Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>RFK Jr. has fought to remove his name from presidential ballots since he ended his campaign in August.</li><li>The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied his two last-ditch requests in Michigan and Wisconsin.</li></ul>It's official: <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-robert-f-kennedy-rfk-jr-2023-7">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a> will remain on the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan.The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied two last-minute requests from Kennedy's lawyers filed this month in an effort to remove his name from the ballot in the crucial <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harris-trump-presidential-election-swing-state-polls-sun-belt-2024-10">swing states</a>.The denial ultimately ends Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to get himself off the tickets and may be a blow to Donald Trump's campaign for reelection — which Kennedy endorsed after he <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rfk-jr-drops-out-presidential-race-2024-8">dropped out of the race</a> in August."Our polling consistently showed that by <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/states-denying-rfk-jr-ballot-removal-2024-8">staying on the ballot</a> in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues," Business Insider previously reported Kennedy said at a news conference prior to endorsing Trump.The Supreme Court Justices did not issue any explanation for their ruling, as is typical for emergency decisions such as this. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a short dissent in the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a405.html">Michigan case</a>, said he would have sided with Kennedy.In previous legal challenges, Kennedy succeeded in getting his name removed from the ballot in some swing states, including Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. His name was also removed from the tickets in Florida, Ohio, and Texas.Representatives for Kennedy Jr. and the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.Kennedy, a one-time Democrat, ran most of his campaign as an Independent before forging an alliance with Trump. While Trump once described the politician and environmental activist as a "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rfk-jr-transition-team-tulsi-gabbard-2024-8">liberal lunatic,</a>" the two reconciled their differences and Trump named Kennedy to his formal transition team.During his Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden, Trump seemed to suggest Kennedy could have a spot in his administration, pledging to let the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-views-vaccines-autism-testing-debunked-2023-7">vaccine-skeptic</a> "go wild on health."

