regulate the courts. It then addresses Congress'' ability to limit the jurisdiction of the courts over particular issues, sometimes referred to as ''court-stripping''.

DKK 554.00
1

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Adult Drug Courts - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Juvenile Justice - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

State Secrets Privilege & Other Limits on Classified Information - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Chief Justice of the United States - Lorraine H Tong - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Judge Sonia Sotomayor - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Revisiting & Enforcing the Crime Victims' Rights Act - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Enemy Combatant Detainees - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Enemy Combatant Detainees - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

After the U.S. Supreme Court held that U.S. courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear legal challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism (Rasul v. Bush), the Pentagon established administrative hearings, called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" (CSRTs), to allow the detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants, and informed them of their right to pursue relief in federal court by seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Lawyers subsequently filed dozens of petitions on behalf of the detainees in the District Court for the District of Columbia, where district court judges reached inconsistent conclusions as to whether the detainees have any enforceable rights to challenge their treatment and detention. In December 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) to divest the courts of jurisdiction to hear some detainees'' challenges by eliminating the federal courts'' statutory jurisdiction over habeas claims by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay (as well as other causes of action based on their treatment or living conditions). The DTA provides instead for limited appeals of CSRT determinations or final decisions of military commissions. After the Supreme Court rejected the view that the DTA left it without jurisdiction to review a habeas challenge to the validity of military commissions in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the 109th Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) (P.L. 109-366) to authorize the President to convene military commissions and to amend the DTA to further reduce access to federal courts by "alien enemy combatants," wherever held, by eliminating pending and future causes of action other than the limited review of military proceedings permitted under the DTA. In June 2008, the Supreme Court held in the case of Boumediene v. Bush that aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. The Court also found that MCA § 7, which limited judicial review of executive determinations of the petitioners'' enemy combatant status, did not provide an adequate habeas substitute and therefore acted as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas. The immediate impact of the Boumediene decision is that detainees at Guantanamo may petition a federal district court for habeas review of the legality and possibly the circumstances of their detention, perhaps including challenges to the jurisdiction of military commissions.

DKK 534.00
1

Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk

Working with the Courts in Child Protection - - Bog - Nova Science Publishers Inc - Plusbog.dk