1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
balandron [24]
3 years ago
14

How the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect defendants from situations like the Scottsboro boys case. What has happened betwee

n the time of this case and today that make it less likely this will happen? Is it likely that something similar might happen in our criminal justice system today?
Law
1 answer:
tresset_1 [31]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

After filing the first post-Janus First Amendment labor law challenge in the United States Supreme Court, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in support of a related challenge, Miller v. Inslee, that calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize that laws forcing recipients of government benefits to accept union representation are unconstitutional. As it did in its brief in Bierman v. Dayton, Buckeye argues that the lower courts have improperly exempted such “exclusive representation” schemes from scrutiny under the First Amendment.

“In its Janus ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court raised serious questions about the constitutionality of forced exclusive representation, and in three legal cases, The Buckeye Institute has outlined why it is unconstitutional to force public employees to be represented by unions that advocate against their interests,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute. “Like Buckeye’s clients, Katherine Miller—a Washington state childcare provider—should not be forced to speak through a government union with which she disagrees.”

The Miller case, brought by National Right to Work Foundation, raises similar claims to Buckeye’s cases—Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine, and Thompson v. Marietta Education Association—and challenges state laws which force individuals, in this case state childcare providers, to allow a government-designated union to speak for them.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
How are slander and libel the same how are they different
Sati [7]
They are similar because they both damage someone’s reputation. They are different because slander is verbally spoken out loud and libel is written.
8 0
2 years ago
Sylvester leaves the chemical factory at the end of a day’s work. He is approximately 500 m away from the gates when a series of
DIA [1.3K]

Answer:

it's weird ... why did it exploded when he got outside ... it's fishy .. he is lying surely he knows about this explosion and he is just telling half story ... we should emotionally manipulate him

8 0
2 years ago
Challenge #9 To decide about heredity You are destined to be a criminal I know You will break the law You are just like your bro
just olya [345]

Answer: this is wrong. Because my brother is a criminal doesn’t mean that I could be a harmful member of society. I could be very different from him.

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
This type of tort does not require an intent to cause harm just an intent to do the act
kipiarov [429]

:Intentional torts are wrongful acts done on purpose. The person does not need to actually mean harm, but the other person ends up hurt anyway, such as in a prank. Or, the person can definitely mean harm, such as domestic violence cases

3 0
2 years ago
The state trial court in nevada issued a decision in which a party was found guilty of fraud. Should a case arise in the future
bija089 [108]

The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:

The state trial court in Nevada has issued a decision in which a party has been found guilty of fraud. Should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada courts will be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision.

Answer:

No, should a case arise in the future with the same basic fact situation, Nevada state trial courts will not be bound by precedent to follow the reasoning and decision of this prior decision, because the decisions of trial courts do not use precedents or rulings established in previous legal cases to arrive at decisions on future disputes involving different or entirely new parties.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When can freedom of speech be restricted
    11·1 answer
  • Without paying interest for a late bill, if the $5,543 has to be paid in 12 payments over the next year, how much will they need
    8·1 answer
  • .<br> One of alcohol's effects is to
    10·1 answer
  • Select two reasons for the division of power in a limited government.
    5·2 answers
  • Should all laws be enforced equally?
    5·1 answer
  • What is an example of an event that might require a public affairs professional?
    13·1 answer
  • 100 point give away <br> have a good day/night wherever you are
    13·2 answers
  • Explain the process of choosing and appointing a supreme court justice
    14·1 answer
  • How to flirt? ... .... ....​
    13·2 answers
  • Driving a motor vehicle often requires __________ reaction time.
    14·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!