Delaware Law Office
of Larry D. Sullivan, Esquire

A Weblog?
The column to the right, is a news/editorial/comment column. It is a weblog, also know as a blog.

The weblog thing comes from www.blogger.com, which offers us a convenient way to manage the posting, administratively. You don't really need to know all of that, but we have included this explanation so that you won't be confused by the term "blog".

Another important topic here is that since the column includes editorials and comments, you can be sure that we are just exercising our free speech rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and as not yet abridged by a reactionary opportunistic vocal minority.

opinions, everybody's got one...
If you would like your opinion published here, forward it for consideration and editorial review to: info@delawoffice.com.
Or add a comment. Comments by: YACCS

We encourage the exchange of responsible ideas.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

 
Dahlia Lithwick's commentary in the recent Bill introduced to allow Congress to veto Supreme Court decisions is pretty good.


Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Delaware Supreme Court Oral Arguments Online

 
In a brave new move, the Delaware Supreme Court has posted a website where we can all hear recordings of the oral arguments before the Court. This is an extraordinary opportunity for those who have not witnessed a Supreme Court hearing, and for those of us who have. This will help many to understand what we mean when we say that the Delaware Supreme Court is a "hot" Court. Note how the Justices are already prepared and informed about the cases, and how they will frequently interject with questions to the presenting attorney. They are not asleep at the wheel.


Sunday, March 14, 2004

Reversing the Supreme Court?

 
An interesting bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 9th. H.R.3920 is the Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004. It makes it easier to handle those Supreme Court decisions that Congress doesn't like much. I'm not sure that I really like this one:
HR 3920 IH

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3920
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 9, 2004
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
I can see this Bill passing and the Supreme Court deciding that the law is unconstitutional, and the Congress overturning that decision, and the Supreme Court finding that unconstitutional, and Congress overturning that, and so on. Actually, I can't.


Delaware to get more judges?

 
Delaware's Chief Justice Norman Veasey gave his last State of the Judiciary address (pdf) to the Delaware Joint Finance Committee during budget hearings for fiscal year 2005, on February 24th. One of the issues that he raised in his speech was that the State could use more judicial officers.

An article in today's Wilmington News Journal shows some strong support for that position: Sussex JP court caseloads a problem. The number of cases filed in the Sussex County Justice of the Peace Courts in the last twenty-five years have tripled without any increase in the number magistrates to hear the cases.


Delaware does well in a couple of National Rankings

 
Earlier this month, we discovered that the Frasier Institute named Delaware number one in Economic Freedom amongst US States and Canadian Provinces. See: Marginal Revolution: Economic freedom in North America (via Professor Bainbridge)

For the third year in a row. the Harris pollsters and the Institute for Legal Reform have named Delaware's Court system number one in the country. The Institute is part of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

I'm convinced that reasons behind those choices are related.








Delaware (Executive Branch) Meetings and Events

Craig's List Delaware

Technorati Delaware Search

New Castle County Crime Map

Business Blogs
Start Blogging