:: wikimiki.org ::

Board Of Education Of Kiryas Joel Village School District V. Grumet

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court

Facts

The State of New York created a school district that coincided with the boundaries of a community of the Satmar Hasidim, an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect.

Opinion of the Court

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, held that the funding of a school district designed to coincide with the neighborhood boundaries of a religious group constitutes an unconstitutional aid to religion. Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

Dissent

Justice Scalia, in his dissent, acknowledged that the residents of this district are Satmars, but noted of the Satmar community: :[A]ll its residents also wear unusual dress, have unusual civic customs, and have not much to do with people who are culturally different from them ... On what basis does Justice Souter conclude that it is the theological distinctiveness rather than the cultural distinctiveness that was the basis for New York State's decision? The normal assumption would be that it was the latter, since it was not theology but dress, language, and cultural alienation that posed the educational problem for the children. Scalia argued that the Satmar school district is not impermissible aid to a religious group because it is directed to the Satmars in their capacity as a culture rather than their religious capacity. The Court was labeling as religion that which Justice Scalia would have put outside the definition of the word, asserting that the author of the majority opinion would "laud this humanitarian legislation if all of the distinctiveness of the students of Kiryas Joel were attributable to the fact that their parents were nonreligious commune dwellers, or American Indians, or gypsies." Justice Scalia concludes that "[t]he creation of a special, one-culture school district for the benefit of those children would pose no problem. The neutrality demanded by the Religion Clauses requires the same indulgence towards cultural characteristics that are accompanied by religious belief."

External link

- Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:1994 in law Category:United States First Amendment case law

Court Citation

Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand and Australia to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters.

United States

The standard case citation format in the United States is: :Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) where:
- Roe v. Wade is the name of the case,
- 410 is the volume number of the "reporter" it appears in,
- U.S. is the abbreviation of the reporter,
- 113 is the page number where the opinion begins, and
- 1973 is the year in which the opinion was published. These numbers are used to find a particular case, both when looking up a case in a Reporter and when accessing it electronically (such as through an Internet search). This format also allows different cases with the same parties to be easily differentiated. For example, looking for the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miller v. California would yield four cases, some involving different people named Miller, and all involving different issues.

United States Supreme Court

Cases from the Supreme Court of the United States are officially printed in the United States Reports (U.S.). A citation to the United States Reports looks like this:
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1952)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) There are also two unofficial reporters, the Supreme Court Reporter (S. Ct.) and the Lawyer's Edition (L. Ed.), which are printed by private companies and provide further annotations to the opinions of the Court. Although a citation to the latter two is not required, some attorneys and legal writers prefer to cite all three at once:
- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965) The "2d" after the L. Ed. signifies the second series of the Lawyers' Edition. United States case reporters are sequentially numbered, but the volume number is never higher than 999. When volume 1,000 is reached, the volume number is reset to 1 and a "2d" is appended after the reporter's abbreviation (American lawyers have a tradition of using "2d" and "3d" rather than "2nd" and "3rd"). Some case reporters are in their third series, and a few are approaching their fourth. Some very old Supreme Court cases have odd-looking citations, such as Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). The "(1 Cranch)" refers to the fact that, before there was an official court reporter, cases were gathered, bound together, and sold by private individuals who had contracted with the Court for the right to do so. In this case, the case was first reported in an edition by William Cranch, who was responsible for publishing Supreme Court reports from 1801 to 1815. Such reports, named for the individual who gathered them, existed from 1790 to 1874. See the Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions for other edition names. In the caption of a Supreme Court case, the first name listed is the name of the appealing party, followed by the party responding to the appeal. In most cases, the appealing party was the losing party in the prior court. This is the same practice used in cases in the federal courts of appeal.

Lower federal courts

United States court of appeals cases are published in the Federal Reporter (F., F.2d, or F.3d). United States district court cases are published in the Federal Supplement (F. Supp. or F. Supp. 2d). Both are published by the West Publishing Company; they are technically unofficial reporters, but have become widely accepted as the de facto "official" reporters of the lower federal courts because of the absence of a true official reporter. When lower federal court opinions are cited, the citation includes the name of the court. This is placed in the parentheses immediately before the year. Some examples:
- Geary v. Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Parish School, 7 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1993) - a case in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2002) - a case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

State courts

State court decisions are published in several places. Many states have their own state reporter, which publishes decisions of that state's highest court. These reporters have the same abbreviation as that state.
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) - a case in the New York Court of Appeals In addition to the official reporters, West Publishing Company publishes several series of "regional reporters" which cover several states each. These include the North Eastern Reporter, Atlantic Reporter, South Eastern Reporter, South Western Reporter, North Western Reporter, and Pacific Reporter. California, Illinois, and New York also each have their own line of West reporters, because of the large volume of cases generated in those states. Some smaller states (like South Dakota) have stopped publishing their own official reporters, and instead have certified the appropriate West regional reporter as their "official" reporter. Here are some examples of how to cite West reporters:
- Jackson v. Commonwealth, 583 S.E.2d 780 (Va. Ct. App. 2003) - a case in the Virginia Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) published in the South Eastern Reporter
- Foxworth v. Maddox, 137 So. 161 (Fla. 1931) - a case in the Florida Supreme Court published in the Southern Reporter
- People v. Brown, 282 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1967) - a case in the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) published in the New York Supplement. The case also appears in West's regional reporter: People v. Brown, 229 N.E.2d 192 (N.Y. 1967). Abbreviations for lower courts vary by state, as each state has its own system of trial courts and intermediate appellate courts. When a case appears in both an official reporter and a regional reporter, either citation can be used. Many lawyers prefer to include both citations. Many state courts require that both citations be used when citing cases from any court in that state's system (a practice technically known as "parallel citations"). Some states, notably California and New York, have their own citation systems which differ significantly from the various federal and national standards. Citations in California style put the year between the names of the parties and the reference to the case reporter. Citations in New York style wrap the year in brackets instead of parentheses. Both New York and California wrap an entire citation in parentheses when it is used as a stand-alone sentence. New York puts the terminating period outside the parentheses, but California puts it inside. New York wraps just the reporter and page references in parentheses when the citation is used as a clause. Either way, both state styles differ from the national/Bluebook style of simply dropping in the citation as a separate sentence without further adornment. Both systems use less punctuation and spacing in their reporter abbreviations. For example, assuming that it is being placed as a stand-alone sentence, the Brown case above would be cited (using the official reporter) to a New York court as:
- (People v. Brown, 20 NY2d 238 [1967]). And, again, as a stand-alone sentence, the famous Greenman product liability case would be cited to a California court as:
- (Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57.) [http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C2/59C2d57.htm] Like the United States Supreme Court, some very old state case citations include an abbreviation of the name of the private publisher who collected the cases. Most states gave up this practice in the mid- to late-1800s, but Delaware persisted until 1920.

Unpublished decisions

A growing number of court decisions are not published in case reporters. This is because in many states, especially California, the legislature has failed to expand the judiciary to keep up with population growth (for various political and fiscal reasons). For example, only 7% of the opinions of the California intermediate courts (the Courts of Appeal) are published each year. To deal with their crushing caseloads, many judges prefer to write shorter-than-normal opinions that dispose of minor issues in the case in a sentence or two. They avoid publishing such abbreviated opinions, however, so as not to risk creating bad precedents. Attorneys have several options in citing "unpublished" decisions:
- For recently-decided cases which will eventually be published, the docket number from the court can be used as a citation.
- Cases which are intentionally left officially unpublished are nonetheless often "published" on computer services, such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. These services have their own citation formats based on serial numbers (issued sequentially from 1 as documents are added to the database each year). A Westlaw citation looks like this: Fuqua Homes, Inc. v. Beattie, No. 03-3587, 2004 WL 2495842 (8th Cir. November 8, 2004). Some court systems—such as the California state court system and the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—forbid attorneys to cite unpublished cases as precedent. Since 2004, federal judges have been debating whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be amended so that unpublished cases in all circuits can be cited as precedent.

Vendor neutral citations

With the rise of the web, many courts placed new cases on websites. Some were published while others never lost their "unpublished" status. The major legal citation systems required cites to the officially published page numbers, in which publishers such as West publishing claimed a copyright interest. (In view of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, that the mere alphabetical listing of telephone subscribers was an inadequate amount of effort to be valid to obtain copyright, the claim of copyright on page numbering of court decisions is probably not valid.) A [http://www.aallnet.org/committee/citation/ vendor neutral citation movement] led to provisions being made for citations to web-based cases and other legal materials. A few courts modified their rules to specifically take into account cases "published" on the web.

Pinpoint citations

In practice, most lawyers go one step farther, once they have developed the correct citation for a case using the rules discussed above. Most court opinions contain holdings on multiple issues, so lawyers need to cite to the page that contains the specific holding they wish to invoke in their own case. Such citations are known as pinpoint citations, or "pin cites" for short. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn. A full pin cite to Roe for the page with that holding would be as follows:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158 (1973). And a parallel cite to all three U.S. Supreme Court reporters, combined with pin cites for all three, would produce:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S. Ct. 705, 729, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 180 (1973). But in its opinions, the Court usually provides a direct pin cite only to the official reporter, as follows:
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 158, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973). Even then, such citations are still quite lengthy, and obviously look quite mysterious and intimidating to laypersons when they try to read court opinions. Since the 1980s, there has been an ongoing debate among American judges as to whether they should relegate such lengthy citations to footnotes to improve the readability of their opinions. Most judges do relegate some citations to footnotes, but Justice Stephen Breyer is famous for never, ever using footnotes in his opinions.

Types of Citations

There are two types of citations: proprietary and public domain citations. There are many citation guides; the most commonly acknowledged is called the Bluebook, published by students at several eminent law schools, led by Harvard Law School. The ALWD Citation Manual is a recent (as of 2004) publication that is quickly winning supporters. Public domain citations are those which usually refer to the official reporters and not some kind of publication service such as Westlaw or LexisNexis or some particular legal journal or specialization specific reporter. States with their own unique style for court documents and case opinions also publish their own style guides which include information on their citation rules.

England and Wales

The standard case citation format in England and Wales is: In England and Wales as with most other Commonwealth countries, the abbreviation "R" for rex (king) or regina (queen), is used for cases in which the state is a party (typically criminal cases or judicial review cases). Square brackets "[ ]" are used when the year is essential to locating the report (e.g. the official law reports either - as with Donoghue v Stevenson, above - do not have volume numbers or, if there are multiple volumes in a single year, they are numbered 1, 2, etc.). Round brackets "( )" are used when the year is not essential but is useful for information purposes, e.g. in reports which have a cumulative volume number such as R v Dudley and Stevens, above.

