Theodore Alexander McKee is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He served on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. McKee received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the State University of New York at Cortland in 1969 and earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law where he was an honor student graduating magna cum laude in 1975. McKee was in private practice in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 1975 to 1977. From 1977 to 1980 he served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, he began in the General Crimes Unit, moved to the Narcotics and Firearms Unit, worked in the Political Corruption Unit. In his first year as an AUSA, McKee investigated allegations of police brutality before a special grand jury, as part of a nationwide probe into police brutality by the United States Civil Rights Commission. In 1980, McKee became a Deputy City Solicitor in the Philadelphia City Solicitor's office, where he remained until 1983 when he became General Counsel for the Philadelphia Parking Authority.
In 1984, McKee was elected as a Judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, where he served until 1994. President Clinton nominated Judge McKee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on March 22, 1994, to a seat vacated by Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr.. McKee was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 8, 1994, received his commission on June 9, 1994, he served as Chief Judge from May 6, 2010 to October 1, 2016. McKee is an elected member of the American Law Institute and serves as an Adviser on ALI's project to revise the Sentencing provisions of the Model Penal Code. Theodore McKee at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U. S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors, it has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction; the court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.
According to federal statute, the court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, all of whom are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office; each justice has a single vote in deciding. When the chief justice is in the majority, he decides. In modern discourse, justices are categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. While a far greater number of cases in recent history have been decided unanimously, decisions in cases of the highest profile have come down to just one single vote, exemplifying the justices' alignment according to these categories; the Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D. C, its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court of the United States Police. It was while debating the division of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary.
Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea. Early on, some delegates argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature, it was proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the Framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish", they delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Template:Judicial branch as a whole. The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789; the Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital and would be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices.
The act divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district. After signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, John Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Harrison, declined to serve. In his place, Washington nominated James Iredell; the Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City the U. S. capital. A second session was held there in August 1790; the earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791. When the national capital moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well.
After meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall. Under Chief Justices Jay and Ellsworth, the Court heard few cases; as the Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was made by two-thirds. However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789; the court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia, reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment; the court's power and prestige grew during the Marshall Court. Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states; the Marshall Court ended the practice of each justice issuin
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 is a United States labor law requiring covered employers to provide employees with job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. These include pregnancy, foster care placement of a child, personal or family illness, or family military leave; the FMLA is administered by Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor. The FMLA was intended "to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families." The Act allows eligible employees to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period to attend to the serious health condition of the employee, spouse or child, or for pregnancy or care of a newborn child, or for adoption or foster care of a child. In order to be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must have been at the business at least 12 months, worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles; the FMLA covers both public- and private-sector employees, but certain categories of employees are excluded, including elected officials and their personal staff members.
The bill was a major part of President Bill Clinton's agenda in his first term. Rapid growth in the workforce, including a large number of women joining, suggested a necessary federal regulation that would support the working class who desired to raise a family and/or required time off for illness related situations. President Clinton signed the bill into law on February 5, 1993 to take effect on August 5, 1993; the United States Congress passed the Act with the understanding that “it is important for the development of children and the family unit that fathers and mothers be able to participate in early childrearing … the lack of employment policies to accommodate working parents can force individuals to choose between job security and parenting”. It stressed the Act was intended to provide leave protection for individuals “in a manner that accommodates the legitimate interests of employers”; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 applies to employers of 50 or more employees in 20 weeks of the last year.
Employees must have worked over 1250 hours in the last year. However, employees "at which such employer employs less than 50 employees if the total number of employees employed by that employer within 75 miles of that worksite is less than 50." A worksite includes a public agency, including schools and state and federal employers. The 50 employee threshold does not apply to local educational agencies. There are special hours rules for certain airline employees. Employees must give notice of 30 days to employers if birth or adoption is "foreseeable", for serious health conditions if practicable. Treatments should be arranged "so as not to disrupt unduly the operations of the employer" according to medical advice. Along with the 30 day notice, there are other requirements to be made when seeking the FMLA rights. If an employee wants to leave the first time using ones FMLA rights, the person must first claim the Family and Medical Leave Act. In the case that an employee were to leave again under the FMLA act, the same process must proceed.
With the release of employees, there is a certification as well. The absence of an employee due to the conditions he or she may have may require a certification as proof of the verification of absence. In order to certify the leave of an employee, the employer may ask for other requirements. An example of these requirements are requiring multiple medical opinions. All of these prerequisites are at the employer's expense. There are certain rules that may apply to those who work at local education agencies. Employees can have up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for child birth, adoption, to care for a close relative in poor health, or because of an employee's own poor health. In full, the purposes for leave are: to care for a new child, whether for the birth, the adoption, or placement of a child in foster care. Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, daughter, parent, or next of kin.
