Last quote about Supreme Court
All quotes about Supreme Court
I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the Supreme Court or my court at the 10th Circuit. It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.
In his back-and-forth with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) made an interesting remark concerning President Trump’s attacks on the courts. Blumenthal specifically referenced Trump’s crack about the “so-called” judge who ruled against him and recalled that Trump blamed the courts for any terrorist attack if the Muslim ban was not upheld. Blumenthal said that if a litigant came before Gorsuch, he might entertain a motion for contempt. That is an interesting proposition, one that may come into play and that we will get to in a moment.
It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that and a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.
You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot – and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI – that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances. It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment while this big great grey cloud of an FBI investigation hangs over the presidency.
So how does one look at you, and we've talked about precedent. For the life of me, I really don't know, when you're there (on the Supreme Court), what you're going to do with it. And as you say, this isn't text. This is life. And young women take everything for granted today. And all of that could be struck out with one decision.
He's going to face these federalism issues on the Supreme Court, where it has implications beyond just the local level.
When anyone criticises the honesty, integrity, the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening, I find that demoralising, because I know the truth. Roe vs Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed, and all of the other factors that go into analysing precedent have to be considered. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.
They're people. I try to treat each case and each person as a person. Not a this kind of person or that kind of person. A person. Equal justice under law is a radical promise. … The Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected under the Constitution.
Senator, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the Constitution.
There is a cloud now hanging over the head of the president, and while that's happening, to have a lifetime appointment made by this president seems very unseemly and there ought to be a delay. You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot – and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI – that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances. After all, they stopped a president who wasn't under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency.
I'm not going to say anything here that would give anybody any idea how I'd rule in any case like that that could come before the Supreme Court or my court at the 10th Circuit. It would be grossly improper of a judge to do that. It would be a violation of the separation of powers and judicial independence if someone sitting at this table, in order to get confirmed, had to make promises or commitments about how they'd rule in a case that's currently pending and likely to make its way to the Supreme Court. No man is above the law.
It's a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Senator, no man is above the law. That doesn't happen everywhere else around the world. We take it for granted in this country. It's a remarkable blessing from our forefathers. And it is a daunting prospect as a judge to have to carry that baton.
We meet this week in a looming constitutional crisis. Just hours ago, not far from here, the director of the FBI revealed that his agency is investigating potential ties between President Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our election. The possibility of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation.
If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents," "or view it in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants I already made up my mind about their cases. That's not a fair judge. Well, no senator. I'm happy to say Shelby is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It's a recent one, it's a controversial one. I understand that.
If Republicans had followed the Constitution, Chief Judge Merrick Garland would be on the Supreme Court.
Had his vacant seat been filled by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Justice Scalia's legacy would have been in grave danger. We would have seen a Supreme Court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings. … We would have seen our democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers here in Washington.
We meet this week in a looming constitutional crisis. Just hours ago, not far from here, the director of the FBI revealed that his agency is investigating potential ties between Pres. Trump's associates and Russian meddling in our election. The possibility of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation.
As you know, I played arguably the single biggest role in having the vacancy there. And politically, oddly enough, not only did it not hurt our guys who were running, it actually helped the president bring Republicans home, and he ended up getting 90 percent of the Republican vote, just like Mitt Romney did, and the single biggest issue was, who do I want to make this Supreme Court appointment.
I want to hear from you why Mr. Priebus would say that. Most Americans question whether we need a Supreme Court justice with the vision of Donald Trump.
After hours of speeches from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee - some more insightful than others but all long-winded and unnecessary - Judge Neil Gorsuch delivered a humble, folksy opening statement at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. “Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester, ” he said, making the point that judges are not the leading lights in a democracy but rather occupy a “modest station.” His plain-spoken remarks and humility provided a stark contrast to the senators’ self-indulgent pontificating.
"The possibility of the Supreme Court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation,"
Let the American people decide whether they want Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominee to select the next Supreme Court justice.
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
What was once a hotly-contested issue is no longer a hotly-contested issue. We move forward. Roe v Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.
Had his vacant seat been filled by Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, Justice Scalia's legacy would have been in grave danger. We would have seen a Supreme Court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings. . . . We would have seen our democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers here in Washington.
But, Mr. Chairman, two wrongs never make a right. The Supreme Court is too important for us not to find a way to end our destructive gridlock and bitter partisanship.
Something is seriously wrong when the confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice resembles an election campaign for political office.
Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, an important takings case. If the oral argument is any indication, the case might well result in a muddled ruling that fails to provide clear guidance for either government regulators or property owners.
Your nomination is part of a Republican strategy to capture our judicial branch of government. That is why the Senate Republicans kept this Supreme Court seat vacant for more than a year, and why they left 30 judicial nominees who had received bipartisan approval of this committee to die on the Senate calendar as President Obama left office.
Neil is a big Denver Broncos fan, and I can tell you that I'm a big fan of his. I look forward to having Neil Gorsuch, one of our own from the great state of Colorado, as the next Supreme Court Justice.
The Senate owes the president some deference with regard to Supreme Court nominees.
Supreme Court confirmation hearings can be frustrating. If you’re watching, you probably want to know how the nominee would decide important cases if confirmed. No matter the question, however, nominees usually avoid giving revealing answers. Some fault the senators for not asking the right questions. But I don’t think it’s the senators’ fault. As I see it, there is no way to make nominees give revealing answers unless they wish to do so.
From the air you breathe and the water you drink to the roof over your head and the person across from you in bed, the Supreme Court touches all of that.
It would be shocking if Neil Gorsuch wasn't confirmed to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. The Democrats are committed to opposing him. Their base is insisting on it, because of what happened to President Obama's nominee. But the reality is, they just don't have the votes and don't have the goods.