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court heard Nvidia's arguments against a class action securities fraud lawsuit.</li><li>Nvidia is accused of misleading shareholders about cryptocurrency mining-related sales.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case in which <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-ai-employees-workers-2024-11">Nvidia</a> is trying to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders. But some of the justices expressed concern over the chip giant's assertions.Nvidia petitioned the nation's highest court after a lower court permitted a 2018 class action lawsuit alleging that the company and its CEO <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-huang-softbank-masayoshi-son-tech-stock-buyout-ai-microchips-2024-11">Jensen Huang</a> misled investors about its cryptocurrency mining-related sales to move ahead.Attorneys for Nvidia argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by a Swedish investment management firm, have not met the stricter pleading standards laid out by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow the lawsuit to proceed "creates an easy road map for plaintiffs to evade the Reform Act," Nvidia attorney Neal Katyal argued before the justices.The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act or PSLRA was designed, in part, to curtail frivolous securities lawsuits."When a stock drops, all they have to do is find an expert with numbers that contradict the company's public statements, then allege the company keeps records that executives look at, and then argue those records would have matched the hired expert's numbers," said Katyal, who argued that the plaintiff's complaint relies on expert opinion and lacks company documents.When asked by Justice Clarence Thomas what the plaintiff's complaint would look like in order to comply with the PSLRA, Katyal said it would have to answer "what did the CEO know" and "when did he know it.""I guess my concern is that you appear to be requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order to plead their case," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, adding, "part of my concern is that you seem to be wanting a bright line that says the contents of the documents are necessary."Justice Sonia Sotomayer said that she was "concerned" by Nvidia's petition to the court and told Katyal, "We often don't grant cert to error correct.""I'm not actually sure what rule we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases already say," Sotomayer said.Chief Justice John Roberts said the aspect that concerned him about both sides' arguments was that it was "a little black and white.""If I think that the positions on both sides are a little too absolute, how do you find sort of the sweet spot in terms of when the PSLRA is satisfied?" Roberts asked."It can't be just a little bit of direct evidence because that statute was intended to do something," Roberts said. "On the other hand, it seems to me, you can't insist on only the direct evidence before a complaint goes forward. So if I don't think it's black and white, how do I decide where the balance is?"A Nvidia spokesperson told BI the company "appreciated the opportunity to answer the Court's detailed questions this morning. We brought this case to the Supreme Court to protect shareholders and the economy from groundless lawsuits, and look forward to the Court's resolution of this matter."In his arguments, Deepak Gupta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the PSLRA "demands particularity.""Everyone agrees you can't circumvent the statute with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated expert opinions," Gupta said."But that's not what happened here," said Gupta. "On falsity, the Court of Appeals holding expressly rested on a combination of facts showing that a substantial part of gaming revenues came from crypto."This included accounts from former employees, detailed accounts of internal data and meetings, expert analysis, and "Huang's eventual acknowledgment of the crypto hangover, which sent the stock tumbling 28%," said Gupta.A district court previously dismissed the plaintiffs' class action lawsuit and the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision.The plaintiffs allege in their brief to the Supreme Court that in 2017 when Nvidia's sales of graphic processing units (GPUs) were surging, the company and Huang "knew those record sales were due in substantial part to demand from cryptocurrency miners.""But for more than a year, Huang denied that mining-related sales were driving NVIDIA's revenue growth because he knew that the securities market looked askew at GPU sales to miners, which are notoriously cyclical," the brief says."Huang's strategy fell apart in late 2018, when cryptocurrency prices collapsed, GPU purchases by miners withered, and demand for GeForce GPUs shrank dramatically," the brief says. "NVIDIA then finally admitted that — contrary to Huang's previous denials—its record revenue growth had been largely due to mining-related demand for GeForce GPUs."Nvidia's attorneys argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that on public calls with investors, company executives "made clear that they believed crypto miners were buying both GeForce GPUs and Crypto SKUs.""This case aptly demonstrates the danger of allowing plaintiffs to guess at the pleading stage what internal company reports could have said," the petition says. "Plaintiffs speculate that internal NVIDIA sales reports would have reflected the amount of gaming segment revenue driven by sales to miners rather than to gamers."It adds, "But there is no basis in Plaintiffs' allegations to assume that this information was available to NVIDIA."In 2022, Nvidia agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $5.5 million to settle charges for "inadequate disclosures" regarding the impact of crypto mining on the company's gaming business. Nvidia agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC's findings.A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by June.

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Trump is granted "absolute immunity" for official acts in Supreme Court ruling

After the Supreme Court ruled on June 10 that a <keyword id="20100511" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Muslim-woman" source="keywords">Muslim woman</keyword> is entitled to claim <keyword id="22407616" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance-after-divorce" source="keywords">maintenance after divorce</keyword>, <keyword id="20066703" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Commission-for-Women" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="National Commission for Women" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="National Commission for Women">National Commission for Women</keyword> (NCW) Chairperson Rekha Sharma welcomed the decision and stated that all <keyword id="20013419" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="personal-laws" source="keywords">personal laws</keyword> related to women should be equal across all religions. Speaking to ANI, Rekha Sharma said, "I always say that <keyword id="19927138" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="womens-rights" source="keywords">women's rights</keyword> should be universal and not determined based on <keyword id="19969367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="religion" source="keywords">religion</keyword>. All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, you get alimony after divorce, so why should a Muslim woman not get it? I welcome what the Supreme Court has said." The Supreme Court on June 10 ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), asserting that any discrimination against Muslim women in matters of alimony under the secular laws of the country would be regressive and against <keyword id="20809677" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-justice" source="keywords">gender justice</keyword> and equality. Earlier, the <keyword id="20066702" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="NCW-chief" source="keywords">NCW chief</keyword> wholeheartedly welcomed the Supreme Court's landmark ruling, stating that the decision is a significant step towards ensuring <keyword id="20250318" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="gender-equality" source="keywords">gender equality</keyword> and justice for all women, regardless of their religion. The NCW Chairperson emphasised that the decision reinforces the principle that no woman should be left without support and protection under the law. The NCW remains committed to advocating for women's rights and ensuring that justice prevails for every woman in India, she emphasised. Rekha Sharma also addressed the "lewd" comment incident that occurred earlier regarding a picture of the widow of Kirti Chakra recipient Captain Anshuman Singh. NCW chief Rekha Sharma said, "It was a very derogatory comment that we saw on social media, and we immediately took suo motu cognizance of it. The police have filed an FIR against this person. However, the individual is most likely from Pakistan." "Many such comments are being made, and we are taking those comments very seriously and urging the police to file FIRs in those cases as well," she added. Delhi Police acknowledged the National Commission for Women's (NCW) letter to the Delhi Commissioner of Police, demanding the arrest of the man and submission of a detailed report to the panel within three days. The police said a complaint was received from the National Commission for Women, alleging that a social media user had made an extremely lewd and derogatory comment on a picture of the widow of a late soldier. Taking cognizance of the complaint and after a preliminary examination of its contents, a case FIR under Sections 79, BNS-2023, and Section 67 of the IT Act 2000 has been registered at the Police Station Special Cell, and an investigation is underway. Captain Anshuman Singh, a doctor, was posted with the 26 Punjab as a medical officer in the Siachen Glacier area. On the night of July 19, 2023, there was a fire incident at an Indian Army ammunition dump at the camp where he was posted. Captain Singh saw a fibreglass hut engulfed in fire and immediately acted to rescue four to five individuals trapped inside. He went inside the medical investigation room, which was also on fire, to retrieve the critical medical aid box but could not make it out due to heavy fire amid strong winds. He was awarded the Kirti Chakra posthumously. Captain Singh's wife, Smriti, and his mother received the award from President Droupadi Murmu.

