La justice américaine peut-elle juger de violations des droits de l'homme à l'étranger ? "Kiobel vs Shell" : multinationales et droits de l'homme devant la Cour suprême américaine. U.S. Supreme Court Upholds 'ObamaCare,' Reversing Federal District Court Decisions. 10-238.pdf (Objet application/pdf) Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades. In those five years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data. And for all the public debate about the confirmation of or the addition last year of Justice , there is no reason to think they will make a difference in the court’s ideological balance.
Indeed, the data show that only one recent replacement altered its direction, that of Justice for Justice in 2006, pulling the court to the right. There is no similar switch on the horizon. That means that Chief Justice Roberts, 55, is settling in for what is likely to be a very long tenure at the head of a court that seems to be entering a period of stability. The recent shift to the right is modest.
But scholars who look at overall trends rather than individual decisions say that widely accepted political science data tell an unmistakable story about a notably conservative court. The courts led by Chief Justices Warren E. La Cour suprême des Etats-Unis demeure conservatrice. L’accession de Mme Sonia Sotomayor à la Cour suprême ne modifie pas l’équilibre politique conservateur de cette instance qui joue un rôle décisif dans la vie économique, sociale et politique des Etats-Unis.
Tout au plus doit-on signaler que si un républicain comme M. John McCain avait succédé à la Maison Blanche à M. George W. Bush, la Cour suprême fût devenue, peut-être pour une génération, une instance militante au service des idées de droite. Pourquoi le départ de M. Si, sur la questions des libertés publiques, les thèses conservatrices ne l’emportent pas toujours (la liberté d’expression a été réaffirmée, y compris dans un cas – le droit de mettre le feu à un drapeau américain – où les juges mécontentaient une partie appréciable de l’opinion et du Congrès), les grands intérêts privés n’ont pas grand chose à redouter de l’actuelle composition de la Cour, une Cour dont la majorité des membres sont eux-mêmes fort riches (1).
Cases and Codes. Jump to: [Opinion] [Concurrence 1] [Concurrence 2] [Other 1] [Other 2] appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 08-205. Argued March 24, 2009--Reargued September 9, 2009--Decided January 21, 2010 As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination.
Held: 1. (b) Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment's meaning and purpose. 2. 3. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. SCOTUS 03_11 liberté d'expression. Jump to: [Opinion] certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 09-1279. Argued January 19, 2011--Decided March 1, 2011 The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make records and documents publicly available upon request, subject to several statutory exemptions. One of those exemptions, Exemption 7(C), covers law enforcement records the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. " 5 U. Held: Corporations do not have "personal privacy" for the purposes of Exemption 7(C). (a) AT&T argues that the word "personal" in Exemption 7(C) incorporates the statutory definition of "person," which includes corporations, §551(2).
AT&T contends that its reading of "personal" is supported by the common legal usage of the word "person. " (b) The meaning of "personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) is further clarified by two pre-existing FOIA exemptions. 582 F. 3d 490, reversed. Roberts, C.