Roe v. Wade
January 22, 1922: Mr. Irving F. Rogers, assistant manager of the Grand Rapids Credit Men's Association, has just completed the installation of a complete new system of accounting for Vanden Berg Bros. Friday evening the employees of the Vanden Berg Bros. and Mr. Rogers were given a dinner and entertainment at the home of Wm. C. Vanden Berg, West 13th Street. Mr. Rogers' nights are spent directing the orchestra at the City Rescue Mission and his Sundays are given over entirely to mission work.Today's Featured Birthday "We acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy; of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians. ... The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." - Justice Harry A. Blackmun , writing the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade.
"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women." January 22, 1922: Mr. Irving F. Rogers, assistant manager of the Grand Rapids Credit Men's Association, has just completed the installation of a complete new system of accounting for Vanden Berg Bros. Friday evening the employees of the Vanden Berg Bros. and Mr. Rogers were given a dinner and entertainment at the home of Wm. C. Vanden Berg, West 13th Street. Mr. Rogers' nights are spent directing the orchestra at the City Rescue Mission and his Sundays are given over entirely to mission work.
Berg And The Supreme Court - News
In 2010, the defendants got new hearings from the Arkansas Supreme Court after defense lawyers pointed to new DNA evidence that implicated others. The men were released a year later on the rarely used Alford plea, which allows them to maintain
1973: Year on this date when the US Supreme Court ruled in the case. Jan. 22, 1984: The Apple Macintosh, the first consumer computer to popularize the computer mouse and the graphical user interface, is introduced during Super Bowl XVIII
(Mark Wilson / Getty Images) Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer listen to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Jan. 24, 2012. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press) US Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House
Alistair Berg The California State Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday, abolishing the state's redevelopment agencies and with them, $1 billion of funding for affordable housing. The decision means that an estimated 400 redevelopment agencies around
Two Arizona colleagues, Republican Jeff Flake and Democrat Raul Grijalva, greeted her with kisses and hugs and stood by her side as members of the House and Senate applauded the entrance of five Supreme Court justices, members of Obama's Cabinet and
Supreme Court to decide whether busybodies, prudes, government ...
It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. Among other things, the FCC has authority to issue civil monetary penalties, revoke a license, and deny a renewal application. In addition, a federal district court may impose fines and/or imprisonment for up to two years on those who are convicted of criminal violations of the law.
offend or determine that its interest in protecting someone else’s delicate sensibilities outweighs others’ right to say what they want, even if that someone else is a child. The framers had children too, after all, but didn’t include in the Constitution any device to protect them from speech that might offend their parents. The “harm” that would befall them is hardly worth trading the right to speak freely.Others disagree of course, and the Bush Administration took this nannystateism a step further, leading to the case pending before the Court today :
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday testing the constitutionality of a Bush-era regulation that allows the Federal Communications Commission to punish broadcasters with stiff fines for the fleeting use of vulgar language or nude images. The FCC’s rule applies only to radio and over-the-air TV networks — like Fox, ABC, NBC and PBS — but not to cable TV.