All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions: NCW chief Rekha Sharma

All the ways Donald Trump wins from the Supreme Court immunity ruling

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Biden has proposed a radical reform of the US Supreme Court.</li><li>The plan includes term limits and a binding code of conduct.</li></ul>Citing "recent ethics scandals" involving Supreme Court justices, President Joe Biden has announced a proposal to drastically reform the workings of the court, including by establishing term limits for sitting Justices.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">The White House shared</a> the proposal early Monday, which consists of two main points:<ul><li>Eighteen-year term limits, as opposed to the current lifetime appointments, with a new justice appointed every two years; and</li><li>A binding code of conduct for Justices.</li></ul>The proposal also called for the removal of immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.In an accompanying <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/">op-ed in the Washington Post</a>, Biden wrote that the country is "in a breach" of the normal and balanced workings of the court.Citing his experience as a senator and as a past ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Biden wrote:"I served as a US senator for 36 years, including as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I have overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president than anyone living today. I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers."But, he said, "what is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public's confidence in the court's decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms."Biden did not name any president or justice in his reasoning, but the proposal was a clear reaction to ethics scandals and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">shock rulings</a> from the Court over the last few years.The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a "dangerous and extreme" decision that undid long-settled rights, Biden wrote.Meanwhile, in June, the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-trump-immunity-january-6-election-ruling-decision-2024-5">Supreme Court ruled</a> that a sitting president has some immunity from criminal charges relating to acts made as part of their official duties — a move beneficial to former President Donald Trump, who has been dogged by multiple criminal and civil court cases.This "means there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," Biden wrote.The current composition of the Supreme Court leans heavily conservative, in part because former President Barack Obama's nomination was barred in his last year in office; while Trump appointed three justices, including one in his lame-duck period.This is a developing story. Please check back later for updates.

Joe Biden wants to rein in the Supreme Court, saying it's gone rogue after rulings on abortion, presidential immunity