While the senator always understood it is rare that the Supreme Court hears any case before trial, given the gravity of the constitutional issues raised, he believed it was important to try. As the senator has been saying for more than four years since the government began chasing these wild allegations, he has always acted in accordance with the law. Senator Menendez remains confident that he will be vindicated when all the facts are heard at trial.
Given the chance, I have no doubt he'll do it again on the Supreme Court. I have some real doubts about He has been a judge who has favored the wealthy interests over the middle class. Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court.
Of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is the president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice. And it is the Senate's right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent.
He's not a person who normally would be associated with something as illegitimate as taking a Supreme Court seat that absolutely does not belong to this president.
If property owners prevail in the case of Murr v. Wisconsin, currently before the Supreme Court, the government will no longer be able to avoid paying compensation for a taking merely because the owner of the parcel of land in question also happens to own the plot next door. To most people - myself included, that seems like a clear win for property rights. But leading land use scholar Roderick Hills disagrees.
We've known for years, before Justice Scalia passed, that this next president would have two or three Supreme Court nominations.
The Senate confirmation process for Supreme Court justices has always been cabined by norms of behavior and unwritten rules. With the failure even to have a hearing on Garland, the norms have all gone out the window. The Democrats now feel emboldened to try anything.
That's not what people want to hear when they want a Supreme Court justice to be confirmed. What they want to hear is, I want to serve justice. I want to serve the American people. I want to protect the Constitution, not 'I want to gratify my taste for difficult legal problems.
That's the tug of war that is going to play out and, I suspect, go before the Supreme Court. I think it will be a very seminal decision as to what are the limitations on the executive's powers.
One of my favorite law review articles in recent years is Rick Pildes’s “Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, ” published in the Supreme Court Review in 2014. The basic observation is that when public law doctrine confronts a government institution, it has to decide whether to treat that institution as more or less “a black box, ” or whether to instead probe into how that institution is actually functioning as the moment and whether or not the court approves of it.
We were headed down a path that was pretty dark with a Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. In the early weeks of this administration more has been done to address the biggest tragedy, the biggest catastrophe, and that is abortion. More has been done to benefit the causes of life, which is more important than anything we have in our society … Everything else is trumped by this issue of life.
We are going to take our case as far as it needs to go, even to the Supreme Court. We are going to win. I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families. Not today, not ever. We're going to win it. We are going to win it. We are going to apply common sense. We are never quitting and we are never going away.
This is an unprecedented judicial overreach. You don't think this was done by a judge for a political reason, no? This decision makes us look weak. We're going to fight this terrible decision all the way to the Supreme Court. We're going to win. We're going to keep our citizens safe, believe me. Wire-tap covers a lot of different things. I think you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks.
This ruling makes us look weak – which by the way, we no longer are. Believe me. Just look at our borders. We're going to fight this terrible ruling, we're going to take our case as far up as it needs to go, including all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Given the chance, I have no doubt he'll do it again on the Supreme Court.
Heather is naturally very disappointed with the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment. She is a hard-working mother who brought a claim to seek reasonable financial provision from her mother's estate under legislation which has been around for over 80 years.
His opposition to death with dignity should disqualify him from the Supreme Court.
He did not serve as an editor on The Harvard Law Review. Moreover, he 'only' graduated cum laude – which suggests that his grades might not have been as high as the typical Supreme Court law clerk.
Usually tribes have their own appellate process, and then – and this surprises a lot of people – there is no appeal from a tribal supreme court.
Usually tribes have their own appellate process, and then, and this surprises a lot of people, there is no appeal from a tribal supreme court.
I am concerned about a president under oath being alleged to have committed perjury. I hope he (Clinton) can rebut that and prove that did not happen. I hope he can show he did not commit obstruction of justice and that he can complete his term. But there are serious allegations that that occurred. And in America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe that no one is above the law. The president has gotten himself into this fix that is very serious. I intend to give him an absolutely fair trial.
In America, the Supreme Court and the American people believe no one is above the law. The president has gotten himself into this fix that is very serious.
This is the outcome we were expecting, and we have decided to appeal. First, we will try the Supreme Court and if that does not work, we will try the European Court of Human Rights. We will follow our plan. Our strategy was to achieve a change, so that our plan.
We're thrilled that the Supreme Court has torn down unfair barriers faced by students who seek to vindicate their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I saw with my own eyes how Wonder helped my daughter grow more self-reliant and confident. We are thankful that the Supreme Court has clarified that schools cannot treat children with disabilities differently or stand in the way of their desired independence.
I think there will be further guidance coming from DOJ in particular with respect to not just the executive order but also the case that's in front of the Supreme Court. The president has maintained for a long time that this is a states' rights issue and not one for the federal government. So while there will be further guidance coming out, I think that all you have to do is look at what the president's view has been for a long time: that this is not something the federal government should be involved in. This is a states' rights issue.
That's an issue that the Department of Justice the Department of Education are addressing, and I think there will be further guidance coming from [Justice Department] in particular, with respect to not just the executive order but the case that's in front of the Supreme Court. The president has maintained for a long time that this is a state's right issue and not one for the federal government. So while there will be further guidance coming out this, I think that all you need to do is look at what the president's view has been for a long time.
"The questions are so numerous and it's really hard to get past them and begin to look infrastructure or tax reform or even confirming a Supreme Court nominee,"
The Supreme Court called them out on that. Because the avenue of lying about what is good women's health and safety is now foreclosed to them, they're now having to turn to other methods to make operating a practice difficult if not almost impossible.
