In the SUPREME COURT of MISSOURI SC NO 88573 Courts Mo Form

The political party of the president who appoints a Justice to the Supreme Court, as well as the registered political party of the nominee, is not always much of an indicator as to how that person will act on the Supreme Court. The author of Roe v. Wade (Harry Blackmun) was a Republican appointed by a Republican president (Nixon). Sandra Day O’Connor, a Republican appointed by a Republican, at one time provided the swing vote to keep affirmative action alive. Chief Justice Roberts, a Republican appointed by a Republican cast the vote that kept “Obamacare” alive. Anthony Kennedy, appointed by a Republican president, authored the opinion that legalized same sex marriage. Antonin Scalia, another Republican appointed by a Republican authored the opinion upon which sanctuary cities are based.Political party does not always lead to an identifiable judicial philosophy when it comes to the Supreme Court.

I'm not an attorney, but here are my thoughts.Such a form or court document would have effect only if it is signed by a judge, which means an appearance would be required in an actual hearing, probably in Family Court. If you are going to a 28-day program, it is possible that your husband could seek a restraining order to prohibit you from returning to the home, and granting him custody of the child you share. He might also seek that you be allowed only supervised visitation.He could also file for divorce and ask for the same temporary orders. In almost all of those situations, the "other" parent (in this case - you) would be notified of the hearing and given a chance to respond. Sometimes in extreme situations, a person files for an ex parte order to seek immediate relief regardless of the other person being able to immediately respond.It's not possible to predict what orders, including TRO's and injunctions, might result. Judges tend to not overreact in these situations, and are much more understanding of and compassionate toward addicts who are seeking help than even 10 years ago, but they usually won't hesitate to protect children.I sincerely hope you get the help you need and so does your child.

I consider the 9 years as a judgement or order by the lower court.According to the Supreme Court Rules, 1966A petition need to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order or judgement.So,No. You can't file a petition after 9 years.

You can represent yourself. Each form is different per state or county but generally an answer is simply a written document which presents a synopsis of your story to the court. The answer is not your defense, just written notice to the court that you intend to contest the suit. The blank forms are available at the court clerk’s office and are pretty much self explanatoryThere will be a space calling for the signature of an attorney. You should sign your name on the space and write the words “Pro se” after your signature. This lets the court know you are acting as your own attorney.

If anything, it will serve to underscore the notion that partisan loyalty is more important than functional governance- at least in the view of partisan voters.The voters that do pay attention to the role of the court tend to be partisans, committed to the supremacy of their faction. The howls of outrage over how unreasonable the other faction are being… will probably ensure that the convinced stay convinced.A signNow portion of voters don’t pay attention to what’s happening in the court, unless there’s a presidential election approaching.

No. Absolutely not.There is no tradition that a president will not nominate someone to fill a vacancy in the last year of their term, and there is no historical precedent whatsoever that a nominee would not be confirmed in the last year of a presidential term, and in fact a number of such vacancies have been filled in the past.There is often discussion of the “Biden Rule”, which is not a rule at all but is based on taking some comments of then-Senator Joe Biden out of context. In 1992, which was an election year, Biden made a comment on the Senate floor in July that, with the looming presidential election, it would be unwise or impossible to fill a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy until after the election was over. But there are two things that get lost here in this discussion: the first is that there was no actual vacancy at that time, and the second was the timing of the comment. Biden made his comment in July. Congress goes into recess every year in August and does not return to session until after labor day. There was no vacancy at the time Biden spoke; if one occurred in the near future, however, the Senate would not be able to address the vacancy until September at the earliest. At that point, both parties would already have held their national conventions nominating their presidential candidates. And since the confirmation process, in the best of times, takes about 4 to 6 weeks, if the Senate took up a nomination right after Labor Day it’d be holding a vote in mid-October, less than a month before the election.All Biden was saying was that, if a vacancy were to occur in the next several weeks (because of the death of a Justice, for example) then rather than have a confirmation fight in the midst of the “official” general election campaign (which is usually considered to begin after the conventions are over) that would be resolved literally weeks before the election, that the Senate and the country would be better served by waiting until after the election was over. But again, he was making these comments on the eve of Congress’s annual summer recess — a recess which members who were up for re-election that year would be very resistant to cancelling — at a time when there was not presently a vacancy on the Court. He was, as he himself has said repeatedly, speaking about that specific moment in time and the difficulties that would be associated with attempting a confirmation in September and October of an election year, and not trying to make a hard-and-fast rule about the entire 12 months prior to an election. He said instead that “there comes a point when a confirmation would be too difficult in the midst of a campaign,” and that if a vacancy were to occur “in the next several weeks, or at the end of the summer,” and then-president George H.W. Bush were to nominate someone to fill that vacancy, then the Senate should wait until after the November election to hold hearings. Not that the Senate should not consider the nominee at all. And again, at the moment he was saying this, given the summer recess, he was talking about a confirmation process that would have had to play out in September and October of an election year.Senator McConnell likes to say that the Senate has not confirmed a nominee in the final year of a presidential term in “nearly 80 years.” That’s true, because prior to Scalia’s death last year, there had not been a vacancy on the Court which occurred in an election year since 1940, which is 77 years ago. So the Senate has in fact not confirmed any nominee for a vacancy which occurred during an election year in 77 years, because it has been 77 years since a vacancy occurred during an election year. This is not a result of rule or precedent, but simply lack of opportunity. But since 1900, there have been five justices who were nominated and confirmed during an election year, and a sixth, Anthony Kennedy, who is currently on the court, who was nominated a year before the election (1987) but confirmed during the election year (1988).Is there a tradition that a President will not nominate anyone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of their term?And if we go back to the 19th century, there are 6 actual cases of lame-duck presidents nominating Supreme Court justices after their successor had been elected but before the end of their own term, and in each case the justice was confirmed. (In those days, the election was in November as it is today, but the inauguration was March 4 rather than January 20, so there was more time for this kind of maneuvering.)One-third of all U.S. presidents appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election yearSo, no, there is no such tradition; it’s just that there has not been a vacancy during an election year in a long time. But in the past, when such vacancies occurred, the sitting president nominated a justice and they were confirmed.