Showing titles in Judicial Systems

For decades, James MacGregor Burns has been one of the great masters of the study of power and leadership in America. Now he turns his eye to an institution of government that he believes has become more powerful---and more partisan---than the Founding Fathers ever intended: the Supreme Court. Much as we would like to believe that the Court remains aloof from ideological politics, Packing the Court reveals how often justices behave like politicians in robes.

This is a story of the collections cases against former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where he was once US Attorney. It all began in Brooklyn, with Mafia ties alleged, a motivation. Manhattan College in The Bronx to 1965, NYU Law then a clerkship doe Judge Lloyd Francis MacMahon in, where else, SDNY. This Court would keep reappearing, with Giuliani moving from one side of the "v." to the other (he also got sued a lot as NYC Mayor). Rudy rose to acclaim taking on a corrupt politician, Rep. Bertram Podell. With the election of ...

"You're gonna die....YOU'RE GONNA DIE!!" the killer hissed, and with that, my usual commute to work turned into a living nightmare. In the 28 hours prior, Maksim Gelman had paralyzed the five boroughs with a fear only a deranged spree-killer is capable of. After four cold-blooded murders and numerous other assaults, Gelman was a wanted fugitive eluding police. Now here he is standing before me on the uptown 3 train predicting my untimely demise. My name is Joseph Lozito and this is the story of how I went from being an "average Joe" to being dubbed "The New York Subway Hero". "The New York ...

For two hundred years, the constitutionality of capital punishment had been axiomatic. But in 1962, Justice Arthur Goldberg and his clerk Alan Dershowitz dared to suggest otherwise, launching an underfunded band of civil rights attorneys on a quixotic crusade. In 1972, in a most unlikely victory, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty law in Furman v. Georgia.

Israel has been an experiment in democracy in the Middle East for 75 years. The Israeli Supreme Court has been the most successful branch of government in Israel, taking the lead in protecting the rights of minorities, Arabs, Ethiopian Jews and others. The High Court has also opened the doors to most challenges to government authority. Unlike the United States, most citizens groups have standing to challenge government action, including the location of the border wall built between Israel and the West Bank. Israeli justices are required to retire at age 70 ensuring turnover on the Supreme ...

There are moments in American history when all eyes are focused on a federal court: when its bench speaks for millions of Americans, and when its decision changes the course of history. More often, the story of the federal judiciary is simply a tale of hard work: of finding order in the chaotic system of state and federal law, local custom, and contentious lawyering. The Federal Courts is a story of all of these courts and the judges and justices who served on them, of the case law they made, and of the acts of Congress and the administrative organs that shaped the courts.

Im Sommer 1948 stehen große Entscheidungen an: Die westlichen Alliierten beauftragen 65 Männer und Frauen damit, eine Verfassung auszuarbeiten. Monate leidenschaftlicher Diskussionen beginnen, in denen gestritten, getrickst und geträumt wird. Wie soll es werden, das neue Land? Kurz nachdem in den drei Westzonen im Frühsommer 1948 eine neue Währung eingeführt wird, riegelt die Sowjetunion West-Berlin ab: Die Stadt ist blockiert. Die USA beschließen, zwei Millionen Menschen aus der Luft zu versorgen und schicken "Rosinenbomber" los, von denen gleich einer der ersten abstürzt.

Murderous mafia capos. The police officer who brutalized Abner Louima. A purveyor of child pornography. These are some of the defendants to have come before US District Court Judge Frederic Block to ask for reductions in their prison sentences. All of them have been found guilty and have already served decades in prison, but under the 2018 First Step Act they are entitled to petition for reconsideration and release. In a rare glimpse behind the bench, Judge Block recounts the cases of six incarcerated people who have done heinous things but have nevertheless petitioned him for their release.

Our legal system often feels like it only works for the rich and powerful - for those who have the means to use the courts to enforce their will and defend their interests. But we can fight back. Jolyon Maugham KC founded Good Law Project in 2017 with the belief that the law can also put power in the hands of ordinary people. . It has brought a series of landmark cases against a dishonest and increasingly autocratic government and won widespread acclaim in successfully reversing Boris Johnson's unlawful suspension of Parliament.