The questions are so numerous and it's really hard to get past them and begin to look infrastructure or tax reform or even confirming a Supreme Court nominee.
Constitutional crises arise out of the failure, or strong risk of failure, of a constitution to perform its central functions. If the president were really to contemplate ignoring a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, we'd be in nearly uncharted waters.
That Noah was so young and had never argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court – or even the state Supreme Court – did not go unnoticed by many folks in my office.
I don't think they're going to be well-received at the Supreme Court for all kinds of reasons, but mainly because this is a reasonable decision. The precedents are there, they've weighed the issues, and even Clifton signed it.
Behind closed doors, Judge Gorsuch expressed disappointment with President Trump's attacks on the judiciary, but a Supreme Court Justice must prove that he has the courage and independence to stand up to a President in public. I asked Judge Gorsuch to make that statement publicly, and he declined. If he wants the American people to believe that he is truly independent, Judge Gorsuch must tell them in no uncertain terms that President Trump's attacks are not just disappointing – they are abhorrent and destructive to our Constitutional system – and he must condemn them publicly.
I think [what's keeping stocks afloat is] earnings and a dose of optimism about what policies we're going to get from this administration. But anything we see that derails [those policies], a focus on the Supreme Court or Obamacare, that takes us away from stimulus for an extended period [could make the market] a little vulnerable to at least a tactical pullback. If you come out of that day and the rhetoric is more aggressive, non-consensus building, I think people will get more worried about this protectionist rhetoric.
President Ghani affirmed his commitment to reforms, especially eliminating corruption, and highlighted the importance of a sustained US-Afghan relationship for the security of Afghanistan and the region. In light of the recent attacks, including today's attack against the Afghan Supreme Court, Secretary Mattis offered his condolences for the sacrifices of the Afghan people and commended President Ghani's unwavering commitment in the face of the enemy.
The towering judges that have served in this particular seat on the Supreme Court, including Antonin Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.
"The bar for a Supreme Court nominee to prove they can be independent has never, never been higher,"
He is clearly a smart and capable man who loves being a judge. But his nomination comes at a perilous time in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches. The bar for a Supreme Court nominee to prove they can be independent has never, never been higher. He would have been no more biased than any of the justices sitting on the court. The judge today avoided answers like the plague.
"In light of the recent attacks, including today's attack against the Afghan Supreme Court, Secretary Mattis offered his condolences for the sacrifices of the Afghan people and commended President Ghani's unwavering commitment in the face of the enemy,"
Under Israeli Constitutional law, Israeli law takes precedence over international law. So, arguing on the basis of international law may be not a very strong argument before the Supreme Court. That does not mean that it's not a violation, it just means that under the procedures of this Supreme Court that may not be a relevant argument. So the bill may pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court while still being the violation of Israeli and international law.
And I think that when you have such a uniform protest and then you sit down, I mean, maybe this was the first example of there could be a compromise. I don't think this is going to be as left, right as people think. I think that there are people in the Supreme Court ... who are Republican who really aren't kind of backing the federal court system.
I have no doubt that it will go to the Supreme Court, and probably some judgments will be made whether this president has exceed his authority or not. The president is not a dictator.
With each action testing the Constitution, and each personal attack on a judge, President Trump raises the bar even higher for Judge Gorsuch's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. His ability to be an independent check will be front and center throughout the confirmation process.
Rest assured, we will work with the Senate leadership to ensure that Judge Gorsuch gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor – one way or the other. This seat does not belong to any party or any ideology or any interest group. This seat on the Supreme Court belongs to the American people, and the American people deserve a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
The Constitution prevailed today. No one is above the law – not even the President. It's our president's duty to honor this ruling and I'll make sure he does. I'm prepared for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court whichever way the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals goes. It's a case of that magnitude, it's a case that frankly I think will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so that would not surprise me one way or the other.
I firmly believe that no one is above the law, however, and I have a duty to protect all Washingtonians from unlawful actions that violate the Constitution. I will continue this fight – all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary – to uphold the rule of law.
We absolutely must not confirm a Supreme Court nominee who has ruled that the religious beliefs of employers can trump the law.
[Trump] has nominated Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, fulfilling his campaign promise to nominate a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia, one of the most vehemently anti-LGBTQ justices to ever sit on the court who once went so far as to compare gay people to murderers.
We cannot afford a justice who will roll back our rights. The Supreme Court has played a central role in advancing the promise of equality for LGBTQ Americans, and Judge Gorsuch's anti-equality record -- from opposing crucial medical treatment for a transgender person to supporting a license to discriminate for private corporations -- make him unfit to sit on the nation's highest court. We are talking about religious exemptions and not the validity of Obergefell, and that tells us something.
This Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few courts have been tested since the earliest days of the Republic.
First, Trump's Fed appointments will ultimately determine the fate of 'dollar policy' this year. For all the attention on recent comments on exchange rates, a Trump Fed's hawkish or dovish leanings will matter much more. Second, news on Fed appointments could come quicker than the market assumes. Now that the Supreme Court nomination is out of the way, the Fed may be next. The next Fed Chair could easily be placed in one of the two vacant seats even if a chairmanship appointment is left for later.
President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test. Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests.
Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess) - just like Dem party! I don't see him as a crier.
I think it should be 60 votes for our Supreme Court. I think at the highest court of the land it should be where we're coming together as Americans, not continue to divide us. And with that being said, let's give the man a chance. Talk to him.
The Senate must insist upon 60 votes for any Supreme Court nominee, a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees. The burden is on Judge Neil Gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and, in this new era, willing to vigorously defend the Constitution from abuses of the Executive branch and protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all Americans. Given his record, I have very serious doubts about Judge Gorsuch's ability to meet this standard.