Law Reports

The term "reporter", meaning a law report or a series of them, is not widely used in England and Wales. Before 1865, English courts used a large number of privately-printed reports, and cases were cited based on which report they appeared in. (This system was also used in the United States and other common law jurisdictions during that period). In 1865, many English cases were reprinted in a set of volumes called English Reports, abbreviated E.R. Between 1865 and 1875, decisions were published in a single series of law reports simply known as the "Law Reports" (L.R). Since 1875 the official law reports have been split into a number of different series, the current series are the Appeal Cases (A.C.), Chancery (Ch.), Family (Fam.) and Queen's Bench (Q.B.) (or King's Bench—K.B.—depending on the monarch of the time). These 4 series are cited in preference to all others in court. There are 2 main unofficial law reports which report all areas of law, the Weekly Law Reports (W.L.R.) and the All England Reports (All E.R.). In addition there are a number of unofficial specialist law reports which focus on a particular area, e.g. the Entertainment and Media Law Reports (E.M.L.R.) or the Criminal Appeal Reports (Cr. App. R.). See the table below for a list of the most common current and past law reports.

Simple Examples

The case usually known by the short form Furniss v. Dawson has the official citation [1984] A.C. 474, meaning that its report begins on page 474 of the 1984 volume of the official "Appeal Cases" reports. The same case can also be cited as [1984] 2 W.L.R. 226, meaning that a report of it can also be found beginning at page 226 of the second volume from 1984 of the Weekly Law Reports.

The Internet

The growth of the internet has not affected the mode of citation in any way, as it has done in less conservative fields. There is no free-access database of UK case law, and most online research is done on the subscription commercial sites Justis and Lexis. Even on these sites, cases are organised, and cited, by the volume and page numbers of the paper law reports from which they are derived.

External links

[http://www.lexis.com/ Lexis] [http://www.justis.com/ Justis]

Canada

The standard case citation format in Canada is: The Style of Cause is italicized as in all other countries and the party names are separated by "v." (english) or "c." (french). Prior to 1984 the appellant party would always be named first. However, since then case names do not switch order when the case is appealed. Undisclosed parties to a case are represented by initials (eg. R. v. R.D.S.). Criminal cases are prosecuted by the Crown which is always represented by "R.". Constitutional references are always entitled "Reference Re" followed by the subject title. Usually either the year of the decision or the year of the reporter is cited, but not usually both. Only if they are different years can they both be cited at the same time. If they are the same, one should always use the reporter year.
Reporters

Neutral Citation
In 1999 the Canadian Judicial Council adopted a neutral citation standard for case law. The format provides a naming system that does not depend on the publication of the case a law report. The standard format look like this: There is a unique court identifier code for most courts. There are a few courts in Quebec and Ontario that have yet to adopt the system. A list of the court identifiers include:
Reference

- Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 5th edition (McGill Law Journal) ISBN 0-459-24042-0, ISBN 0-459-24068-4
- Canadian Citation Committee [http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/neutr/index_en.htmlA Neutral Citation Standard for Case Law]
Australia
The standard case citation format in Australia is:
Reporters

Reference

- [http://mulr.law.unimelb.edu.au/aglc.asp Australian Guide to Legal Citation]
See also

- German legal citation
- Legal research
- :Category:Case law reporter
External links

- [http://www.aallnet.org/committee/citation/ucg/index.html American Association of Law Libraries Legal Citation Guide]
- [http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/ Introduction to Basic Legal Citation by Peter Martin] Category:Case law Category:Legal citation

1994

1994 (MCMXCIV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar, and was designated the International year of the Family.

Events

January

- January 1 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) goes into effect
- January 1 - Zapatista Army of National Liberation begins war in Chiapas, Mexico
- January 1 - Bantustans join South Africa
- January 6 - Nancy Kerrigan is clubbed on the right leg by an assailant under orders from figure skating rival Tonya Harding.
- January 8 - Valeri Polyakov began his 437.7 day orbit, eventually setting the world record for days spent in orbit.
- January 11 - Irish government announces the end of a 15-year broadcasting ban on the IRA and its political arm Sinn Fein
- January 14 - U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin sign the Kremlin accords which stop the preprogrammed aiming of nuclear missiles to targets and also provide for the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal in Ukraine.
- January 17 - 1994 Northridge Earthquake, magnitude 6.7, hits the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles at 4:31 am.
- January 20 - In South Carolina, Shannon Faulkner becomes the first female cadet to attend The Citadel but soon drops out.
- January 26 - A man fires two blank shots at Charles, Prince of Wales in Sydney, Australia.
- January 28 - The first trial of accused murderer Lyle Menendez ends in a mistrial. He and his brother Erik are later found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
- January 31 - German luxury car manufacturer BMW announces the purchase of Rover from British Aerospace

February

- February 1 - In Portland, Oregon, Tonya Harding's ex-husband Jeff Gillooly pleads guilty for his role in attacking figure skater Nancy Kerrigan. He accepts a plea bargain admitting to racketeering charges in exchange for testimony against Harding.
- February 3 - William J. Perry was sworn in as the 19th Secretary of Defense of United States
- February 5 - Byron De La Beckwith is convicted of the 1963 murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evers
- February 6 - Serb mortar shell kills 68 civilians and wounds about 200 in a Sarajevo marketplace
- February 9 - Peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina announced (so called Vance-Owen peace plan)
- February 12 - Edvard Munch's painting, "The Scream," is stolen in Oslo. It is recovered on May 7
- February 22 - Aldrich Ames and his wife are charged with spying for the Soviet Union by the United States Department of Justice. Ames would later be convicted to life imprisonment and his wife would receive 5 years in prison
- February 24 - In Gloucester, local police begins excavations at 25 Cromwell Street the home of Frederick West suspected of multiple murders. On February 28, he and his wife are arrested
- February 25 - Kahanist Baruch Goldstein opens fire inside the Cave of the Patriarchs in the West Bank. He kills 29 Muslims before worshippers beat him to death
- February 27 - Australian Federal Sports & Environment Minister Ros Kelly resigns over "The Sports Rorts Affair", where it was alleged that she apportioned money for community sporting projects in a pork barreling fashion.
- February 28 - US F-16 pilots shoot down four Serbian fighter aircraft over Bosnia for violation of the Operation Deny Flight and its no-fly zone

March

- March 1 - A lone terrorist kills Ari Halberstam on an attack on 14 Jewish students on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. [http://www.arihalberstam.com]
- March 1 - South Africa cedes Walvis Bay to Namibia.
- March 1 - Mary Ellen Withrow begins term of office as Treasurer of the United States, serving under President Bill Clinton.
- March 4 - Four terrorists are convicted for their roles in the World Trade Center bombing which killed six and injured more than a thousand.
- March 6 - Referendum in Moldova results in the electorate voting against possible reunification with Romania.
- March 7 - The Supreme Court of the United States rules in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music that parodies of an original work are generally covered by the doctrine of fair use.
- March 12 - A photo by Marmaduke Wetherell, previously touted as 'proof' of the Loch Ness monster, is confirmed to be a hoax.
- March 12 - The Church of England ordains its first female priests.
- March 16 - In Portland, Oregon Tonya Harding pleads guilty to conspiracy to hinder prosecution for trying to cover-up an attack on figure skating rival Nancy Kerrigan. She is fined $100,000 and banned from the sport.
- March 23 - At an election rally in Tijuana, Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio is assassinated. Mario Aburto Martinez is arrested for the crime and confesses on the same day.
- March 27 - A tornado outbreak occurs in Southeastern United States. One tornado hits the United Methodist Church in Piedmont, Alabama killing 22. This outbreak is the biggest tornado event of 1994.
- March 28 - In South Africa, Zulus and African National Congress supporters battle in central Johannesburg killing 18.
- March 31 - The journal Nature reports the finding in Ethiopia of the first complete Australopithecus afarensis skull (see Human evolution).

April

- April 6 - Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana and president of Burundi Cyprien Ntaryamira died when a missile shoots down their jet near Kigali, Rwanda. This is taken as a pretext to begin the Rwandan Genocide
- April 7 - The Rwandan Genocide begins in Kigali, Rwanda.
- April 8 - Kurt Cobain, lead singer of Nirvana, is found dead in Seattle, Washington. He had committed suicide three days earlier.
- April 16 - Voters in Finland decide to join the European Union in a referendum.
- April 20 - Paul Touvier is found guilty of ordering the execution of 7 Jews when he was serving in the Vichy France Milice
- April 21 - Red Cross estimates that hundreds of thousands of Tutsi have been killed in Rwanda
- April 22 - Former American President Richard Nixon dies.
- April 25 - End of term for Sultan Azlan Muhibbudin Shah ibni Almarhum Sultan Yusuff Izzudin Shah Ghafarullahu-lahu as 9th Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.
- April 26 - Tuanku Jaafar ibni Almarhum Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Yang di-Pertuan Besar of Negeri Sembilan becomes the 10th Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia.
- April 26 - South Africa holds its first fully multiracial elections.
- April 30 - Formula One driver Roland Ratzenberger of Austria, age 32, dies in a high-speed, single-car crash in the practise session for the San Marino Grand Prix in Imola, Italy

May

- May 1 - Formula One driver Ayrton Senna of Brazil, age 34, is killed in a high-speed, single-car accident during the San Marino Grand Prix in Imola, Italy
- May 6 - The Channel Tunnel, which took 15,000 workers over seven years to complete, opens between England and France. Passengers can now travel between the two countries in 35 minutes.
- May 9 - Nelson Mandela is inaugurated as South Africa's first black president
- May 10 - Illinois executes serial killer John Wayne Gacy by lethal injection for the murder of 33 young men and boys
- May 10 - An annular eclipse of the sun is visible across much of North America.
- May 10 - Punk rock band Weezer releases their eponymous debut that goes on to sell more than 3 million copies.
- May 12 - Hockey becomes Canada's official winter sport.
- May 31- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have dinner at the Granita restaurant in Islington and allegedly make a deal on who will become the leader of the Labour Party, and ultimately, the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

June

- June - Iraq disarmament crisis: UN weapons inspectors Ritter and Smidovitch learn, through Israeli intelligence reports, that Qusay Hussein, Saddam Hussein's son, is the key player in efforts by the Iraqi government to hide the country's alleged illegal weapons
- June 6-8 - Ceasefire negotiations for the Yugoslav War begin in Geneva - they agree to one-month cessation of hostilities (which does not last more than a few days)
- June 12 - Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman are murdered outside her home in Los Angeles, California. O. J. Simpson is later acquitted of the killings, but is held liable in a civil suit.
- June 14 - Hacker Kevin Poulsen pleads guilty to seven counts of mail fraud, wire and computer fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice.
- June 14 - The New York Rangers defeat the Vancouver Canucks 4 games to 3 in the 1994 Stanley Cup Finals.
- June 15 - As of 2004 the third highest grossing animated film of all-time, The Lion King, opens in theatres nationwide.
- June 15 - Israel and the Vatican establish full diplomatic relations
- June 17 - NFL star OJ Simpson and his friend Al Cowlings flee from police in his white Ford Bronco. The low speed chase, which unfolds live on television, ends up at Simpson's mansion in Brentwood, Los Angeles, California, where he then surrendered to police.