In a landmark judgement, the <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court of India" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court of India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has broadened the definition of crimes under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court ruled that simply viewing <keyword id="20456028" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="child-pornography" source="keywords">child pornography</keyword> on the internet, without physically possessing or storing the material, is now a criminal offence under Section 15 of the <keyword id="19920672" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="POCSO-Act" source="keywords">POCSO Act</keyword> and provisions of the <keyword id="19930099" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="information-technology" source="keywords">Information Technology</keyword> (IT) Act. This ruling significantly expands the scope of the law to address the evolving challenges posed by digital platforms. <h2>A wider net</h2>In its ruling, a bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala stated, "Any act of viewing, distributing, or displaying child pornographic material by a person over the internet without any actual or physical possession or storage of such material in any device or in any form or manner would also amount to 'possession' in terms of Section 15 of POCSO Act." This interpretation effectively settled conflicting verdicts from various high courts, notably overturning a Madras High Court decision that had quashed a POCSO case against an individual who had viewed child pornography but had not circulated it. The Supreme Court, in agreeing with senior advocate H.S. Phoolka's arguments, deemed the earlier judgement "egregiously erroneous." <h2>Crimes categorised</h2>In a further clarification, the Supreme Court divided crimes related to child pornography under Section 15 of the POCSO Act into three distinct categories. The decision emphasised that law enforcement and courts must carefully assess each case to determine the specific category under which an offence falls. One critical insight from the judgement is that an offender cannot escape prosecution by simply deleting illegal content before an FIR is registered. The bench declared, "We clarify that there is no requirement under Section 15 of POCSO Act that ‘storage’ or ‘possession’ must continue to exist at the time of initiation of the criminal proceeding, and no such requirement can be read into the said provision." <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113417654" title="“Learned no lessons from Nirbhaya case”: Madhya Pradesh High Court criticises lenient treatment of crime-accused juvies in India" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>This means that even if an individual deletes the material before the authorities take action, they may still face <keyword id="20554971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="legal-consequences" source="keywords">legal consequences</keyword> based on the mere act of viewing or temporary possession. <h2><keyword id="23293250" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="automatic-downloads" source="keywords">Automatic downloads</keyword></h2>Acknowledging the complexities of <keyword id="20573374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="digital-media" source="keywords">digital media</keyword>, the Supreme Court recognised that certain child pornographic content might be automatically downloaded onto devices without the user’s knowledge. To address this, the court created a safeguard for those unaware of the offensive material stored on their devices. If a person discovers such material on their device through automatic downloads, they will not be prosecuted if they take immediate steps to delete it and report it to the authorities. However, the onus is on the device owner to act swiftly. Failure to delete or report the offensive material after becoming aware of it would constitute an offence under the law. To avoid the automatic downloading of problematic material, there are several proactive measures you can take. First, adjust your browser settings to disable automatic downloads and pop-ups, ensuring you have to approve any file before it is downloaded to your device. Regularly update your web browser and security software to benefit from the latest protections against malicious websites. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="113146443" title="Karnataka HC rejects school teacher&amp;#39;s plea to quash POCSO case over filming of girl students" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>Additionally, be cautious about the sites you visit, particularly those that seem suspicious or unfamiliar; stick to well-known, reputable sources. Additionally, consider using ad blockers or content filters that can prevent potentially harmful content from loading. Always be mindful of any unsolicited links in emails or messages, as these can lead to automatic downloads of unwanted material. Lastly, routinely monitor your device for any unfamiliar files and promptly delete anything that looks suspicious to minimise your risk of unknowingly storing problematic content. <h2>What this means for the future</h2>This judgement sends a clear message: India is taking a zero-tolerance approach toward child pornography in all its forms, whether stored, distributed, or merely viewed. The ruling adapts the legal framework to modern challenges, ensuring that perpetrators can no longer hide behind technicalities such as the absence of physical possession. The Supreme Court’s interpretation also places a burden on individuals to exercise responsibility in the digital world. Anyone who stumbles upon child pornography, whether intentionally or accidentally, must take swift action to avoid legal consequences. (With inputs from agencies)