After the relentless contempt for women that candidate Trump displayed throughout his campaign, it is no surprise that President Trump intends to place someone hostile to women's rights on the Supreme Court. In the Hobby Lobby case, Judge Neil Gorsuch revealed his eagerness to single out women's health for discrimination and enable employers to meddle in their workers' most intimate health decisions.
He's quickly going to change the subject to the Supreme Court nominee, so I think the noise will move from the immigration thing to the Supreme Court thing. It'll fade when we have something new to talk about. Too many people thought we had a Republican president, a Republican House, Republican Senate and they were going to all get along peachy keen … but it's going to be bumpy, because they're not all going to see the ball the same way. I think it's going to be inconsistent, and it will come back to is the economy OK and are earnings OK? If they are, the market will be OK.
Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess)-just like Dem party! When will the Democrats give us our Attorney General and rest of Cabinet! They should be ashamed of themselves! No wonder D.C. doesn't work!
If you are alarmed, I suppose that you also would have been suspicious of this fellow named Antonin Scalia, whom President Carter's liberal White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, testified in favor of at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1986.
"Nancy Pelosi and Fake Tears Chuck Schumer held a rally at the steps of The Supreme Court and mic did not work (a mess)-just like Dem party!"
I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.). I think the person I pick will be big, big. I think people are going to love it. I think evangelicals, Christians will love my pick. And will be represented very fairly.
McConnell has never filibustered a Supreme Court nominee.
But the fury is also spurring liberal voters to demand uncompromising confrontation and resistance from their elected officials to a president they believe poses an existential threat to the country. The Democrats' increasingly assertive base wants the party's leaders to eschew any cooperation with Mr. Trump: They are already expressing rage at some senators for confirming the president's cabinet appointees, and for their willingness to allow a vote on his pick for a vacant Supreme Court seat.
That's not fair to the man. I will be making my Supreme Court pick on Thursday of next week. Thank you! We have outstanding candidates and we will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. The answer is yes. I don't want to say that, you're going to see on Thursday. I'll be making my decision this week, and we'll be announcing next week.
Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall! We will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. Sometime next week. Probably making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week. We have outstanding candidates. I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court, so I think it was a very, very big decision as to why I was elected.
"The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary,". "The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.".
From now we are going to start making pipelines in the United States. We will pick a truly great Supreme Court justice. Probably making my decision this week, we'll be announcing next week.
A photo delivered yesterday that will be displayed in the upper/lower press hall. Thank you Abbas! Let's start building. We have some outstanding candidates. And we'll pick a truly great Supreme Court justice.
The appeal decision is, however, a victory for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and a vindication of an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court has told the government to get back into its box: A proper process has to be followed.
Sterling has appreciated by more than 400 pips versus the dollar since May delivered her Brexit speech last Tuesday, and we are likely to see another leg higher if the U.K.'s supreme court voted in favour of the parliament. However, this wouldn't mean that Brexit won't come into action, it's just going to slow the process and add a few more complexities. I would consider selling a rally (in the pound) then buying the dips.
While the Supreme Court ruling that the parliament needs to approve Article 50 is probably in the price, should the Supreme Court (also) rule that parliament needs a say in the exit strategy details, sterling could get a further lift. We are very bearish on sterling/dollar this quarter, but are wary that this week could see a correction into the $1.25-26 region.
The Supreme Court will be keen to deliver a unanimous verdict due to the political significance of the case, which means that it will probably seek to find the lowest common denominator. However, a stronger ruling could have implications for the government's powers and those of the devolved parliaments.
Wall Street love[s] the idea that we have a pro-growth president, but we had a press conference, we had an inaugural address, and he really didn't talk about those issues, and I think that's caused a little bit of a sag. I think the market's saying, I made a list: trade deals, tax cuts, tax reform, repatriation, Obamacare, Supreme Court, immigration, ISIS, fight the press, infrastructure. What are your three most important ones? What are you going tackle first? You can't do them all.
The Supreme Court will get much of the attention but the federal courts pose a much more immediate opportunity.
The vacant Supreme Court seat is going to be huge right now.
If all the legal proceedings go to the Supreme Court then the final judgment will not be handed until 2020 or 2021. Of course the parties could stop battling before then when more judgments come in and reach a settlement before that date.
Subject to the Supreme Court judgment, the currency conversion claims have built up to £2bn or more given the weakness of the pound and the basic statutory interest itself is £5bn. There are scenarios in which the surplus might only be in the region of £7bn or so, meaning that they could eat it all up before subordinated loanholder claims are paid.
A few years ago, there was a moment when politics and the Supreme Court was not very kind to Al. I think what they did drove him away from politics, but it drove him toward film and I think that's to our benefit ... he could work both sides of the street, so to speak, and he has and he's done it beautifully.
His absence at that time was also a form of dissent. He did not believe [that] the outcome of that election, including the controversies around the results in Florida and the unprecedented intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, reflected a free, fair and open democratic process.
We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice.
I will tell you now, if I have to declare martial law, I will declare it … to preserve my nation, period. I don't care about the Supreme Court … the right to preserve one's life and my nation transcends everything else … nobody can stop me.
Trump wants to move quickly on several key items – Obamacare repeal, tax reform, the Supreme Court nominee, the wall funding and infrastructure. He will have to use the inauguration speech when he has the bully pulpit to make the case these should get done, and they should get done quickly. Congress does not move at a very fast pace. Trump moves, from the business world, at a fast pace.
I'll be making that decision, and it will be a decision which I very strongly believe in. I think it's one of the reasons I got elected. I think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the Supreme Court, so I think it was a very, very big decision as to why I was elected.