July

- July - The planet Jupiter is hit by twenty one large fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 over the course of six days.
- July 2 - Assassination of Colombian soccer player Andrés Escobar in Bogotá
- July 7 - Aden is occupied by troops from North Yemen.
- July 17 - Brazil defeats Italy 3-2 on penalties to win the Football World Cup 1994, after the game ended 0-0 after extra time.
- July 18 - In Buenos Aires, an explosion destroys a building housing several Jewish organizations killing ninety six and injuring many more. On 9 November 2005 Alberto Nisman Arentino prosecutor identified Hezbollah militant Ibrahim Berro responsible.
- July 25 - Israel and Jordan sign the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace which formally ends the state of war that has existed between the nations since 1948.
- July 25 - Phone Numbers through Australia start changing to eight digits (Mona Vale, Sydney 1st to change)

August

- August - 'Wollemia nobilis', a "fossil tree" discovered by bushwalker David Noble only 150 km from the largest city in Australia.
- August 1 - Fire destroys Norwich Central Library in the UK, including most of its historical records
- August 12 - Woodstock '94 begins. It is the 25 year anniversary of woodstock in 1969.
- August 14 - End of Woodstock '94.
- August 31 - the Irish Republican Army announces a "complete cessation of military operations" from midnight.

September

- September 3 - Cold War: Russia and the People's Republic of China agree to de-target their nuclear weapons against each other.
- September 4 - Kansai International Airport in Osaka, Japan opens. All international services are transferred from Itami to Kansai.
- September 5 - New South Wales State MP for Cabramatta John Newman is shot outside his home (Australia's first political assassination since 1977)
- September 8 - A Boeing 737 carrying USAir Flight 427 with 132 people on board, crashes on approach to Pittsburgh International Airport. There are no survivors
- September 13 - President Bill Clinton signs the Assault Weapons Ban, which bans the use of these weapons for a period of 10 years.
- September 28 - The car ferry MS Estonia sinks in Baltic Sea, killing 852.
- September 28 - Jose Francisco Ruiz Massier, Mexican politician, assassinated on the orders of the president's brother
- September-October - Iraq disarmament crisis: Iraq threatens to stop cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors and begins to once again deploy troops near its border with Kuwait. In response, the U.S. begins to deploy troops to Kuwait.

October

- October 5 - UNESCO inaugurates World Teachers’ Day to celebrate and commemorate the signing of the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers on October 5, 1966.
- October 8 - Iraq disarmament crisis: President of the UN Security Council says that Iraq must withdraw its troops from the Kuwait border and immediately cooperate with weapons inspectors
- October 12 - NASA loses radio contact with the Magellan spacecraft as the probe descends into the thick atmosphere of Venus (the spacecraft presumably burned up in the atmosphere either October 13 or October 14)
- October 15 - After three years of exile in the US, Haiti's president Aristide returns to his country.
- October 15 - Iraq disarmament crisis: Following threats by the U.N. Security Council and the U.S., Iraq withdraws troops from its border with Kuwait.
- October 26 - Jordan and Israel sign a peace treaty.
- October 29 - Francisco Martin Duran fires over two dozen shots at the White House (Duran was later convicted of trying to kill US President Bill Clinton).
- October 31 - An American Eagle ATR-72 crashes in Roselawn, Indiana, after circling in icy weather, killing 64 passengers.
- October 31 - HRH The Duke of Edinburgh attends a ceremony in Israel where his late mother, HSH Princess Alice of Battenberg is honoured as "Righteous among the Nations" for sheltering Jewish families from the Nazis in Athens, during World War II.

November

- November 4 - Sydney's third runway opens ensuring protests about noise levels.
- November 5 - A letter by former US President Ronald Reagan is released that announces he has Alzheimer's disease
- November 8 - Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich leads the United States Republican Party in taking control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in midterm congressional elections, the first time in 40 years the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress.
- November 13 - Voters in Sweden decide to join the European Union in a referendum.
- November 13 - The first passengers travel through the Channel Tunnel.
- November 16 - Federal judge issues a temporary restraining order that prohibits the State of California from implementing Proposition 187, that would have denied most public services to illegal aliens.
- November 20 - The Angolan government and UNITA rebels sign the Lusaka Protocol in Zambia, ending 19 years of civil war (in 1995 localized fighting resumed).
- November 25 - Sony founder Akio Morita announces he will be stepping down as the company's CEO
- November 28 - Voters in Norway reject European Union membership (see Norwegian EU referendum, 1994)
- November 28 - In Portage, Wisconsin, USA, convicted serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer is clubbed to death by another inmate in the Columbia Correctional Institute gymnasium.
- November 29 - Two-year murder trial of 14 south Vietnamese accused of murder of 24 north Vietnamese ends in Hong Kong - all defendants are acquitted.
- November 30 - Famous hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur survives five bullets in an apparent robbery attempt outside a New York music studio.

December

- December 2 - Australian government agrees to pay reparations to indigenous Australians who were displaced during the nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s and 1960s.
- December 11 - Boris Yeltsin orders troops into Chechnya.
- December 11 - A small bomb explodes on Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. The bombing was a field test done by Ramzi Yousef to test explosives that would have been used in Project Bojinka, a terrorist attack plan that would be exposed after an apartment fire.
- December 19 - A planned exchange rate correction of the Mexican Peso to the US Dollar, becomes a massive financial meltdown in Mexico, unleashing the 'Tequila' effect on global financial markets. This will prompt a US$ 50,000 million 'bailout' by the Clinton administration.
- December 19 - The Whitewater Scandal investigation begins.
- December 19 - Civil unions between homosexuals are made legal in Sweden.
- December 26 - French anti-terrorist police storms a hijacked jet at Marseille and kill four Islamist terrorists.
- December 29 - Robert Schumann becomes the youngest person to visit the south pole.

Births

- January 30 - Dylan Cash, American actor
- February 23 - Dakota Fanning, American actress
- May 4 - Alexander Gould, American voice actor
- August 9 - Forrest Landis, American actor

Deaths

January

- January 1 - Arthur Espie Porritt, New Zealand politician and athlete (b. 1900)
- January 5 - Thomas P. 'Tip' O'Neill, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (b. 1912)
- January 9 - Johnny Temple, baseball player (b. 1927)
- January 15 - Harry Nilsson, American musician (b. 1941)
- January 17 - Helen Stephens, American runner (b. 1918)
- January 22 - Telly Savalas, American actor (b. 1924)
- January 23 - Brian Redhead, British journalist and broadcaster (b. 1929)
- January 25 - Stephen Cole Kleene, American mathematician (b. 1909)
- January 27 - Claude Akins, American actor (b. 1914)
- January 30 - Pierre Boulle, French author (b. 1912)

February-April

- February 6 - Jack Kirby, American comic book writer and illustrator (b. 1917)
- February 7 - Witold Lutosławski, Polish composer (b. 1913)
- February 9 - Howard Martin Temin, American geneticist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (b. 1934)
- February 11 - Sorrell Booke, American actor (b. 1930)
- February 11 - William Conrad, American actor (b. 1920)
- February 11 - Neil Bonnett, American race car driver (b. 1946)
- February 14 - Andrei Chikatilo, Russian serial killer (executed) (b. 1936)
- February 17 - Randy Shilts, American author and activist (b. 1951)
- February 22 - Papa John Creech, American fiddler
- February 24 - Jean Sablon, French singer (b. 1906)
- February 24 - Dinah Shore, American actress, singer (b. 1916)
- February 25 - Baruch Goldstein, American-born mass killer (b. 1956)
- February 25 - Jersey Joe Walcott, American boxer (b. 1914)
- February 26 - Bill Hicks, American comedian (b. 1961)
- March 4 - John Candy, Canadian comedian and actor (b. 1950)
- March 22 - Walter Lantz, American cartoonist (b. 1899)
- March 23 - Luis Donaldo Colosio, Mexican politician (b. 1950)
- March 28 - Eugene Ionesco, Romanian-born playwright (b. 1909)
- April 1 - Léon Degrelle, Belgian Nazi (b. 1906)
- April 2 - Betty Furness, American actress, author, and consumer advocate (b. 1916)
- April 5 - Kurt Cobain, American musician (Nirvana) (suicide) (b. 1967)
- April 7 - Albert Guðmundsson, Icelandic professional football player and politician (b. 1923)
- April 7 - Golo Mann, German historian (b. 1909)
- April 10 - Sam B. Hall, American politician (b. 1924)
- April 16 - Ralph Ellison, American writer (b. 1914)
- April 17 - Roger Wolcott Sperry, American neurobiologist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (b. 1913)
- April 22 - Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States (b. 1913)
- April 30 - Roland Ratzenberger, Austrian race car driver (b. 1960)

May-October

- May 1 - Ayrton Senna, Brazilian race car driver (b. 1960)
- May 7- Clement Greenberg, American art critic (b. 1909)
- May 8 - George Peppard, American actor (b. 1928)
- May 10 - John Wayne Gacy, American serial killer (executed) (b. 1942)
- May 12 - John Smith, Scottish politician (b. 1938)
- May 15 - Gilbert Roland, Mexican-born actor (b. 1905)
- May 19 - Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, First Lady of the United States (b. 1929)
- May 21 - Johan Hendrik Weidner, Belgian World War II resistance fighter (b. 1912)
- May 29 - Erich Honecker, leader of East Germany (b. 1912)
- June 9 - Jan Tinbergen, Dutch economist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1903)
- June 12 - Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
- June 15 - Kristen Pfaff, rock bassist (Hole) (b. 1967)
- June 29 - Kurt Eichhorn, German conductor (b. 1908)
- July 8 - Kim Il Sung, President of North Korea (b. 1912)
- July 11 - Gary Kildall, American computer inventor (b. 1942)
- July 14 - César Tovar, Venezuelan Major League Baseball player (b. 1940)
- July 29 - Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, British chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1910)
- August 13 - Elias Canetti, Bulgarian-born writer, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1905)
- August 18 - Richard Laurence Millington Synge, English chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (b. 1914)
- August 19 - Linus Pauling, American chemist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Peace (b. 1901)
- September 6 - Nicky Hopkins, British musician (b. 1944)
- September 11 - Jessica Tandy, English actress (b. 1909)
- September 12 - Boris Yegorov, cosmonaut (b. 1937)
- September 30 - Andre Michael Lwoff, French microbiologist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (b. 1902)
- October 7 - Niels Kaj Jerne, English immunologist, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (b. 1911)
- October 14 - Emil Gilels, Russian pianist (b. 1916)
- October 19 - Martha Raye, American actress (b. 1916)
- October 20 - Burt Lancaster, American actor (b. 1913)
- October 21 - Benoît Régent, French actor (b. 1953)

