Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co. 473 U.S. 568 (1985) Judicial History: Under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Insecticides, Fungicides, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), manufacturers were required to register their pesticides. EPA had a “me-too” process that allowed for the pesticide equivalent of generic drugs. Monsanto Corporation sued because EPA was making them publicize trade secrets, which they claimed was a taking. Congress reiterated in Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA that EPA should make administrative decisions about how much money these manufacturers would get for damages from loss of their trade secrets.
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
Martin Luther argued that the charter was not “a republican form of government” and all acts thus far are not binding. The question was whether or not the Court had the authority to declare which policy could be called the government of Rhode Island. The Court held that the federal courts did not have the authority nor is it the courts function to decide “political” matters; it is the responsibility of the President and Congress. Another example is how Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. He contended that the health insurance mandate was lawful under Congress’ power to “lay and collect taxes.” Roberts said that “the text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning” and the “the government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax.” In contrast to Judicial restraint, Judicial activism is the idea that judges should actively interpret the Constitution and make policy decisions in new ways.
In general, police do not have to knock and announce before executing a warrant if there are __________ circumstances. In Smith v. Maryland (1979) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of ___________ registers to record numbers dialed from a telephone was not a Fourth Amendment search. First-class letters and sealed packages cannot be searched by the police unless they have a ___________. A/an _________ search is one conducted by government investigators to see if there are any violations of government rules and regulations. To justify surgery to remove a bullet from a suspect's chest under general anesthesia, the government would have to show a __________.
Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future (Arizona v. Evans, 1996). In this case, no warrant was obtained and, given the improper consent to search, the motion to exclude the physical evidence filed by William Ellis’s attorney would in all likelihood be granted. In sum, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of a “murder scene” exception to the warrant requirement on three separate occasions spread out over a twenty year period. In each instance, the Court has emphatically rejected the notion that such an exception exists.
Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the "substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights.
This will lead us into a case where, Pfizer failed to keep its commitment to corporate social responsibility as one of the most successful pharmaceutical companies, the choice they made to choose to bear unethical behavior in 1996. “Given the risks and costs of developing a new drug, pharmaceutical companies will jump at oppor- tunities to reduce them, and Pfizer thought it saw one” (Hill, pg 139, 2011). The case in point is the event that Pfizer gave its novel antibiotic “Trovan” to allegedly sick children without the consent of the parents when there was a serious outbreak of meningitis in Kano Nigeria. Pfizer’s choose the risk route and chose to ignore the children’s personal safety in testing. For personal gain and envious reason, this is was a violation of commercial ethics.
"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places." The aforesaid statement is by all means a fair and notable statement. Laws are enforced so as to maintain cordial order and discipline. Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures.
Furthermore, a significant question that arises in this matter and that was subsequently discussed in this report was whether a media publication can ‘unconsciously’ influence judges or juries and whether judges, as human beings are not susceptible to such indirect influences, at least subconsciously or unconsciously? The American view appears to be that jurors and judges are not liable to be influenced by media publication, while the Anglo-Saxon view is that judges, at any rate may still be subconsciously influenced. It has been observed that the Supreme Court has accepted the Anglo-Saxon view in the case of Reliance Petro chemicals v. Proprietor of Indian Express . It appears that it was accepted by the Supreme Court that judges are likely to be “subconsciously”
Question 2 Although the doctrine of precedent allows some flexibility, it fundamentally requires judges to respect the hierarchy of the courts . Discuss The doctrine of binding precedent or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. In essence the doctrine refers to facts that within the hierarchical structure of the English Court, a decision of the highest court will be binding on a court lower. When a court makes a decision in a case, any court which is of equal or lower status to that court must follow that previous decision if the case before them is similar to that earlier case. Moreover, the doctrine requires that like cases should be treated alike in the interests of consistency and certainty of the law as well as a fairly rigid hierarchy of courts.