So, as you know, I have a list of 20. I've gone through them. We've met with numerous candidates. They were outstanding in every case ... I'll be making the decision on who we will put up for justice of the United States Supreme Court, a replacement for the great, great Justice (Antonin) Scalia. That will be probably within two weeks of the 20th (of January). So within about two weeks, probably the second week.
It is sad and unfortunate that the Supreme Court dismissed my plea.
Wal-Mart's posture has been that it will fight this to the end. We'll see what the New Hampshire Supreme Court has to say.
The most important thing now is the [U.K.] Supreme Court decision, and that will be out in the next two to three weeks.
Apparently there's yet a new standard now, which is to not confirm a Supreme Court nominee at all. I think that's something the American people simply will not tolerate, and we'll be looking forward to receiving a Supreme Court nomination and moving forward on it.
Absolutely., We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court justice. It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we [Democrats] could support.'.
While we feel the GBP is at its structural nadir, we expect some volatility will accompany the Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless, we expect the Pound to benefit in 2017. The Euro is likely to weaken as the ECB stays its current stimulatory course.
We're both under threat at the state and national level. With a Republican president, Republican-majority legislature and the potential for multiple Supreme Court appointments, in some ways we're entering uncharted territory.
With 52 seats in the U.S. Senate, we are excited for Republicans to confirm a conservative Supreme Court justice and begin working with President-elect Trump to pass an agenda of change for the American people. Whether it's winning the White House, Congress, or state-level races, Republicans have much to celebrate this year, and the RNC is ready to get to work to 'Make America Great Again.
The prime minister will come out looking good to his supporters once again -- after all, (it will be seen that) he tried to legalize the theft of lands in the West Bank, and it was the Supreme Court that got in his way.
The supreme court ... rejects the request for annulment. (It) has been deemed groundless.
If the Supreme Court decides against our arguments here then the solution in legal terms is a one-line act.
The Supreme Court exists to decide points of law. [W]ider political questions are not the subject of this appeal. This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially.
With this alignment in the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, we should be concerned about erosion of self determination, if not a return to termination.
The Supreme Court Chamber affirms the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial chamber on both Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan. The Supreme Court orders that Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan remain in custody.
This is a big victory for those who want to see courts rein in partisan gerrymandering. But it is anybody's guess what happens to this when it gets to the Supreme Court.
It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean, it's done. … These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And I'm fine with that.
It's done. It-- you have-- these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And- I'm-- I'm fine with that.
We were hoping we'd be looking forward to a progressive majority on the Supreme Court. After the election results, there is a new reality.
I think appointment of Supreme Court really was the driving force behind Donald Trump carrying Elliott County.
He won – and now Latino and Muslim-American children are worried about what will happen to their families. LGBT couples are worried that their marriages could be dissolved by a Trump-Pence Supreme Court. Women are worried that their access to desperately needed health services will disappear. Millions of people in this country are worried, deeply worried. And they are right to be worried.
I think he has a mandate to do what he campaigned on, to repeal and replace ObamaCare, to put constitutional scholars on the Supreme Court. I liked what he said last night about rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. I think it will be a partnership, and we all understand our role.
I would have never voted for Hillary. And I voted for Donald Trump because I'm concerned about the Supreme Court.
I believe that person will select the next four Supreme Court justices and that will affect us for the next 50 years, not just for the next four years.
It's a pivotal moment, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. I think we can safely assume that no matter who she does nominate, and what the makeup of the Senate is, it will be an epic battle.
If Hillary becomes president, I'm going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we're still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court.
Pat Toomey won't tell Pennsylvania voters where he stands on Donald Trump, trying instead to have it both ways by telling different people what he thinks they want to hear. That's not courage. Voting to shut down the government and against bills to close the terrorist gun loophole isn't courage. And playing politics with the Supreme Court isn't courage.
It's a very strong judgment. It's a unanimous judgment and it's a judgment by three of the most senior judges at that level you could hope to get. So if I was the government, I wouldn't be optimistic about the Supreme Court reaching a different view.
Basically, the market was looking for some clarity around this political impasse; fortunately the Supreme Court provided a face-saver by giving a middle-ground for both the PTI and the government.
We are grateful that the Supreme Court has granted the school board's petition in this difficult case. The board looks forward to explaining to the court that its restroom and locker room policy carefully balances the interests of all students and parents in the Gloucester County school system.
Because of the Supreme Court case related to Bill Clinton, there's no automatic shield for the president from civil action. If he were president and called to testify and hostilities break out in the Middle East a court would probably postpone – but of course it's a major dislocation to be going through these civil trials while he's running an administration.
I'm leaning slightly towards Trump based on Supreme Court decisions, national security, pro-life. Mainly for what the party stands for, not as much the candidate.
The antitrust system as it stands is focused on prices to consumers, innovation and efficiencies. That reflects the triumph of the University of Chicago school of economics. But there's an older tradition, embodied by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, that says a concentration of too much power in too few hands is bad for democracy and bad for consumers.
We need a Supreme Court that, in my opinion, is going to uphold the Second Amendment – and all amendments – but the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege.
I'd like to keep a Republican House, and Republican Senate and a conservative Supreme Court. Trump comes with the package to do that.
There are core issues that are bigger than Donald Trump, Issues like the next Supreme Court nominee.
The key here for the Supreme Court is to try and strike a balance that doesn't stifle competition but also spurs innovation.
Like Republican message on Economy, Security and Supreme Court...Unfortunately, wrong messenger...Party must change nominee now.
This is a clear sign that neither the Supreme Court nor federal prosecutors are doing anything to try to protect the PMDB simply because they are now in power.
I do think clarity is particularly important in this context, and right now there is a lack of clarity. The Supreme Court has the opportunity now to clean that up.