November-December

- November 12 - Wilma Rudolph, American athlete (b. 1940)
- November 13 - Motoo Kimura, Japanese population geneticist (b. 1924)
- November 14 - Tom Villard, American actor (b. 1953)
- November 16 - Doris Speed, English actress (b. 1899)
- November 16 - Dino Valente, American musician (b. 1943)
- November 28 - Jeffrey Dahmer, American serial killer (murdered) (b. 1960)
- December 12 - Stuart Roosa, astronaut (b. 1933)
- December 23 - Sebastian Shaw (actor), English actor (b. 1905)
- December 24 - John Boswell, American historian (b. 1947)

Nobel Prizes

- Physics - Bertram N. Brockhouse, Clifford Glenwood Shull
- Chemistry - George Andrew Olah
- Medicine - Alfred G. Gilman, Martin Rodbell
- Literature - Kenzaburo Oe
- Peace - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
- Economics - Reinhard Selten, John Forbes Nash, John Harsanyi

Fields Medalists

- Efim Isakovich Zelmanov, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean Bourgain, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz

Templeton Prize

- Michael Novak

Right Livelihood Award

- Astrid Lindgren, SERVOL (Service Volunteered for All), Dr. H. Sudarshan / VGKK (Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra) and Ken Saro-Wiwa / MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People)
- zh-min-nan:1994 nî als:1994 ko:1994년 ms:1994 ja:1994年 simple:1994 th:พ.ศ. 2537

United States Supreme Court

:"Scotus" redirects here. For the medieval theologian, see Duns Scotus ---- The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States of America. As such, the Court provides the leadership of the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. The Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointed to serve for life, they can only be removed by Congress through the impeachment process, although they may resign. No justice has ever been removed from office, though many have retired or resigned. The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution; all other federal courts are created by Congress. The Court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, but the latter is used quite a bit more often. Like other federal courts, the Supreme Court may exercise the power of judicial review, or the power to declare federal or state laws, as well as the actions of federal and state executives, unconstitutional. The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The court is sometimes referred to by the acronyms SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and USSC (United States Supreme Court).

History

The History of the Supreme Court is generally told in terms of the Chief Justices who have presided over it.
- Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.
- That changed forever during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison), and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the Constitutional balance of power between the Federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states.
- The Taney Court (1836–1864) made a number of important rulings (for example, Sheldon v. Sill, holding that, while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, the Constitution does not so restrain it where lower courts are concerned) but is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the case which may have helped precipitate the Civil War. In the years following the Civil War, the The Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) began to interpret the new civil war amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States); under the White and Taft courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital; ), and the Court held that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states (Gitlow v. New York).
- During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation (see United States Supreme Court building, and radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution, in order to facilitate the New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish).
- The Warren Court (1953–1969) made a number of alternately celebrated and controversial rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a rennaisance in substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education), that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot have voluntary prayer (Engel v. Vitale) (or, a fortiori, mandatory bible readings, Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio; Miranda v. Arizona), wrote an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment, held that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Baker v. Carr; Reynolds v. Sims), and that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).
- The Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade), reached muddled and controversial rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), that death penalty was unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia) and then that the death penalty was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).
- The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) narrowed the focus of Roe v. Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but dramatically circumscribed the ability of states to regulate abortion (Stenberg v. Carhart), and began to limit the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause (United States v. Lopez; United States v. Morrison).

Composition

Size of the court

United States v. Morrison The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Court-packing Bill); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additonal, justice, for every justice who reached a pre-set age but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely recognized that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course to accommodate the President's desires (see The switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.

Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices

Per Article II §2 of the United States Constitution, the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the advice and consent of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals that broadly share their ideological views. However, Presidents tend to exercise restraint, as nominees with views perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Dwight D. Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. While the President may nominate anyone s/he chooses, the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special interest groups, many of whom lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas' nomination was almost derailed by allegations of sexual harassment; Thomas was eventually confirmed by a vote of 52–48. In some cases, the Senate has defeated a nominee by failing to take a final vote on them, rather than by explicit rejection. For example, the minority may filibuster a nominee, indefinitely prolonging debate and refusing to permit a vote, or the nominee may simply not be reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, the President may withdraw a nomination, for instance if he or she feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. While filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice may be an option to bar their nomination, no Supreme Court nominee has ever been filibustered when their nomination would seat them on the Court. As a sitting Associate Justice of the Court, Abe Fortas's nomination to become Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. President Johnson had nominated him to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after Earl Warren retired from the Court. Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently rather quick. From Truman through Nixon, Justices were typically approved in a month. From Reagan through Clinton, the duration of the approval process extended to much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasing political role Justices play. When the Senate is in recess, the President is constitutionally authorized to make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. A recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office not for life, but only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, approximately two years). In order to continue to serve thereafter, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. In the history of the Supreme Court, two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices have received recess appointments. They were all subsequently confirmed for full terms with the exception of Chief Justice John Rutledge. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (again, of course, unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life. However, Justices may resign, retire into senior status, or be removed by impeachment and conviction (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose after Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 until Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement of her retirement from the Court in 2005—a period of eleven years. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (after former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (after the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist).

Qualifications for membership

The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch. Nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as to lower federal courts, are evaluated by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary. The panel is composed of fifteen federal judges (but not Supreme Court Justices), including at least one from each federal judicial circuit. The body assesses the nominee "solely to professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament," and offers a rating of "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." The opinions of the committee bind neither the President nor the Senate; however, they are generally taken into account.

Other functions

Each Justice on the Supreme Court is assigned to at least one of the United States' thirteen judicial circuits. The Chief Justice is usually allotted to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit; each Associate Justice is allotted to one or two judicial circuits. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride circuit," or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice, however, encountered opposition from many Justices, who complained about the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it on the grounds that a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891. Now, the duty of a Supreme Court Justice in this regard is limited to hearing emergency petitions in the relevant circuit and some other routine tasks like addressing certain requests for extensions of time.

Current membership

The current Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in order of seniority, are: During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right: Ginsburg, Souter, Scalia, Stevens, Roberts, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas and Breyer (who has been the junior justice for 11 years, the third longest period in history between appointments of an Associate Justice). Justices Scalia and Thomas, the court's two Originalists are generally perceived as the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally perceived as its liberal wing. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are considered moderates and are hence the swing votes who often determine the outcomes of close cases. Chief Justice Roberts is generally thought to be in between Scalia and Thomas and the moderates, but has not been on the bench long enough for this to be ascertained. On July 1, 2005, Justice O'Connor announced that she would retire from the Supreme Court when her successor is nominated and confirmed. President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to replace O'Connor on July 19, 2005; however, following the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist on September 3, he re-nominated Roberts as the new Chief Justice. The President subsequently nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor on October 3, 2005. Due to controversy, Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005. On October 31, 2005, President Bush nominated United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito to replace Justice O'Connor.

Ages of current justices

At the start of the 2005–2006 term, the ages of the justices were:

- Samuel A. Alito, Jr., nominated to replace Justice O'Connor, is 55 years old.

Quarters

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.] The Supreme Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC. The four-story building was designed in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxilliary services such as workshop, stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force, separate from the Capitol Police

Jurisdiction

Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States. It provides: :The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment, which forbade the federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, the Eleventh Amendment is not deemed to apply if a state consents to be sued (see Sovereign immunity. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may abrogate the states' immunity from lawsuits in certain circumstances. In addition to constitutional constraints, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is also limited by various federal laws. For example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ... between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state courts (see diversity jurisdiction). The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states. The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are a variety of devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases. The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. However, the Supreme Court does often hear test cases, or cases specifically designed to test the constitutionality of a statute (rather than to merely redress a particular wrong). Many significant Supreme Court cases were test cases; examples include Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Furthermore, the Court may consider some cases, such as Roe v. Wade, that become moot during the judicial process, if it appears that the legal issue involved is likely to arise again but would not be reviewable by the Court under a strict mootness analysis. "Roe" had already had her baby when the case came to the Supreme Court, because judicial activity (trials, appeals and so on) takes much longer than human gestation. Because future abortion cases would face the same time constraints, the Court decided the case in spite of its mootness. The Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it. In cases that are heard by a three-judge United States district court (a practice that formerly was somewhat common but has been limited to very few cases by legislation in recent years), there is a right of appeal directly to the Supreme Court, although the Court may dispose of these appeals by summary order if it does not believe they are important enough for full briefing and argument. In most instances, however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. By custom, certiorari is granted on the vote of four of the nine Justices. In most cases, the writ is denied; the Supreme Court normally only considers matters of national or constitutional importance. If the Court refuses to grant certiorari, it does not comment on the merits of the case; the decision of the lower court stands unchanged as if Supreme Court review had not been requested.

Procedure

Court reports and citation style

Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyer's Edition, corresponding to two privately-published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S.Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyer's Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyer's Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906). Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.

Checks and balances

The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; however, this quotation is likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted to desegregate schools after the judgment Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to surrender the Watergate tapes, as he had been ordered to do by the Court in United States v. Nixon (1974). Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Constitution provides that the salary of a Justice may not be diminished during his or her continuance in office. This clause was intended to prevent Congress from punishing Justices for their decisions by reducing their emoluments. Together with the provision that Justices hold office for life, this clause helps guarantee judicial independence. However, as seen above, the President's practice of appointing justices with similar real, perceived or expected ideology can be seen to compromise judicial independence.