Child care leave should be taken in one lump. If a father and mother have the same employer, they must share their leave, in effect halving each person's rights, if the employer so chooses. Employers must provide benefits during the unpaid leave. Under §2652 states are empowered to provide "greater family or medical leave rights". Since 2008, the US Department of Labor, allowed the spouse, child, or parent of an active duty military member, deployed across seas for 12 or more months to take up to 12 weeks of leave. A military caregiver provision was added that would allow a caregiver to take up to 26 weeks of leave in order to care for a military member who requires medical attention for acute or ongoing conditions. Under §2612 an employer can make an employee substitute the right to 12 unpaid weeks of leave for "accrued paid vacation l
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is one of the original 13 federal judiciary districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. It sat in Independence Hall in Philadelphia as the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, is now located at the James Byrne Courthouse at 601 Market Street in Philadelphia. There are Eastern District federal courtrooms in Philadelphia, Allentown and Easton; the Court's jurisdiction includes Philadelphia, as well as Berks, Chester, Lancaster, Lehigh and Northampton counties. The district is a part of the Third Circuit, appeals are taken to that Circuit; the current Chief Judge for the Eastern Pennsylvania District Court is Judge Juan Ramon Sanchez. The people in the district are represented by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania William M. McSwain; the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania was one of the original 13 courts established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat.
73, on September 24, 1789. It was subdivided on April 1818, by 3 Stat. 462, into the Eastern and Western Districts to be headquartered in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, respectively. Portions of these districts were subsequently subdivided into the Middle District on March 2, 1901, by 31 Stat. 880. At the time of its initial subdivision, presiding judge Richard Peters Jr. was reassigned to only the Eastern District. As of October 24, 2018 Chief judges have administrative responsibilities with respect to their district court. Unlike the Supreme Court, where one justice is nominated to be chief, the office of chief judge rotates among the district court judges. To be chief, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, have not served as chief judge. A vacancy is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges; the chief judge serves until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position.
When the office was created in 1948, the chief judge was the longest-serving judge who had not elected to retire on what has since 1958 been known as senior status or declined to serve as chief judge. After August 6, 1959, judges could not remain chief after turning 70 years old; the current rules have been in operation since October 1, 1982. Alexander Dallas Charles Jared Ingersoll George M. Dallas Henry D. Gilpin John M. Read William M. Meredith Thomas M. Pettit James M. Beck Joseph Whitaker Thompson James Cullen Ganey David W. Marston Peter F. Vaira, Jr. Edward S. G. Dennis Jr. Michael M. Baylson Michael R. Stiles Pat Meehan Laurie Magid Michael L. Levy Zane David Memeger Louis D. Lappen William M. McSwain Courts of Pennsylvania List of United States federal courthouses in Pennsylvania Official site Works by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Project Gutenberg Works by or about United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania at Internet Archive
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served since January 31, 2006. Raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey and educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito served as U. S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit before joining the Supreme Court, he is the 110th Justice, the second Italian American, the eleventh Roman Catholic to serve on the court. Alito is considered "one of the most conservative justices on the Court", he has described himself as a "practical originalist." Alito's majority opinions in landmark cases include McDonald v. Chicago, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Janus v. AFSCME. Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey, the son of Samuel A. Alito, Sr. an Italian immigrant, Rose Fradusco, an Italian-American. Alito's father, now deceased, earned a masters degree at Rutgers University and was a high school teacher and the first Director of the New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, a state government position he held from 1952 to 1984.
Alito's mother is a retired schoolteacher. Alito grew up in New Jersey, a suburb of Trenton, he graduated from Steinert High School in Hamilton Township as the class valedictorian, graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1972 before attending Yale Law School, where he served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal and earned a Juris Doctor in 1975. At Princeton, Alito chaired a student conference in 1971 called "The Boundaries of Privacy in American Society" which, among other things, supported curbs on domestic intelligence gathering and anticipated the need for a statute and a court to oversee national security surveillance; the conference report itself called for the decriminalization of sodomy, urged for an end to discrimination against gays in hiring by employers. "Though Alito's name is attached to the chair's report, it remains unclear to what extent the report represented his personal opinions. Alumni, who served as'commissioners' for the junior conference Alito chaired, offered conflicting information on how best to interpret the report."
Alito led the American Whig-Cliosophic Society's Debate Panel during his time at Princeton. He avoided Princeton's eating clubs. While a sophomore at Princeton, Alito received a low lottery number, 32, in the Selective Service drawing on December 1, 1969. In 1970, he became a member of the school's Army ROTC program, attending a six-week basic training camp that year at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Alito was a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, formed in October 1972 at least in part to oppose Princeton's decisions regarding admitting women. Apart from Alito's written 1985 statement of membership of CAP on a job application, which he says was truthful, there is no other documentation of Alito's involvement with or contributions to the group. Alito has cited the banning and subsequent treatment of ROTC by the university as his reason for belonging to CAP. At Princeton, Alito was "almost alone" in his familiarity with the writings of John Marshall Harlan II and was much influenced by the course on constitutional interpretation taught by Walter F. Murphy his faculty adviser.
During his senior year at Princeton, Alito moved out of New Jersey for the first time to study in Italy, where he wrote his thesis on the Italian legal system. Graduating in 1972, Alito left a sign of his lofty aspirations in his yearbook, which said that he hoped to "eventually warm a seat on the Supreme Court". After graduating from Princeton, Alito was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U. S. Army Signal assigned to the United States Army Reserve. At Yale, Alito was a classmate of future-Dean Anthony T. Kronman and one year behind future Justice Clarence Thomas. Following his graduation from Yale Law School, Alito served on active duty from September to December 1975; the remainder of his time in the Army was served in the inactive Reserves. He was a captain when he received an honorable discharge in 1980. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1975, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, Alito clerked for Third Circuit appeals judge Leonard I. Garth in Newark, New Jersey in 1976 and 1977.