This list is definitive and I will choose only from it in picking future justices of the United States Supreme Court.
We welcome the Supreme Court judgement which we consider a landmark one. Providing quality services to and upholding the dignity of women will now be placed strongly on the national agenda.
The Mutual Defence Treaty between the US and the Philippines is a legally binding document approved by the Philippine Supreme Court and a few words from Duterte cannot stop that deep military engagement with the US, which obviously wants to maintain and even boost its geopolitical sway in the region.
It is my duty to defend Michigan's laws, in this case a law that stands in 40 other states. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and I will respect that decision.
The Senate is returning from the longest recess in nearly half a century, and perhaps the Republican leadership was hoping that Americans had forgotten about the unprecedented obstruction of a Supreme Court nominee. But I can assure you that Americans – and certainly Vermonters – have not forgotten.
The Supreme Court is not going to hear these.
In my experience over the years, the Supreme Court of Appeal has placed a lot of confidence in our High Courts, and I must say, I would be surprised if they had to accept the petition.
I kind of had to deal with that ... I think she would be better at appointing a new Supreme Court justice than Trump. She would look at it rationally, who is a good person for this country. Trump would rely on some irrational (criteria).
They spend a lot of time these Republicans, spending a lot of energy trying to separate themselves from Donald Trump. But as long as they're holding a Supreme Court seat open for him, they're his minions. They're his enablers. We're going to ensure that every American knows that as long as Senate Republicans are fighting to let Trump shape the Supreme Court for a generation or more, there's no daylight between them and Trump.
If Hillary Clinton gets elected, I think she's going to decimate the Second Amendment, if not abolish it. And she'll do that through judges, through the justices of the Supreme Court. But the Second Amendment people have tremendous power because they are so united.
This is a final push to shut down the remaining media outlets. We have fought really hard. We are not giving up. We are going to contest the bill at the Supreme Court on its constitutionality.
We do have two judges dissenting, and we certainly will take a shot at the Supreme Court.
We got women's right to choose under that Supreme Court by standing up and refusing to take no for an answer. We see justices change over time, and some of the most progressive judges were appointed by conservatives. So the question is, are we going to throw ourselves over the cliff here? Would you take climate change so that you can have abortion rights?
Voting for Hillary Clinton – or not voting – is simply not an option. Conservatives could lose the Supreme Court for "40 years" if she wins.
Now, despite Chief Judge Garland's extraordinary qualifications, Republicans in the Senate have refused to do their job, and Chief Judge Garland's nomination has now been pending longer than any Supreme Court nominee in history who's nomination was not otherwise withdrawn.
Despite his outstanding record and qualifications, Republicans have obstructed Judge Garland's nomination in a way faced by no other Supreme Court nominee in our nation's history.
Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot–resign! Is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to apologize to me for her misconduct? Big mistake by an incompetent judge!
I think it's highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly. I think it's a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. … It's so beneath the court for her to be making statements like that. It only energizes my base even more. And I would hope that she would get off the court as soon as possible.
This has Supreme Court written all over it.
We are extremely pleased that Indiana's attempt to violate women's basic rights has been thwarted. This law attempted to do exactly what Supreme Court precedent said could not be done: invade a woman's privacy rights by preventing her from deciding whether to obtain a pre-viability abortion.
The United States Supreme Court has stated in categorical terms that a state may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.
The Supreme Court again has again restricted the Justice Department from its ever-expansive theories of prosecuting public officials because it recognizes that we are in a system in which public officials take a lot of day-to-day actions on behalf of people, ideas and causes.
At least with this Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy, restrictions that are packaged as informing women's decisions may be treated differently, I think.
Every day, Whole Woman's Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity. And today the Supreme Court did the same. We're thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.
We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges the continued need for affirmative action policies that make it possible for students of all backgrounds, including many historically disadvantaged Asian American and Pacific Islanders, to access higher education and create a stronger country through their contributions to a diverse society.
The election, and the Supreme Court appointments that come with it will decide whether or not we have a border and, hence, a country. Clinton has pledged to expand Obama's executive amnesty, hurting poor African-American and Hispanic workers by giving away their jobs and federal resources to illegal immigrant labor – while making us all less safe. It is time to protect our country and Make America Safe Again and Great Again for everyone.
I'm pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society and this country should provide a high quality education to all our young people regardless of their background. We are not a country that guarantees equal outcomes but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody. And that's what was upheld today.
The action taken by the president was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the president the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws. Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans, including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law.
The president and I remain committed to fixing our broken immigration system. We are disappointed by the 4-4 vote in the Supreme Court today, and the gridlock in Congress that has stood in the way of more lasting, comprehensive immigration reform.
The executive amnesty from President Obama wiped away the immigration rules written by Congress, giving work permits and entitlement benefits to people illegally in the country. This split decision also makes clear what is at stake in November. The election, and the Supreme Court appointments that come with it, will decide whether or not we have a border and, hence, a country.
Control of the Senate may very well come down to the race in Florida. The outcome also could determine the makeup of the Supreme Court and critical fiscal and economic policies. No matter who is elected president, there is reason for worry.
We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.
MATS offers tremendous benefits for the American people by protecting their health, at reasonable costs to industry. The Supreme Court correctly rejected the latest industry challenge to these vital protections against dangerous, toxic pollutants–pollutants which have, until these Standards, put the health of young children across the country at risk.
Today, Terry Williams comes one step closer to the new, fair sentencing hearing he deserves. We're optimistic that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will give this case careful consideration and recognize the injustice of Terry's death sentence.
I believe the donations are going to come in because people will realize the dramatic significance of allowing Hillary Clinton to appoint three Supreme Court justices. That overrides about every other issue.