In 1981, after almost two centuries of exclusively male appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Supreme Court Justice of the United States, a significant historical moment and a symbolic triumph for supporters of women's rights. Most do not know, however, about the remarkable women shortlisted for the Supreme Court in the decades before O'Connor's success. Since the 1930s, nine women were formally considered for a seat on the Supreme Court, but were ultimately passed over. Shortlisted gives them the recognition they deserve.

Indu Bhan’s Legal Eagles: Stories of Top Seven Indian Lawyers’ traces the story of the top seven lawyers in India. Lawyers, as we commonly perceive, are not just shrewd intellectuals but much more. It takes more than just intelligence to become a successful lawyer. It takes years of practice, extensive studies and professionalism which set the absolutely outstanding lawyers from the general ones. Their life and career graph is full of crusts and troughs and this book gives an insight into it.

Courts of heaven is a training manual that teaches the church about the supreme court of heaven. Life here on earth is a replica of a reality that is in heaven. Courts are there to handle difficult issues that couldn't be handled by round the table conversation. Many of us have prayed, fasted and did everything they could but the problem remained. It's time to take the matter to the courts of heaven. How do you fight the battles in your family that started thousands of years ago? Why does the bible refer to God as a judge and Jesus as our advocate? In this book I teach about how to build a ...

Collaborative divorce is an option for divorce outside of court that minimizes conflict, improves family relations and co-parenting, give couples more say in the outcome of their settlement and prevents the costs and stress associated with a court trial. However, for collaborative divorce to be effective a thorough understanding of the process, the misconceptions, and risks involved are needed to ensure a kinder, more collaborative outcome.

Written and narrated by an award winning trial judge passionate about judicial education with more than 40 years of courtroom experience, this book provides the listener the collective wisdom of almost 27 years on the bench in a heartfelt and entertaining way. The plain-spoken advice helps new judges, attorneys and member of the public understand the rule of law and what it means to be a judge. Paul Luvera, a member of the National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame, believes this book should be required listening for all trial judges.

Our ability to make choices is fundamental to our sense of ourselves as human beings and essential to the political values of freedom-protecting nations. Whom we love; where we work; how we spend our time; what we buy: such choices define us in the eyes of ourselves and others, and much blood and ink has been spilt to establish and protect our rights to make them freely. Choice can also be a burden. Our cognitive capacity to research and make the best decisions is limited, so every active choice comes at a cost.

Hay historias que mejoran con el tiempo. Sobre todo si suceden en Italia, porque allí las ondas expansivas de las investigaciones judiciales son interestelares: rascas un poco y aparecen conspiraciones de película de serie B en las que no falta ningún elemento, desde grupos terroristas a tramas vaticanas. Parece muy sofisticado, pero no se engañen: la mafia es una fábula estúpida sin ningún glamour.

The Mueller Report was a catastrophe for the malevolent forces desperate to impeach President Donald Trump. It failed to prove any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Since then, many of the President's former advisors and associates have been subjected to vindictive, political prosecutions for a variety of trivial, unrelated offenses. Roger Stone is one of them. In this moving, eyewitness account of Stone's trial and his decades-long career of political chicanery, author and Stone intimate Milo Yiannopoulos introduces America to the man behind the myth.

When two parties meet in court, the outcome is rarely preordained. Judges must figure out who wins and who loses by analyzing the facts of the case before them and applying the legal principles of cases that have come before. How Would You Rule? brings that experience alive by presenting you with the critical facts and rules in 31 of the law's most interesting cases and inviting you to test your legal wits and sharpen your legal judgment by figuring out how these challenging cases should be decided.

Walter Frank tackles, in a comprehensive but lively manner, subjects rarely treated in one volume. Aiming at both the general listener and students of political science, law, or history, Frank begins with a brief discussion of the nature of constitutional law and why the Court divides so closely on many issues. He then proceeds to an analysis of the Constitution and subsequent amendments, placing them in their historical context.

Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the U.S. Constitution. The battleground is the Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action.