References

- American Bar Association. (2002). [http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/backgrounder.html "The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How it Works."]
- Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
- [http://sources.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America The Constitution of the United States.]
- Kermit Hall, et al. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Harvard Law Review Assn., The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (17th Ed. 2000).
- Peter Irons. (2000). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
- Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906).
- William Rehnquist (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf.
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States] (2005 ed.) (pdf).
- Catherine Hetos Skifos. [http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c01_e.html The Supreme Court Gets a Home]
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).
- Charles Warren. (1924). The Supreme Court in United States History. (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
- Bob Woodward, and Scot Armstrong. (1979). The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ The Supreme Court of the United States]
- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf The Court Building]

External links

- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html Supreme Court of the United States. Official Homepage.]
- [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html Legal Information Institute Supreme Court Collection.]
- [http://www.oyez.org Oyez Project Supreme Court Multimedia.]
- [http://www.justia.us US Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+) Justia, Oyez and US Court Forms.]
- [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History.]
- [http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html FindLaw Supreme Court Opinions.]
- [http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/list.htm Supreme Court Justices.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/court.htm Teaching about the United States Supreme Court. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/court.htm Teaching about Landmark Dissents in United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-5/law.htm Teaching the Law Using United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.]
- [http://www.supremecourthistory.org The Supreme Court Historical Society. Official Homepage.]
- [http://voteview.com/the_unidimensional_supreme_court.htm The Unidimensional Supreme Court.]
- [http://judgejohnroberts.com/ Supreme Court Zeitgeist.] Category:Judicial Branch of the United States Government Category:Article III tribunals United States, Supreme Court of the Category:Constitutional law ja:アメリカ連邦最高裁判所

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)

Satmar (חסידות סאטמר) is a dynasty of Hasidic Judaism which originated in the Hungarian town of Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti in Hungarian), originally part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and presently located in Romania). Satmar is probably the largest Hasidic dynasty in existence today, but formal demographic comparisons with other Hasidim are not available. It is believed, however, to number close to 100,000 adherents. Members are referred to as Satmarer Hasidim.

Name

Some claim that the name of the town from which Satmar took its name, Satu Mare, means "Saint Mary". Some therefore call the town "Sakmer" so as not to use its "pagan" name. This, however, is a folk etymology. "Satu Mare" in fact means "large village," with the Romanian Satu ("village") deriving from the Latin fossatum, while Mare means "large" in Romanian.

History

Outline

- Rebbe Yisrael Baal Shem Tov - founder of Hasidism.
- Rebbe R' Ber - the Magid (Preacher) of Mezritch - disciple of the Baal Shem Tov.
- Rebbe R' Elimelech Lipman of Lizensk - Author of Noam Elimelech - disciple of the Magid of Mezritch.
- Rebbe Yaakov Yitzchak - the Chozeh (Seer) of Lublin - Author of Zichron Zos - disciple of Rebbe Elimelech of Lizensk.
-
- Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Ujhel - Author of Yismach Moshe - disciple of the Chozeh of Lublin.
-
- Rebbe Eleazer Nissan Teitelbaum of Drobitsch - son of the Yismach Moshe.
-
- Rebbe Yekusiel Yehudah Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Yetev Lev - son of Rebbe Eleazer Nissan.
-
- Rebbe Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Kedushas Yom Tov - son of the Yetev Lev.
-
-
- Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar - author of Divrei Yoel and VaYoel Moshe - youngest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov.
-
-
- Rebbe Chaim Tzvi Teitelbaum of Siget - author of Atzei Chaim - eldest son of the Kedushas Yom Tov.
-
-
- Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum of Satmar - present Satmar Grand Rebbe - author of Berach Moshe - youngest son of the Atzei Chaim.
-
-
- Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum - Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Kiryas Joel - eldest son of the present Grand Rebbe.
-
-
- Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum - Chief Rabbi of Satmar-Williamsburg - third son of the present Grand Rebbe.

Background to the dynasty

The dynasty traces its roots to Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1759-1841), Rebbe of Sátoraljaújhely (Ujhel), Hungary. Himself an adherent of the Polish Hasidic leader Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin (the Chozeh of Lublin), Teitelbaum was instrumental in bringing Hasidic Judaism to Hungary. He authored the works Heishiv Moshe ("Moses Responded") and Yismach Moshe ("Moses Shall Rejoice"), and is commonly called by the title of the latter work. His descendants became leaders of the communities of Sighetu Marmaţiei (Sighet) and Satu Mare. Rabbi Joel (Yoel) Teitelbaum succeeded his father, Rabbi Hananiah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, author of Kedushath Yom Tov, as Rebbe of Sighet, and later moved to Satmar in 1935, thereby merging the two houses of Sighet and Satmar under the name of Satmar. He authored responsa under the title Divrei Yoel and polemics (mainly against political Zionism) in VaYoel Moshe. Many Satmar Hasidim were murdered and dispersed during World War II and the Holocaust. In 1944, Teitelbaum was one of a small group of people whose release from Hungary was negotiated with Adolf Eichmann by the Slovakian rescue activist Rabbi Michael Ber Weissmandl. He was a passenger on the Katszner train bound for Switzerland, which was re-routed to Bergen-Belsen. After the war, Teitelbaum spent time in the displaced persons camp of Feldafing, where he offered support and encouragement to the many orphaned young people who survived the Holocaust. A large proportion of Holocaust survivors moved to the United States after World War II, where Teitelbaum established a huge community in Williamsburg. Teitelbaum's efforts to rebuilt the movement also resulted in the acquisition of land in upstate New York, which he named Kiryas Joel. Other Satmar communities sprang up in London and in Jerusalem, Israel. The Satmar Hasidic movement has become known for its social isolation from all forms of secular culture and for its opposition to all forms of religious, secular, and political Zionism. This opposition has at times led to comparisons and confusion with the Neturei Karta. Satmar's views were formulated and espoused by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum and are maintained by Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum and his children. Unlike the Neturei Karta, Satmar does not support the PLO. Joel Teitelbaum was not survived by any children (his three daughters passed away in his lifetime). He was succeeded by his nephew, Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum, the present Rebbe. present

Aaron-Zalman Conflict

The Aaron-Zalman Conflict refers to an ongoing feud between two sons of the present Satmar rebbe, Moshe Teitelbaum, the oldest son, Aaron Teitelbaum, and the third-oldest, Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. Both brothers wish to succeed their father after his death, and have been jostling for power since 1999.

Important Books to the Satmar Sect

The main Hasidic books revered by the Satmar sect are Yismach Moshe, Yetev Lev, Kedushas Yom Tov, Divrei Yoel, Vayoel Moshe, Al HaGeulah V'Al HaTemurah, and Berach Moshe. The Satmar Rebbe was careful not to be particular about which books his Hasidim should learn because he did not want to exclude any Hasidic teachings, for he felt that all Hasidic books should be learnt. However he taught that the true way of the Baal Shem Tov has been forgotten. The teachings of the Chasam Sofer are also greatly revered in Satmar.

External links

- [http://hasidicnews.com/Satmar.shtml Roots of Satmar]
- [http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/satmar.htm Satmar Jews Against Zionism]
- [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=satmar&page=1&lv=0 Videos of Satmar Rabbis and Hasidim]
- [http://www.famousrabbis.com/satmarrebbe.htm The Satmar Rebbe]
- [http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/rabbis/teitelbaum.htm Rav Yoel Teitelbaum - The Satmarer Rebbe]
- [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/02-Who-We-Are/section-12.html What is Satmar Chasidism]
- [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/marks_satmar.php3?printer_friendly Satmar's Sisters of Mercy]
- [http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/reading-lists/chasidism/section-4.html Chassidic Approaches: Satmar Chassidism]
- [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaum.cfm Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum]
- [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/bergenbelsen.cfm With Rabbi Teitelbaum in Bergen-Belsen]
- [http://satmar.biography.ms/ Satmar Biography]
- [http://tovrent.com/satmar/1%20Page.html Pictures and films of the Satmar Rebbe, zt"l]
-

Ultra-Orthodox

Haredi or Charedi Judaism, often also called ultra-Orthodox Judaism, is the most theologically conservative form of Orthodox Judaism. The term "ultra-Orthodox" is controversial, as it is often considered to be pejorative, and is rarely used by the Jews to whom it is applied; they generally prefer Haredi (חֲרֵדִי, a Hebrew term which is derived from Harada (fear, anxiety) and could be interperted as "one who trembles in awe of God"), Yeshivish, Torah Jew or Hasidic (in the case of Hasidic Jews). Haredi Jews, like other Orthodox Jews, consider their belief system and religious practices to extend in an unbroken chain back to Moses and the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. As a result they consider non-Orthodox denominations to be unjustifiable deviations from authentic Judaism.

Practices and beliefs

Views of halakha

One basic belief of the Orthodox community in general is that it is the latest link in a chain of Jewish continuity extending back to the giving of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai. It believes that two guides to Jewish law were given to the Israelites at that time: the first, known as Torah she-bi-khtav, or the "Written Law" is the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) as we know it today; the second, known as Torah she-ba'al peh ("Oral Law"), is the exposition as relayed by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. The traditional interpretation of the Oral Law is considered as the authoritative reading of the Written Law. Jewish law, known as halakha, includes codes of behavior applicable to virtually every imaginable circumstance (and many hypothetical ones), which have been pored over and developed throughout the generations in a constantly expanding collection of religious literature. The earliest written compilation of halakha, the Talmud, is considered authoritative. Halakha is a guide for everything the traditional Jew does from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to sleep. It is a body of intricate laws, combined with the reasoning on how such conclusions are reached. Halakha incorporates as rules many practices that began as customs, some passed down over the centuries, and an assortment of ingrained behaviors. It is the subject of intense study in religious schools known as yeshivas. Throughout history, halakha has addressed issues on the basis of circumstance and precedent. There have been some significant changes, including more formal education for women in the early twentieth century, and the application of halakha to modern technology. While Haredim have typically been more conservative than their Modern Orthodox counterparts regarding new practices and rulings on new applications of halakhic concepts, Orthodox Judaism views these types of innovations as consistent with traditionally expounded halakhic concepts. Haredi Orthodoxy's differences with Modern Orthodoxy usually lie in interpretation of the nature of traditional halakhic concepts and in understanding of what constitutes acceptable application of these concepts. Modern inventions have been studied and incorporated into the ever-expanding halakha, accepted by both Haredi and other Orthodox communities. For instance, rulings guide the observant about the proper use of electricity and other technology on the Jewish Sabbath and holidays. Most major points are the subject of consensus, although fine points are the subject of a greater range of opinions. While discussions of halakha are common and encouraged, laypersons are not authorized to make final determinations as to the applicability of the law in any given situation; the proviso is: "Consult your local Orthodox rabbi or posek (rabbinical authority)."