Let me tell you these people are losers. a third-party candidacy would guarantee Clinton wins the White House and deny Republicans the chance to put conservatives on the Supreme Court. What you're going to do is lose the election for the Republicans and therefore you lose the Supreme Court.
This morning, the Deseret News website mistakenly published a draft of an op-ed from Utah Senator Orrin Hatch explaining his position on the Supreme Court vacancy. The electronic publication of this version, awaiting edits from the Senator following his meeting with Judge Garland, was inadvertent.
Like many of my Senate colleagues, I recently met with Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Our meeting, however, does not change my conviction that the Senate should consider a Supreme Court nominee after this presidential election cycle.
We are willing to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to.
Along with fellow citizens, we are asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to stop the implementation of the order and any similar orders he may issue in the future. The case against the Governor's executive order is overwhelming. A plain reading of the Constitution, 240 years of practice, and precedent-setting Virginia Supreme Court cases lead to the unambiguous conclusion that the Governor's order is unconstitutional and cannot stand.
Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees are a woman's worst nightmare. Their records reveal a lineup of individuals who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, gutting what's left of abortion access in this country and heaping punishment on women.
Behind the scenes, there's conversations going on about assurances from Donald Trump on his position on social issues – specifically on the issue of life and particularly on Supreme Court nominees.
This list ought to be encouraging to anyone who prioritizes the rule of law, and I congratulate Mr. Trump on making a very significant policy statement about his desire to prioritize the future of the Supreme Court. The names on this list would need to be vetted, obviously, but they all seem to share in common a record of putting the law and the Constitution ahead of their political preferences.
Every nominee since 1875 who wasn't withdrawn from consideration has received a hearing and/or a vote. With more federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history and a long record of public service, we expect the Senate will give Chief Judge Garland the same fair consideration as prior nominees.
If we lose this, we lose our country. We lose the Supreme Court for a generation, religious liberty is taken away, our kids are bankrupted.
The Australian Greens welcome the announcement by the Supreme Court of PNG. We now know once and for all that it's not the actions of those innocent asylum seekers who are coming to us seeking protection that's illegal, it is in fact the actions of the Australian Government.
I have decided that I will write a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court so that he can appoint a commission for the investigation of this matter, so that those who are making these demands ... can see the extent of our innocence.
There is no coup whatsoever happening here in Brazil. Various ministers of the Supreme Court have said the possible impeachment of the president of the republic would not represent a coup. It is a constitutional process.
This is totally mistaken. Congress and the Supreme Court have made it quite clear the impeachment process has complied with the Constitution up to now.
That's why the film is important and having a younger audience – 25 years is a long time. An entire generation has grown up and has never really witnessed this event. I'm really at peace with my role in history. I don't think I have to become at peace with him being on the Supreme Court.
If there was any question about obstruction in the United States Senate, what's happening with the vacancy on the Supreme Court is Exhibit A of Republican obstructionism.
I think there is no question that this could wind up at the Supreme Court.
Well, first of all, he united the pro-choice and pro-life groups, which I don't know how he did that. But think about this: he said he would use nuclear weapons, maybe in Europe, that we would leave Nato, he would have a supreme court justice who would have to investigate Hillary's emails, that would be one of the requirements for being a justice. Then he said we should destroy the Geneva conventions.
As someone who lives in New York who has experienced the horrors of terrorism close up and personal, the idea of having someone on the Supreme Court who understands those issues, as well as their horrible human effect, is very comforting.
I can't imagine that a Republican-majority Congress, in a lame-duck session, after the American people have spoken (in the election), would want to confirm (Garland). That's not going to happen. The principle is the same, whether it's before the election or after the election. The principle is the American people are choosing their next president and their next president should pick this Supreme Court nominee.
You have four Supreme Court judgeships coming up, and that would mean they would take over, that would mean for 50 years, probably, this country will never be the same. The Republicans should do exactly what they are doing. I think they should wait till the next president and let the next president pick.
Over my seven years as president, in all my conversations with senator of both parties, ... the one name that has come up repeatedly, from Republicans and Democrats alike, is Merrick Garland. To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn't even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as the Supreme Court, ... that would be unprecedented.
Our system cannot give one county court the power to change 30 years of election law for the entire state of Ohio, 23 days into early voting and only four days before an election. We will appeal this decision because if there is a close election on Tuesday we need clarity from the Supreme Court to make sure that ineligible voters don't determine the outcome of an election.
This matter concerns a disagreement over the interpretation of highly technical tax legislation and dates back to a one-off compensation plan for 2003. While we are disappointed with the outcome, we are grateful to the Supreme Court for their careful consideration of the issues.
Republicans are coming together, they're united behind our campaign. The 65 percent of Republicans who recognise Donald Trump is not the best candidate to go head-to-head with Hillary Clinton, that the odds are too high. He loses, we lose the Supreme Court for a generation, we lose the Bill of Rights, we lose the Senate. And what we're seeing is Republicans coalescing around our campaign.
Today's ruling thrusts Louisiana into a reproductive health care crisis, where women will face limited safe and legal options when they've made the decision to end a pregnancy. We will immediately seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court so these clinics are able to reopen and continue serving the women of Louisiana.
With the passing of Justice Scalia and a 5-4 court being split 4-4, the balance of the Supreme Court, the interpretation of the Constitution, are we going to be a constitutional republic or are we going to be a living breathing document constitution, meaning a liberal progressive welfare state?
The Supreme Court is not an extension of the White House. The president has absolutely every right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, but Congress as an equal branch also has every right not to confirm someone. We are knee deep into a presidential election and I think the precedent for not filling a Supreme Court vacancy in such a time is justified.