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

<ul class="summary-list"><li>House Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Biden's Supreme Court reform proposal as 'dead on arrival.'</li><li>Biden's plan includes term limits, a binding code of conduct, and no immunity for ex-presidents.</li></ul>Joe Biden's pitch to reform the Supreme Court is off to a rough start.House Speaker Mike Johnson has already sworn to fight the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-aims-rein-in-supreme-court-saying-its-gone-rogue-2024-7#:~:text=Biden%20has%20proposed%20a%20radical,a%20conservative%2Dleaning%20court%20composition.">Biden administration's proposal to rein in the Supreme Court</a>, calling it "dead on arrival."President Joe Biden's proposal, announced in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/">White House press release</a> on Monday, calls on Congress to make three major changes to the high court: setting up 18-year term limits for all justices of the court, a binding code of conduct for those justices, and approving a constitutional amendment that explicitly says former presidents aren't immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.Citing "<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-ethics-questions-hanging-over-the-supreme-court-2023-5">recent ethics scandals</a>" among the court's justices and the court's recent decisions overturning "long-established legal precedents protecting fundamental rights," Biden wrote that these reforms are necessary to "restore trust and accountability" in both the President and the Supreme Court.The Court has been a source of frustration for Democrats, with the conservative-led court handing former President Donald Trump and his allies victory after victory — culminating in a decision that ruled sitting presidents are granted presumptive immunity from prosecution.That ruling snarled the various criminal cases against Trump, who was convicted of fraud in New York and faces allegations of mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.The Supreme Court's two arch-conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have also been tied up in scandals. Thomas took lavish gifts and vacations from a GOP mega-donor without disclosing them and his wife communicated to Trump aides before the Capitol riot. Meanwhile, a flag bearing symbols linked to pro-Trump movements flew over Alito's house around the time of the riot; he's since blamed his wife. Despite the push from Biden for changes to the court, Johnson threw cold water on the idea immediately."President Biden's proposal to radically overhaul the U.S. Supreme Court would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people's faith in our system of justice," <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://x.com/SpeakerJohnson/status/1817938406049296725">Johnson wrote on X</a> on Monday.He continued: "It is telling that Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the Court's recent decisions. This dangerous gambit of the Biden-Harris Administration is dead on arrival in the House."<h2 id="d2e246d1-a45e-45f6-bb30-a719be625766">Amendment on presidential immunity</h2>Biden's plan includes adding a "No One is Above the Law" amendment to the Constitution, which would dictate that no president has "immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as President," according to the press release.But amending the constitution isn't easy; it's only been done 27 times, the last time of which was in 1992.There are a few <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20founders%20also%20specified%20a,making%20amendments%20is%20quite%20onerous.">ways to propose a change to the constitution</a> that the Founding Fathers outlined. The first requires two-thirds support from members of both the House and Senate — a feat that would be near impossible to accomplish with Republicans controlling the House.The GOP has largely supported the Supreme Court's conservative majority, and has rebuked Democrats' attempts to limit its power.The second option requires two-thirds of state legislatures to call a convention to propose a change to the constitution.And that's just to get the amendment proposed — in order to get it ratified, three-fourths of state legislatures must support the amendment.This would also be a tough task with 23 states controlled by Republican trifectas (meaning the GOP runs both state legislatures and the governor's office) and 10 states having divided governments; only 17 states are controlled by Democratic trifectas, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas">according to Ballotpedia</a>.<h2 id="43d2ba31-3402-49c8-9577-c9bf341d2138">Term limits and a new code of conduct</h2>Biden's plan for the Supreme Court includes term limits that would mean a new justice was chosen every two years. In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Biden wrote that, "Term limits would help ensure that the court's membership changes with some regularity. That would make timing for court nominations more predictable and less arbitrary. It would reduce the chance that any single presidency radically alters the makeup of the court for generations to come."Biden also argued in The Post that "the court's current voluntary ethics code is weak and self-enforced," and that a binding, enforceable code of conduct should require justices "to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest."The <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ethics-rules-missing-word-should-shall-2023-11">court's current ethics code</a>, implemented in November, is not binding and does not contain any enforcement mechanism.Proposing both term limits and a stricter ethics code for justices would require the Republican-controlled House to not only allow a floor vote on the issue, but also to then pass it. Even if the House approved the bill, Republicans in the Senate could filibuster the bill, stopping it in its tracks.Democrats would need to throw out the filibuster — something they already lack the votes to do — to even bring the legislation to a vote.With powerful Republicans like Johnson already pushing back, getting all three of Biden's proposals implemented in the Supreme Court looks like a losing battle. But Biden's plan has already gotten support from Vice President and presumptive nominee Kamala Harris, all but guaranteeing that Democrats will use it on the campaign trail as a way to contrast against Trump.