Lifestyle and family

Haredi life is fairly family-centered. Depending on various factors, both boys and girls attend school and proceed to higher Torah study, in a yeshiva or seminary ("sem") respectively, starting anywhere between the ages of 13 and 18. A significant proportion of students, especially boys, remain in yeshiva until marriage (typically through a shidduch, or facilitated dating), and many study in a kollel (Torah study institute for married men) - sometimes for many years. In many Haredi communities, higher secular education is discouraged, although some have educational facilities for vocational training or run professional programmes for men and women. Families tend to be large, reflecting adherence to the Torah commandment "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28, 9:1,7). Many Haredi poskim (authorities in Jewish law) have spoken out against watching television or films, reading secular newspapers and using the internet. Many feel that mobile phones should be programmed to disable internet and other functionality that could negatively influence their users.

Dress

Many members of the Haredi community still maintain styles of dress similar to those worn by their 18th and 19th century European ancestors. Many men wear beards, most dress in dark suits, virtually all wear a kippah at all times and generally a wide-brimmed hat (typically black) during prayer and outside. Women adhere to strict interpretations of tzeniut (modesty, particularly in dress), and hence wear long skirts and armsleeves, high necklines and a form of head covering when married (scarves, snoods, hats, or wigs). Hasidic men often follow the specific dress style of their group, which may include elegant frock coats (bekeshes), wide or high fur hats (shtreimels or spodiks) and generally a gartel (a long belt wrapped around the frock) during prayer.

History

Modern origins

For several centuries before the Emancipation of European Jewry, most of Europe's Jews were forced to live in closed communities, where their culture and religious observances persevered, no less because of internal pressure within their own community as because of the refusal of the outside world to accept them. In a predominantly Christian society, the only way for Jews to gain social acceptance was to convert, thereby abandoning all ties with one's own family and community. There was very little middle ground, especially in the ghetto, for people to negotiate between the dominant culture and the community. This began to change with the Enlightenment and calls by some European liberals to include the Jewish population in the emerging empires and nation states. For some Jews, it was an opportunity to escape the physical and psychological restraints imposed by the existence of the ghetto while benefiting from the enduring sense of community by finding some way of spanning the two worlds. In the words of a popular aphorism of the Enlightenment coined by Yehuda Leib Gordon, a person should be "a Jew in the home, and a mentsch (human being) in the street." Other Jews argued that the division between Jew and gentile had actually protected the Jews' religious and social culture; abandoning such divisions, they argued, would lead to the eventual abandonment of Jewish religion through assimilation. This latter group insisted that the appropriate response to the Enlightenment was to maintain strict adherence to traditional Jewish law and custom to prevent the disintegration of the community and ensure the survival of the Jewish people. The former group argued that Judaism had to "reform" itself in keeping with the social changes taking place around them. They were the forerunners of the Reform movement in Judaism. This group overwhelmingly assimilated into the surrounding culture. Even as the debate raged, the rate of integration and assimilation grew proportionately to the degree of acceptance of the Jewish population by the host societies. In other countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, acceptance (and integration) was much slower in coming. This was especially true in the Pale of Settlement, a region along Russia's western border including most of modern Poland, to which Jewish settlement in Russia was confined. Although Jews here did not win the same official acceptance as they did in Western and Central Europe, that same spirit of change pervaded the air, albeit in a local variant. Since it was impossible to gain acceptance by the dominant culture, many Jews turned to a number of different movements that they expected would offer hope for a better future. The predominant movement was socialism; other important alternatives were the cultural autonomists, including the Bund and the Zionists. These movements were not neutral on the topic of the Jewish religion: by and large, they entailed complete, not infrequently contemptuous, rejection of traditional religious and cultural norms. The traditionalists of Eastern Europe, who fought against the new movements emerging in the Jewish community, were the forebears of the contemporary Haredi movement.

Effects of the Holocaust

During this time, the emerging Haredi community was engaged in bitter debates with other developing Jewish communities, most notably those that denied the preeminence, or even relevance, of religion in Jewish life. Anecdotes abound: in one case, a reformer sent a leading rabbi a kosher cookie shaped like a pig, knowing that pork was a forbidden food in the Jewish religion. The rabbi responded by sending back a photograph with this note: "Thank you for your gift. You sent me a picture of you, so I am returning the favor in kind with a picture of me." The Holocaust brought a pause to the infighting. Until the rise of Nazism, Germany had been the major arena for the Enlightenment policies of acceptance and tolerance. Haredi leaders warned that "if the Jews do not make 'kiddush', the gentiles will make 'havdalah'." 'Kiddush' refers to the beginning ceremonies of the Shabbat, which sanctifies the day through joy and sets it apart from the mundane. 'Havdalah' refers to the ending ceremony, which mourns the departing of the holy as the darkness of the new week commences. Both words connote separation, kiddush meaning literally sanctification, and havdalah meaning separation. Anti-Semitism that had previously been supressed by legal and social factors, began to spread in the 1930's throughout most of Christian Europe with a fury against all Jews, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. For a time, in the face of destruction, Jews were able to overlook the differences between them as they faced a common enemy bent on their destruction. In the following years, however, the survivors were forced to come to grips with the theological implications of the catastrophe that had all but eradicated their communities. While they struggled to rebuild themselves, particularly in the United States and in Palestine (later Israel), they also attempted to understand why God had allowed such a disaster to befall them. This was coupled with the emergence of socialist Jewish nationalism, or Zionism, as a widely accepted, secular Jewish philosophy. Until that time, the Zionists were a small but vocal minority among the Jewish population of Eastern Europe. Suddenly, they experienced a tremendous growth, since settlement of the Land of Israel seemed to offer a viable response to the anti-Semitism that was still prevalent in Europe. The Haredi traditionalists had long rejected Zionism, partly because it was a predominantly anti-religious movement. Now, suddenly, the secular Zionists were in the process of achieving their goal of a Jewish homeland. Meanwhile, unable to return to their old homes in Europe and with quotas on Jewish immigration in the United States, that a Jewish homeland had necessarily become in some cases the only option for Haredi Jews. In effect, they were suddenly at the mercy of their most bitter opponents. However, they were not without their own leverage, including the sensitive fact that the longest-standing Jewish settlements in Palestine were, in fact, Haredi. It would have been easy for the Haredi community to explain the events of the 1930s-1950s as the direct result of most Jews abandoning their religious beliefs. In fact, some did; but the vast majority chose a more comforting approach, claiming that the Holocaust was a Divine act beyond human understanding. This allowed them to focus on rebuilding their communities, rather than to obsess on the past. There was, however, one stipulation to this approach: the martyred Eastern European past was idealized as a golden era of Jewish life. Within a generation, two vibrant new centers of Haredi life emerged: one in the United States, and the other in Israel, with smaller, somewhat less influential communities in England, Canada, France, Belgium, and Australia. As these communities became viable, independent entities, some of the old animosities between them and members of other Jewish groups began to resurface. This time, however, they were sharpened by the conviction on the part of Haredim that, as predicted, those groups' actions and prescriptions often lead to assimilation, thereby threatening the very idea of Jewish continuity. In the post-Holocaust era, that threat is perceived as being more real than ever.

