0
Daniel Webster (1782-1852) was a famous statesman and constitutional lawyer who argued before the US Supreme Court and won some of the nation's earliest landmark cases (see below). Some of these victories may have been aided by the fact that they involved representing citizens against state interests before the Marshall Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was a Federalist who believed in limiting states' rights. Nevertheless, Daniel Webster was consider brilliant, and a superb orator.
He also served twice as Secretary of State, under William Henry Harrison, from 1841-1843, and Millard Fillmore, from 1850-1852, and was elected to seats on the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Daniel Webster's Notable Supreme Court Cases:
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 518 (1819) (represented Dartmouth)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819) (represented McCulloch)
Cohens v. Virgina, 19 US 264 (1821) (represented Cohens)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824) (represented Gibbons)
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Lao
Blake
MaxineAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What president allowed women to argue cases before the Supreme Court?
Rutherford B. Hayes signed such a bill in March of 1879. The bill was called "An Act to Relieve Certain Legal Disabilities of Women," thus enabling women to practice in the federal court system. It was passed after the Supreme Court decided in 1876 to bar women from arguing cases before them.Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood became the first woman admitted to the US Supreme Court bar later that year.
Can any lawyer present a case before the US Supreme Court?
Lawyers who are members of the Supreme Court Bar may argue at bar; other lawyers may be given leave to argue pro hac vice(for this occasion), as provided in Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice1. An attorney not admitted to practice in the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or the District of Columbia for the requisite three years, but otherwise eligible for admission to practice in this Court under Rule 5.1 , may be permitted to argue pro hac vice.2. An attorney qualified to practice in the courts of a foreign state may be permitted to argue pro hac vice.3. Oral argument pro hac vice is allowed only on motion of the counsel of record for the party on whose behalf leave is requested. The motion shall state concisely the qualifications of the attorney who is to argue pro hac vice. It shall be filed with the Clerk, in the form required by Rule 21 , no later than the date on which the respondent's or appellee's brief on the merits is due to be filed and it shall be accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29 .
How does Zinn argue that the Supreme Court cannot possibly act in a neutral fashion?
Zinn doesn't think that the court can be fair or neutral when the members were chosen by the president, ratified by the senate, and were made up of former wealthy lawyers and people that usually came from the upper class.
Is the Attorney General in the US Supreme Court?
No. The U.S. Attorney General is head of the Department of Justice and the top law enforcement officer for the United States, but does not typically argue before the Supreme Court, except under special circumstances. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder. The U.S. Solicitor General (and staff attorneys), who is also a member of the Department of Justice, represents the government before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, while not a true member of the Court, is sometimes called "the tenth Justice."
If supreme court justice were to argue using a precedent what might he or she do?
Site other cases that came to similar conclusions