This will be a test, one more test, of whether or not norms, rules, basic fair play can function at all in Washington these days. This is not just the Supreme Court, we have consistently seen a breakdown in the functions of government because the Senate will not confirm well qualified nominees.
I cannot wait to stand on that debate stage with Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders and talk about what the Supreme Court will look like depending on who wins. By the way, the Senate's duty is to advise and consent. You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We're advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court, that we're going to have an election.
We ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court.
I think his passing yesterday really underscores the stakes of this election. the GOP "ought to make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court.
Two branches of government hang in the balance, not just the presidency, but the Supreme Court. If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, every one of those hangs in the balance.
The next president is going to appoint one, two, three, four Supreme Court justices. If Donald Trump is president he will appoint liberals. If Donald Trump is president, your Second Amendment will go away.
The Supreme Court cannot usurp the powers of the legislature.
I'm pleased the Texas Supreme Court has ensured that the Kountze cheerleaders will be able to continue defending their right to express their faith – the most fundamental of American freedoms.
I am very grateful to the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision today to hear my case. I am innocent of these crimes and ask the Court to reverse these convictions. I maintain my profound confidence in God's grace to sustain me and my family, and thank my friends and supporters across the country for their faithfulness over these past three years.
Not all lawmakers are confident there is a clear legal basis for impeaching her. This Supreme Court decision could sway those who have not yet decided to back impeachment.
The marriage traditionalists might be fighting for a lost cause. A huge majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage, as were multiple court rulings across the country. And the Supreme Court will likely do the same.
He did not take bribes, he didn't receive a bribe, he says he is innocent and will go with us to the Supreme Court.
We approached this as a humanitarian issue, and on that grounds (the) government has not opposed the request and therefore the Supreme Court has agreed to it.
The Supreme Court gave an interpretation of the constitution and made its decision, and it's a binding decision (we must accept it). But we can debate it. We even have the right to do so. The Supreme Court decided to resolve a problem for the benefit of the ruling party.
I, like most legal observers, believe that the government will have a very tough time defending the constitutionality of a law that divests the Supreme Court of the ability to hear these cases.
The decision of German Supreme Court did not come in as a big surprise.The markets had already expected this and I guess in the future, we will have more rescue packages for the euro zone.
I believe I've been judged innocent. The Supreme Court said I was immediately free to go, without conditions… and I was always free in my head.
We are satisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court to reject the deal between the government and the settlers. The land of Migron should go back to it's owners, the Palestinians.
We're in court to say what we think should be said and to defend our legal position. If the Supreme Court doesn't like it, that doesn't mean the verdict should be overturned. But that's life. On the day the verdict was announced we said this would happen.
The President has the absolute power to do this, to grant pardons and commutations. No court, not even the Supreme Court, can overturn it. Congress can't overturn it.
There needs to be a response from the Supreme Court, that is what it says in the constitution. I don't know what the magistrates of the Supreme Court are waiting for, this is now creating a conflict in Venezuela, without doubt, related to the constitution.
The Supreme Court declared that using different exchange rates in this kind of contract is unfair. Regarding the unilateral contract changes, the court established a legality test. We think that based on the cases we've already seen and examined, most of the contracts the banks offered will not meet the necessary requirements.
Whoever thinks this is illegal can take me to the Supreme Court. I prefer, at this time, to be taken to the Supreme Court, and not, God-forbid, to be taken to a funeral of a kindergarten child.
It was painful to receive the news that the Italian Supreme Court decided to send my case back for revision when the prosecution's theory of my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair.
Ecuador will realise that the decision is built on a European arrest warrant and been taken by the UK's Supreme Court.
This judgement before the Supreme Court is so relevant because, for the first time, Berlusconi is really close to a potential definitive sentence. And we are speaking about a serious crime – tax fraud – with a serious conviction, because Berlusconi was sentenced to four years of imprisonment, even if three years were deleted by the 'indulto', a sort of Italian pardon, plus the additional penalty of disqualification from public offices.
At the end of the hearing before the Supreme Court there are three possible outcomes. Obviously one possibility is the confirmation of the sentence; another possibility is the cancellation of the conviction. But according to the Italian judicial system there is also a third possibility, because the Supreme Court could cancel the conviction ordering a new trial before the Court of Appeal of Milan for evaluating some specific issues or elements.
We will continue to support Mr Kerviel in his fight and we will continue to work with him on our possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
If someone is not happy with the results of the electoral process they must take the issue to the Supreme Court of Justice.
This decision is based on election law and also on previous cases in which the Supreme Court banned Batasuna and other associated parties.
Those are clauses the bank uses to guarantee itself a fixed interest rate on repayment, even if interest rates drop. With this, even if the Euro Interbank Offered Rate Euribor goes to 1%, the bank guarantees that its interest will be above 4.5% or 5%. The Supreme Court of Spain a few weeks ago ruled that those clauses at one financial establishment were void and must be abolished.
Supreme Court rejects petitions to review Secrion 377. Turns blind eye to its duty to overturn blatantly unconstitutional, shoddy verdict.
This operation fulfils three fundamental objectives in the struggle against terrorism. First, to prevent groups re-organising that have been declared illegal by the supreme court. This is the case for Batasuna and Segi. Second, to prevent an academy, and that's what we've done with this operation. Third, fight against the urban violence that Segi carries out for ETA.
We have always maintained that they are guilty and that they were present at the crime scene. And we think the that the Supreme Court asking for this retrial also points in that direction.
We're talking about 900 people whose homes are at stake. Of course they should try it in the Supreme Court, and I hope the time will be spent to find a solution where Christiania can survive on reasonable terms.