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival' 

The <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi party</keyword> is set to announce the new <keyword id="19919270" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Delhi-Chief-Minister" source="keywords">Delhi Chief Minister</keyword> by 12 pm today after the party's legislative meeting in the national capital. According to the Aam Aadmi Party, the meeting will be held at the Chief Minister's residence today. Following this, <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> will meet the <keyword id="20976840" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lieutenant-Governor-VK-Saxena" source="keywords">Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena</keyword> at 4:30 p.m. today and the newly chosen leader of the legislative party will simultaneously stake a claim for the post of Chief Minister. Delhi Minister Saurabh Bharadwaj remained tight-lipped about who will succeed Arvind <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword> as Chief Minister, stating only that the successor could be either a current minister or an MLA. "It does not matter who sits on the CM chair because the mandate was for Arvind Kejriwal. The public chose Arvind Kejriwal. He has said that he will not sit on the CM chair until the people ask again but the chair belongs to Arvind Kejriwal for these and the next 5 years... One of us will sit on the chair until the elections take place. It will be similar to the way Bharat ruled in the absence of Lord Ram," Bharadwaj said. On being asked who will replace Arvind Kejriwal, Bharadwaj said, "It can be an MLA or any present minister. There will be a discussion with the MLAs today and the name may be decided". Kejriwal announced on Sunday that he would resign and would not resume the CM's post until the people of Delhi declared him "honest." He has also called for advancing polls in the national capital to November this year, ahead of the scheduled February elections. Kejriwal stated that if re-elected by the public, it would serve as a "certificate" of his honesty. He added that he would push for early elections, alongside those in Maharashtra. The announcement by the 54-year-old leader came two days after he was released from the <keyword id="20147871" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tihar-jail" source="keywords">Tihar jail</keyword> after being granted bail by the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> in a corruption case related to the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam. The apex court also imposed certain conditions on Kejriwal's release, including that he must refrain from making public comments about the case and must attend all hearings before the trial court unless exempted.

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

<keyword id="19903807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Elon-Musk" source="keywords">Elon Musk</keyword>'s satellite internet service, <keyword id="20034452" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Starlink" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Starlink" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Starlink">Starlink</keyword>, has announced that it will block access to the billionaire's social media platform, <keyword id="19959117" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="X" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="X" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="X">X</keyword>, in <keyword id="19935367" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Brazil" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Brazil" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Brazil">Brazil</keyword> in compliance with a recent ruling by the country's <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>. The decision comes after Brazil's top court ordered a nationwide ban on the platform. In a post on X on September 3, Starlink stated, "The Starlink team is doing everything possible to keep you connected. Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil." The company also noted that it is actively pursuing legal options to challenge the court's decision, which they argue violates the Brazilian constitution. The conflict began when Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered the freezing of Starlink's financial transactions after Musk's company failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country. On September 2, all five judges of Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ban on X, reinforcing the need for compliance with the nation's legal requirements. Starlink had initiated legal action to contest the order, calling it "illegal," but the court's decision to block access to X remains in effect. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his approval of the Supreme Court's ruling in an interview with CNN Brasil, stating that he was "satisfied" with the decision and that it sends a clear message about the rule of law. The situation escalated after Judge Moraes issued a directive on August 29, giving Musk 24 hours to appoint a legal representative for X in Brazil or face the suspension of the platform across the country. Starlink's compliance with the court's order to block access to X underscores the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges Musk's companies face in Brazil.