Present day

Israel

In Israel, home to the most numerically powerful Haredi population, the situation is different. There, as in the United States, the community has adopted a policy of isolationism, but at the same time, it has also struggled for inclusion in dominant society, perceiving itself as the true protector of the country's Jewish nature. The issues date to the late nineteenth-early twentieth century, with the rise of Zionism. Until the Holocaust, the vast majority of Haredi Jews rejected Zionism for a number of reasons. Chief among these was the claim that Jewish political independence could only be obtained through Divine intervention, with the coming of the Messiah. Any attempt to force history was seen as an open rebellion against Judaism (see Neturei Karta for a more complete exposition of this ideology). Ironically, in this the Haredi Jews mirrored the Reform community, which, with few exceptions, rejected Zionism, since it called into question the loyalty that Jews should feel toward their native countries. More importantly, however, was the dislike that the political and cultural Zionism of the time felt toward any manifestation of religion. Spurred on by socialism, they taunted religion as an outdated relic, which should disappear (or, according to some extreme views, even be eradicated) in the face of Jewish nationalism. The Haredi Jews point out that even such liberals as Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, at one time contemplated the mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity as a means of eliminating anti-Semitism. As with the nineteenth century Reform Judaism movement in Germany, the result was mutual recriminations, rejection, and harsh verbal attacks. To Zionists, Haredi Jews were either "primitives" or "parasites"; to Haredi Jews, Zionists were heretics. This kulturkampf still plagues Israeli society today, where animosity between the two groups has even pervaded both their educational systems. Nevertheless, despite the animosity, it was necessary for the two groups to work out some modus vivendi in the face of a more dangerous enemy, first the Nazis, and then the neighboring Arab states. This was achieved by a division of powers and authority, based on the division that existed during the British Mandate in the country. Known as the "status quo," it granted political authority (such as control over public institutions, the army, etc.) to the Zionists and religious authority (such as control over marriage, divorce, conversions, etc.) to the Orthodox. A compromise worked out by Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson even before statehood ensured that public institutions accommodate the Orthodox by observing the Sabbath and providing kosher food. Another compromise, worked out between prime minister David Ben Gurion and Haredi leader Rabbi Abraham Yishayahu Karelitz (known as the Chazon Ish), promised that the government would exempt a group of religious scholars (at that time, 400) from compulsory military service so that they could pursue their studies. In fact, this "status quo" affected virtually all aspects of life, sometimes with bizarre results. For example, there are no buses on the Sabbath in Tel Aviv, though there are in Haifa, since Haifa had a large Arab population at the time of the British Mandate (though to this day, Haifa still has a proportionally larger Arab population and lower Haredi population than other cities within Israel). Finally, the Agudat Israel party representing the Haredi population was invited to participate in the governing coalition. It agreed, but did not appoint any ministers since that would have implied full acceptance of the legitimacy of non-religious actions taken by the government. In 2000, the "status quo" was still in place, despite marked changes to the society since independence. In fact, it is one of the major factors that has prevented modern Israel from enacting a written constitution. Signs of the first challenge to the status quo came in 1977, with the fall of the Labor government that had ruled Israel since independence and the formation of a rightwing coalition under Menachem Begin. Rightwing Revisionist Zionism had always been more acceptable to the Haredi, since it did not share the same history of antireligious rhetoric that marked socialist Zionism. Furthermore, Begin needed the Haredi members of the Knesset (Israel's unicameral parliament) to form his coalition and offered more power and benefits to their community than what they were accustomed to receiving, including a lifting of the numerical limit on military exemptions. They proved to be able politicians, using their new powers to increase their power base, thereby increasing their role even more. From a small group of just four members in the 1977 Knesset, they gradually increased the number of seats they control to 22 (out of 120) in the late 1990s. In effect, they controlled the balance of power between the country's two major parties. On the other hand, less orthodox Israelis (Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism who have always had a negligible presence in Israel), both began questioning whether a "status quo" based on the conditions of the 1940s and 1950 was still relevant in the 1980s and 1990s, and realized that they had the cultural and institutional support to enable them to change it regardless of its relevance. They challenged Orthodox control of personal affairs such as marriage and divorce, resented the lack of entertainment and transportation options on the Sabbath (then the country's only day of rest), and questioned whether the burden of military service was being shared equally, since the 400 scholars, who originally benefited from the exemption, had grown to 32,000. Finally, the Progressive (Reform) and Masorti (Conservative) communities, though still minuscule, began to exert themselves as an alternative to the Haredi monopoly on religious power. No one was happy with the "status quo," but while the Orthodox used their new-found political force to attempt to extend religious control, the non-Orthodox sought to reduce or even eliminate it. This situation was exacerbated still further by the rise of a strong Sephardic (Jews of North African and Middle Eastern descent) population with political aspirations of its own. Traditionally, the political elite in Israel consisted of European Jews, who founded the state. They were joined in the 1950 by entire communities of North African and Middle Eastern Jews (especially from Morocco, Iraq, Tunisia, Yemen, etc.), who were kept marginalized and encouraged (in some cases, even forced) to forego their traditional cultures for the dominant European one. There were protests, including a small but vocal "Black Panther" movement among unemployed Sephardic youth in the early 1970s, but the most effective voice for empowerment came from a small Haredi party named Shas, which split off from Agudat Yisrael in the early 1980s. With Sephardic disenfranchisement as its platform, it gained 17 of the 22 Haredi seats in the Knesset. Taking the attitude that restoring Sephardic pride entails restoring Sephardic religious observance, Shas has created devoted cadres of newly religious and semi-religious men and women with the zeal of neophytes and an animosity toward the country's European political establishment and occasionally, by extension, to all things Western. Furthermore, the movement has gained unflinching obedience in its supporters to the teachings of it spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef. The chief antagonist of the Haredi has been the Supreme Court, which, in ruling after ruling based largely on its own conceptions of democracy and progressivity, limited the power of Haredi community by granting equal powers to competing bodies. The most notable case of this is the "Who Is a Jew?" case, in which the Supreme Court Ruled that the Ministry of the Interior (then controlled by Shas) must recognize Reform and Conservative converts to Judaism. More recently, even the Orthodox Zionist establishment has come under attack by the Court, since it often allies itself with the Haredi in matters of control of municipal and national religious councils. In many instances, the Haredim have responded to these and other threats angrily, verbally assaulting those who challenge their hegemony. At the same time, they recognize the animosity many secular Israelis feel toward them and have embarked on various public relations campaigns and other media projects to improve their image among the general public. Nonetheless, they remain firmly entrenched in their seats of power, with both blocs doing everything they can to gain their support. Following the 2003 elections, the Haredi parties lost their place in the government to the ultra-secular Shinui party. In 2005 Shinnui left the government and Ariel Sharon brought the Haredi United Torah Judaism back into his ruling coalition. Shinui runs under the flag of stopping extra funding to mostly Haredi schools and resistance to Tal Law which gives legal status to their exemption from military service. Nevertheless, a few Haredi Jews choose to volunteer to serve in the IDF, in the Haredi Jewish battalion Netzah Yehuda. In recent years, there has been a process of reconciliation and a merging of Haredi Jews with Israeli society. While not compromising on religious issues and their strict code of life, Haredi Jews have become more open to the secular Israeli culture. Haredi Jews, such as satirist Kobi Arieli, publicist Sehara Blau and politician Israel Eichler write regularly to leading Israeli newspapers. Another important factor in the reconciliation process has been the activity of ZAKA - a voluntary rescue organization which provides emergency first response medical attention at suicide bombing scenes and rescues human remains found there to provide proper burial. Another important Haredi insititution of charity is Yad Sara, established by Uri Lupolianski (mayor of Jerusalem between 2003- ) in 1977. Yad Sara, the only Israeli institution of its kind, provides patients and the handicapped with medical equipment (such as wheelchairs) on loan for free, and it is open to all Israelis. Religious Zionists, mainly from the Mafdal and publicly-involved Haredi Jews are trying to bridge the gaps between secular Jews and Haredi Jews.

United States

While there has been a Haredi presence in the U.S. since the start of the 20th century, the various groups began to emerge as distinctive communities only in the 1950s, with the influx of refugees from the Holocaust in Eastern Europe, who quickly filled leadership positions. Before then, the distinctions that are now commonly made between Haredi and Modern Orthodox Jews were moot at best, dividing lines between the two camps can now be drawn, though it is important to recognize that there is a large area of gray between the two communities to this day. As the tides of Jewish immigrants to the United States in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries became more settled and affluent, they looked to Europe to provide rabbis and other spiritual leaders and teachers for their emerging communities. While some rabbis accepted the challenge, a number of them returned to Europe soon after, frustrated by what they found in the United States. Unlike Eastern Europe, where Jews constituted a distinct minority group, the United States offered Jews an opportunity to blend into the dominant culture. Many of the new immigrants dropped their traditional customs and laws, both out of choice (the U.S. offered them a chance to escape the constraints of religious identity) or not (Jews refusing to work on the Sabbath were almost always fired at the end of the week; the large majority of those who desisted from working on Saturday had to face the formidable challenge of finding new work each week). The groups that arrived en masse after the Holocaust found a religious and social infrastructure already in place. While they also feared that their communities might assimilate into the mainstream of American society, they were also able to create more insular communities, devoid of all but the most necessary contacts with the surrounding society. As the communities became more affluent, they were able to assume more and more roles of the city and state for themselves. Today, there exist many autonomous communities in places such as Boro Park, Williamsburg and Crown Heights in Brooklyn, with their own economies, educational systems (yeshivos) welfare institutions and gemachs (free loan societies for everything from money to household items to tools to furniture), medical services (such as the Hatzolo ambulance corps), and security (the Shomrim neighborhood patrol). Some smaller, more isolationist groups actually founded their own small towns, such as New Square, New York and Kiryas Joel, New York patterned after the communities they left in Europe. There are still other, smaller communities in the cities of Lakewood, New Jersey, Passaic, New Jersey, Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, Valley Village, Baltimore, etc., which did not have all the established institutions of the dominant community in New York, but even they managed to put many of these institutions in place, thereby preserving their insularity. In recent years, tiny communities have also begun to appear in growing Sunbelt cities such as Dallas and Atlanta. With these in place, the communities were able to grow and flourish, both because of an extremely high birthrate (eight or more children is considered normal), and due to outreach programs geared toward other Jews. While some of the most insular communities regarded this as dangerous, since it could introduce unwanted ideas into the community, others, notably the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidic movement embraced outreach with a passion, conducting nationwide campaigns to introduce their brand of Judaism to unaffiliated Jews, as well as to Jews of other affiliations. This helped ignite the Teshuvah Movement that now claims tens of thousands of new adherents to Haredi Judaism yearly. On the other hand, despite all their efforts at insularity, the Haredi leadership could not ignore the appeal of American life to their own youth. While certain few concessions to American society were made (for example, some groups allowed some of their children to pursue some higher education under certain circumstances), for the most part the response was to adopt an even more extreme approach to insularity. In effect, anything that might be perceived as threatening the cultural homogeneity of the community was disparaged, including newspapers, radio, and television. Instead, a regimen of total immersion in study was imposed on the younger generation. Some Haredi leaders, most notably Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer, realized that the communities could not be kept completely insular and established ways to connect to society without compromising on their intrinsic beliefs. In several instances, yeshivos such as Torah Vodaas, Chaim Berlin and Ner Israel started allowing the boys (or bochurim) to pursue a secular education while remaining in the yeshiva. This was helped in a big way by the establishment of Touro College by Rabbi Bernard Lander. A college based in New York City geared towards Haredi students seeking college degrees. One of the most noticeable things in Touro is the fact that the classes are separate for men and women to keep in line with strict Haredi lifestyles. Another, even greater threat, was seen in those Jewish groups that attempted to bridge the gap between the religious and secular worlds, since this was also perceived as potentially alluring to the youths of the community, including those who could not perceive of a total break from their Jewish upbringing. Reform, Conservative, and even Modern Orthodox Judaism were seen as potentially threatening to the very continuity of the community. In the case of Reform, this animosity could be traced to the early nineteenth century in Germany, where Reform and Traditional groups were in open conflict over control of the communities. At that time, both groups attacked each other incessantly in the struggle for hegemony over the Jewish community. Until most recently, the Reform movement felt secure and was not leveling the same attacks on the Orthodox. In many instances, they sought ways to cooperate on common issues, hoping to consume the smaller community. To the Haredi, however, they were seen as a steppingstone to assimilation, to be disparaged and discouraged within their own communities. The old rhetorical attacks of two centuries earlier were revived and extended to the Conservative community as well. Their practices, which were not in keeping with Orthodox traditions, were similarly reviled. For many Haredi groups, this created an interesting paradox. On the one hand, Conservative and Reform Jews are classic targets of extensive outreach programs, conducted out of a "deep love and concern" for the "spiritual well-being" of other Jews; on the other hand, their religious practices and often their leaders are denigrated and condemned. It is this paradox that defines the Haredi community's relationship to the larger Jewish community to this day. The problem is even more complicated, when considering their position vis à vis the Modern Orthodox community. There is a mutual dependency between the two communities: the Modern Orthodox generally respect and adhere to the religious rulings of the Haredi leadership, while the Haredi often depend on university trained Modern Orthodox professionals to provide for needs that members of their own community cannot. For example, since there are so few Haredi doctors, the community will prefer to go to a Modern Orthodox doctor, since he or she will have a better understanding of the implications of the treatment in Jewish law (halakha). Furthermore, Haredi rabbis will consult with Modern Orthodox doctors before issuing rulings on medical procedures (an example of this is on issues relating to the precise moment of death). Nevertheless, the leadership is unwilling to accept the liberalism of their Modern Orthodox colleagues. In some cases, Modern Orthodoxy is perceived as balancing precariously on a very narrow wire between the Jewish and secular worlds: a tenable but, to the Haredi, unnecessary position. In other cases, Modern Orthodox leaders are considered to have passed the bounds of religious propriety and condemned for this in especially harsh, biblical terms, since those leaders, unlike Reform and Conservative rabbis, are believed to have the requisite learning and should have known better. None of these fights, however, no matter how sharp the discourse, has the same intensity as earlier arguments that led to or threatened real schisms among the Jewish people. For instance, with the rise of Hassidism, Rabbi Elijah of Vilna declared that his followers must not marry Jews adhering to the hassidic movement (the ruling was never put into practice). While, as tensions mount between Haredi and other Jews, the possibility of such a schism exists, the leadership of all the factions involved have taken care to prevent a complete break, while respecting the desire of the Haredi for autonomy and separatism. And there is common ground too, especially in the field of learning. It is not uncommon for Haredi scholars to take advantage of the vast library holdings, including rare manuscripts, in the libraries of Yeshiva University (Modern Orthodox), the Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative), and Hebrew Union College (Reform).