He was not hired. Between 1977 and 1981, Alito was District of New Jersey. There he served under U. S. Attorney, now Federal Circuit Judge, Maryanne Trump Barry. While an Assistant U. S. Attorney for New Jersey, he prosecuted many cases involving organized crime. From 1981 to 1985, Alito was Assistant to U. S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee. In that capacity he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court for the federal government. In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the Supreme Court ruled against Charles Fried after he rejected a memo by Alito urging the Solicitor General to avoid directly attacking the constitutional right to an abortion. Alito lost only two of the cases. From 1985 to 1987, Alito was Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Charles J. Cooper in the Office of Legal Counsel during the tenure of Attorney General Edwin Meese. John F. Manning worked under Alito there. Between 1986 and 1987, Alito authored nearly 470 pages of memorandums, in which he argued for expanding his client's law enforcement and personnel authorities.
In his 1985 application for Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alito espoused conservative views, naming William F. Buckley, J
A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a lawful proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a panel of judges makes all decisions. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in all common law lawful systems, juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States makes routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket, but true civil jury trials are entirely absent elsewhere in the world; some civil law jurisdictions, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise. The availability of a trial by jury in American jurisdictions varies; because the United States legal system separated from that of the English one at the time of the American Revolution, the types of proceedings that use juries depends on whether such cases were tried by jury under English common law at that time rather than the methods used in English courts now.
For example, at the time, English "courts of law" tried cases of torts or private law for monetary damages using juries, but "courts of equity" that tried civil cases seeking an injunction or another form of non-monetary relief did not. As a result, this practice continues in American civil laws, but in modern English law, only criminal proceedings and some inquests are to be heard by a jury; the use of jury trials, which evolved within common law systems rather than civil law systems, has had a profound impact on the nature of American civil procedure and criminal procedure rules if a bench trial is contemplated in a particular case. In general, the availability of a jury trial if properly demanded has given rise to a system in which fact finding is concentrated in a single trial rather than multiple hearings, appellate review of trial court decisions is limited. Jury trials are of far less importance in countries. Ancient Athens had a mechanism, called dikastaí, to assure that no one could select jurors for their own trial.
For normal cases, the courts were made up of dikastai of up to 500 citizens. For capital cases—those that involved death, loss of liberty, loss of civil rights, or seizure of property—the trial was before a jury of 1,001 to 1,501 dikastai. In such large juries, they rule by majority. Juries were appointed by lot. Jurists cast a ceramic disk with an axle in its middle: the axle was either hollow or solid, thus the way they voted was kept secret because the jurists would hold their disk by the axle by thumb and forefinger, thus hiding whether its axle was hollow or solid. Since Periclean times, jurists were compensated for their sitting in court, with the amount of one day's wages; the institution of trial by jury was ritually depicted by Aeschylus in the Eumenides, the third and final play of his Oresteia trilogy. In the play, the innovation is brought about by the goddess Athena, who summons twelve citizens to sit as jury; the god Apollo takes part in the trial as the advocate for the defendant Orestes and the Furies as prosecutors for the slain Clytemnestra.
In the event the jury is split six to six, Athena dictates that in such a case, the verdict should henceforth be for acquittal From the beginning of the republic and in the majority of civil cases towards the end of the empire, there were tribunals with the characteristics of the jury, the Roman judges being civilian and not professional. Capital trials were held in front of juries composed of hundreds or thousands of people in the commitias or centuries, the same as in Roman trials. Roman law provided for the yearly selection of judices, who would be responsible for resolving disputes by acting as jurors, with a praetor performing many of the duties of a judge. High government officials and their relatives were barred from acting as judices, due to conflicts of interest; those found guilty of serious crimes were barred as were gladiators for hire, who were hired to resolve disputes through trial by combat. The law was as follows: "The peregrine praetor within the next ten days after this law is passed by the people or plebs shall provide for the selection of 450 persons in this State who have or have had a knight's census... provided that he does not select a person, or has been plebeian tribune, triumvir capitalis, military tribune in any of the first four legions, or triumvir for granting and assigning lands, or, or has been in the Senate, or who has fought or shall fight as a gladiator for hire... or, condemned by the judicial process and a public trial whereby he cannot be enrolled in the Senate, or, less than thirty or more than sixty years of age, or who does not have his residence in the city of Rome or within one mile of it, or, the father, brother, or son of any above-described magistrate, or, the father, brother, or son of a person, or has been a member of the Senate, or, overseas."
A Swabian ordinance of 1562 called for the summons of jurymen, various methods were in use in Emmendingen and Oberkirch. Hauenstein's charter of 1442 secured the right to be tried in all cases by 24 fellow equals, in Friburg the jury was composed of 30 citizens and councilors; the modern jury trial was first introduced in the Rhenish provinc