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

In a major setback to Delhi's <keyword id="19935664" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Aam-Aadmi-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Aam Aadmi Party" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Aam Aadmi Party">Aam Aadmi Party</keyword> government, the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday ruled that the law "expressly enables" the lieutenant governor to nominate <keyword id="22669982" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="aldermen" source="keywords">aldermen</keyword> to the <keyword id="19900879" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mcd" source="keywords">MCD</keyword> and he is not bound by the advice of the council of ministers in the matter. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala rejected the <keyword id="19925995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-government" source="keywords">Delhi government</keyword>'s plea challenging the LG's power to nominate 10 aldermen in the <keyword id="19907640" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Municipal-Corporation-of-Delhi" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Municipal Corporation of Delhi" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="Municipal Corporation of Delhi">Municipal Corporation of Delhi</keyword> without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The apex court pronounced its verdict on the Delhi government's plea after reserving it for nearly 15 months. In its ruling impacting the fraught relationship between the LG's office and the AAP-led Delhi government, the bench said the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act as amended in 1993 "expressly enables the LG to nominate persons having special knowledge to the corporation". It said the power expressed by the statute in the name of the LG, also seen in the context of other provisions, demonstrates the statutory scheme in which the powers and duties are distributed among authorities under the Act. "The context in which the power is located confirms that the LG is intended to act as per the mandate of the statute and not guided by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The power to be exercised is the statutory duty of the LG and not the executive power of the state. This is how we analysed the constitutional provisions," Justice Narasimha said while pronouncing the verdict on behalf of the bench. The bench said the statutory power under provision 3(3)(b)(1) which deals with nomination of persons having special knowledge was vested with the LG for the first time by the 1993 amendment of the DMC Act of 1957. The bench said the DMC Act as amended in 1993 recognises five authorities exercising the state's power and duties under the Act -- these are the Central government, the government of NCT, administrator, corporation and the commissioner. It said the amendment Act of 1993 carries out several amendments to the original DMC Act of 1957 by which the power, duties were allocated to the authorities depending on the function they perform under the law. The bench said by way of the amendment the power of nomination of aldermen was given to LG under the provision just like the power of nomination of MLAs was given to the speaker of the House. On May 17 last year, the top court had said that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen to the MCD will mean he can destabilise an elected civic body. The MCD has 250 elected and 10 nominated members. In December 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party defeated the <keyword id="19894848" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP" meta.hostid="345" meta.entityid="BJP">BJP</keyword> in the civic elections, winning 134 wards and ending the saffron party's 15-year run at the helm of the MCD. The BJP won 104 seats and the Congress finished a distant third with nine. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi government, had contended during the hearing that no separate powers have been accorded to the state government to nominate people to the MCD. For the past 30 years, the practice of the LG nominating aldermen on the aid and advice of the city government has been followed, he said. Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the LG's office, submitted that just because a practice has been followed for 30 years does not mean it is correct. The top court had observed that giving the LG the power to nominate aldermen will effectively mean that he can destabilise a democratically elected MCD because these aldermen get appointed to the standing committees and have voting power. Earlier, the top court had questioned the "source of power" of the LG under the Constitution and the law to nominate aldermen to the MCD without the aid and advice of the elected government. On May 12 last year, the top court observed that LG has to act on the "aid and advice" of the council of ministers of the Delhi government in nominating 10 aldermen to the MCD.

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible.

You Searched For "supreme court ayodhya ruling" and got 12 results

RFK Jr. to remain on the ballot in 2 swing states despite attempts to get himself removed, Supreme Court rules

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

Some Supreme Court justices scrutinized Nvidia's attempt to dodge a securities fraud lawsuit

Natalie Musumeci

Trump is granted "absolute immunity" for official acts in Supreme Court ruling

Insider

All personal laws related to women should be equal across all religions: NCW chief Rekha Sharma

ANI

All the ways Donald Trump wins from the Supreme Court immunity ruling

Insider

Joe Biden wants to rein in the Supreme Court, saying it's gone rogue after rulings on abortion, presidential immunity

Mia Jankowicz

You can now be prosecuted for unknowingly “auto-downloading” child porn. Here’re some safe browsing habits

BI India Bureau

Biden's plan to reform the Supreme Court is already 'dead on arrival'

Grace Eliza Goodwin

AAP to announce New Delhi CM's name at 12 noon today

ANI

Elon Musk's Starlink says it will block X in Brazil after court order

BI India Bureau

SC backs LG's right to nominate aldermen to MCD, setback for AAP govt

PTI

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides