Ad
related to: south carolina supreme court laws
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
South Carolina is one of two states where the state legislature elects state court judges, including the justices on the state supreme court. [3] A ten-person committee (composed mostly of state legislators) called the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) winnows down the number of candidates to fill a judicial vacancy to three based on candidate qualifications.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). [1]
Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, in his capacity as a circuit judge, declared the South Carolina law as unconstitutional since it violated the United States' treaties with the United Kingdom. The South Carolina Senate announced that the judge's ruling was invalid and that the act would be enforced.
The South Carolina Supreme Court won't allow another execution in the state until it determines a minimum amount of time between sending inmates to the death chamber. The state's next execution ...
On November 10, 2021, the South Carolina Supreme Court, basing its reasoning on Obergefell, which held that state same-sex marriage bans are void ab initio, dispensed with briefing and vacated the provision of the Court of Appeals' opinion that same-sex couples could not form common-law marriages prior to November 2014. However, because ...
Lawyers for the first South Carolina inmate set to be executed in a 13 years ask federal court to halt execution over questions about the testing and quality of lethal injection drugs.
In the Supreme Court decision of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), Justice Earl Warren authored in the majority opinion that preventing racial discrimination was a "legitimate response" of Congress and that South Carolina's intentions were generated from "insidious and pervasive evil". [38]
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.