United Kingdom

In the UK, the largest Haredi communities are located in London (Stamford Hill, Golders Green), Manchester (Salford and Prestwich) and Gateshead. The majority of UK Haredim descend from Eastern-European immigrants. Its main organisational body is the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (UOHC).

Organisations

Haredi Jewish groups include:
- United Torah Judaism - Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox party
- Shas - Mizrahi Sefardi ultra-orthodox party
- Agudath Israel of America
- Hasidic Jewish groups such as: Chabad Lubavitch, Satmar, Belz, Bobov, Boston, Ger, Vizhnitz, Breslov, Pupa, Boyan, Munkacz, and Rimnitz.

Rabbinical leaders

- The Baal Shem Tov (18th century founder of Hasidism)
- The Vilna Gaon (founder of the mitnagdim (originally of Lithuania)
- Rabbi Chaim of Volozhim (19th century founder of the Lithuanian yeshivoth)
- Rabbi Moses Sofer (18th-19th century leader of Eastren European ultra-Orthodox)
- Rabbis of the Gerrer Hasidim (originally Poland, now Israel)
- Rabbis of Lubavitch
- Rabbi Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz (leader of Haredim in Israel)
- Rabbi Aharon Kotler (founder of the Lakewood yeshivas in America)
- Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (leader of Israeli Sephardi Haredim)
- Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (present-day leader of Israel's Haredim)

External link

- [http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/08_Orthodoxy.html Varieties of Orthodox Judaism] (Prof. Eliezer Segal at the University of Calgary) Category:Orthodox Judaism

Justice Souter

Justice David Hackett Souter (born September 17, 1939) has been an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court since 1990. He filled the seat vacated by William J. Brennan.

Early life

Souter was born in Melrose, Massachusetts. He is the only child of Joseph A. Souter and Helen Hackett Souter. His father, a banker, died in 1976. He spent most of his childhood and adolescence at his family's farm in Weare, New Hampshire. He attended Concord High School, graduating in 1957.

Education

He went on to Harvard College, from which he received his B.A., concentrating in philosophy and writing a senior thesis on the legal positivism of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the famous Supreme Court justice. In 1961 he graduated from Harvard magna cum laude as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He was selected as a Rhodes Scholar and chose to attend Magdalen College, Oxford, where he received an A.B. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University and an M.A. in 1963. He then entered Harvard Law School, graduating in 1966. After law school he worked as an associate at Orr and Reno in Concord, New Hampshire from 1966 to 1968. But he accepted a position as an Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire in 1968, beginning his lifelong stint of public service. As Assistant Attorney General he worked in the criminal division, prosecuting cases in the courts. In 1971, Warren Rudman, then the Attorney General of New Hampshire, selected him to be the Deputy Attorney General.

U.S. Supreme Court

In 1976, Rudman resigned to enter private practice and Souter succeeded him as the Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990, having been nominated January 24, 1990. His old friend Warren Rudman, who had since been elected a Senator, was instrumental in both this appointment, and his appointment to the Supreme Court. Later that year, on President George H. W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 25, 1990, (see http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/supreme_court_3.htm), and he took his seat on October 9, 1990, shortly after the United States Senate confirmed him by a vote of 90 to 9. The press called him the "stealth justice" since his professional record provoked no real controversy, and provided very little paper trail. Souter, along with former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Breyer, has a reputation for being a strong guardian of the court's institutional integrity. A traditionalist in this regard, he famously stated, in response to proposals to videotape oral arguments before the Supreme Court, "I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body". He has also served as the court's designated representative to Congress on at least one occasion, testifying before committees of that body about the court's needs for additional funding to refurbish its building and for other projects. Initially, from 1990-93, he tended to be a conservative Justice, although much in the mold of Anthony Kennedy, rather than Antonin Scalia or William Rehnquist. In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. By 1995 Souter moved more to the center, and by 2000 he moved more to the left. It was a gradual shift similar to that of Harry Blackmun 20 years back. Although appointed by a Republican president, he now tends to side with the more liberal justices rather than the conservatives. He dissented from the conservative majority Court opinion known as Bush v. Gore election of 2000 case. Souter enjoys mountain climbing in New Hampshire during the judicial off-season. He is co-chair of the We the People National Advisory Committee. Justice Souter is not married, though he was once engaged. After he was sworn in he said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." On April 30, 2004, Souter suffered minor injuries when a group of young men assaulted him as he jogged on a city street in Washington, D.C.. The attempted robbery failed and the suspects were never found.

External links

- [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf Supreme court official bio (PDF)] Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David Souter, David

Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Articles and categories related to cases argued before the United States Supreme Court. :Cases organized by subject are at :Category:United States case law and :Category:United States constitutional case law. Cases 1 Supreme Court cases

Category:United States First Amendment case law

This category is for court cases in the United States dealing with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Amendments-01

Amerind languages

In addition to its use by social scientists to refer (broadly) to the various indigenous languages of The Americas, the term Amerind languages may controversially refer to one of the three families in Joseph Greenberg's classification of all Native American languages—the other two being Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut. Most modern linguists agree, however, that there is not enough evidence to theorize a single Amerind language family, and instead classify these languages into many smaller families. Mithun (1999: 7) sums up the current general consensus: :: "An even more encompassing scheme was proposed by Joseph Greenberg, which classified all of the languages of the Americas into just three genetic groups: Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene (Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit plus Haida), and Amerind (all other languages of North, Central, and South America). The method employed, simple inspection of vocabulary lists from large numbers of languages, was essentially that used by the earliest philologists before basic techniques of historical reconstruction and classification were developed in the nineteenth century. Serious flaws have been pointed out in both the method and its application, which leave the proposals unsupported. Detailed discussions of the history of genetic classification can be found in Goddard 1999 and Campbell 1997."

References

- Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1989). [Review of Greenberg, Language in the Americas]. Lingua, 78, 249-255.
- Berman, Howard. (1992). A comment on the Yurok and Kalapuya data in Greenberg's Language in the Americas. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58 (2), 230-233.
- Bonnichsen, Robson; & Steele, D. Gentry (Eds.). (1994). Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas. Peopling of the Americas publications. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Center for the Study of the First Americans. ISBN 0-9129-3309-7.
- Campbell, Lyle. (1988). [Review of Language in the Americas, Greenberg 1987]. Language, 64, 591-615.
- Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509427-1.
- Chafe, Wallace. (1987). [Review of Greenberg 1987]. Current Anthropology, 28, 652-653.
- Goddard, Ives. (1987). [Review of Joseph Greenberg, Language in the Americas]. Current Anthropology, 28, 656-657.
- Goddard, Ives. (1990). [Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg]. Linguistics, 28, 556-558.
- Goddard, Ives. (1996). The classification of native languages of North America. In I. Goddard (Ed.), Languages (pp. 290-323). Handbook of North Americans Indians (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
- Goddard, Ives (Ed.). (1996). Languages. Handbook of North American Indians (W. C. Sturtevant, General Ed.) (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-1604-8774-9.
- Goddard, Ives; & Campbell, Lyle. (1994). The history and classification of American Indian languages: What are the implications for the peopling of the Americas?. In R. Bonnichsen & D. Steele (Eds.), Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas (pp. 189-207). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
- Golla, Victor. (1987). [Review of Joseph H. Greenberg: Language in the Americas]. Current Anthropology, 28, 657-659.
- Golla, Victor. (1988). [Review of Language in the Americas, by Joseph Greenberg]. American Anthropologist, 90, 434-435.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1987). Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1987). Language in the Americas: Author's précis. Current Anthropology, 28, 647-652.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1989). Classification of American Indian languages: A reply to Campbell. Language, 65, 107-114.
- Greenberg, Joseph H. (1996). In defense of Amerind. International Journal of American Linguistics, 62, 131-164.
- Kimball, Geoffrey. (1992). A critique of Muskogean, 'Gulf,' and Yukian materials in Language in the Americas. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58, 447-501.
- Matisoff, James. (1990). On megalo-comparison: A discussion note. Language, 66, 106-120.
- Mithun, Marianne. (1999). The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23228-7 (hbk); ISBN 0-521-29875-X.
- Poser, William J. (1992). The Salinan and Yurumanguí data in Language in the Americas. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58 (2), 202-229.
- Rankin, Robert. (1992). [Review of Language in the Americas by J. H. Greenberg]. International Journal of American Linguistics, 58 (3), 324-351.
- Ringe, Donald. (1992). On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison. American Philosophical Society, Transactions, 82 (1), 1-110.
- Ringe, Donald. (1993). A reply to Professor Greenberg. American Philosophical Society, Proceedings, 137, 91-109.
- Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978-present). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 1-20). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. (Vols. 1-3, 16, 18-20 not yet published). Category:Proposed language families

dating ads site appartamenti bruxelles darmowe statystyki xsongs.info teksty

:: RELATED NEWS ::

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siu Sai Wan (MTR)

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

Facts

Opinion of the Court

Dissent

External link

Court Citation

United States

United States Supreme Court

Lower federal courts

State courts

Unpublished decisions

Vendor neutral citations

Pinpoint citations

Types of Citations

England and Wales

Law Reports

Simple Examples

The Internet

External links

Canada

Reporters

Neutral Citation

Reference

Australia

Reporters

Reference

See also

External links

1994

Events

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Births

Deaths

January

February-April

May-October

November-December

Nobel Prizes

Fields Medalists

Templeton Prize

Right Livelihood Award

United States Supreme Court

History

Composition

Size of the court

Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices

Qualifications for membership

Other functions

Current membership

Ages of current justices

Quarters

Jurisdiction

Procedure

Court reports and citation style

Checks and balances

See also

References

Suggested Readings

External links

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)

Name

History

Outline

Background to the dynasty

Aaron-Zalman Conflict

Important Books to the Satmar Sect

External links

Ultra-Orthodox

Practices and beliefs