The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Justitia, symbol of the judiciary^[1][2] (statue at Shelby County Courthouse, Memphis, TN, United States)

The "Judiciary" (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case. This branch of the state is often tasked with ensuring equal justice under law. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "Supreme court" or "Constitutional court"), together with lower courts.

In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.

During last decades the judiciary became active in economic issues related with economic rights established by constitution because "economics may provide insight into questions that bear on the proper legal interpretation".^[3] Since many a country with a transitional political and economic system continues treating its constitution as an abstract legal document disengaged from the economic policy of the state, practice of judicial review of economic acts of executive and legislative branches began to grow.

In the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India for almost a decade had been encouraging public interest litigation on behalf of the poor and oppressed by using a very broad interpretation of several articles of the Indian Constitution.^[4]

Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. It is important to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through budget planning and various privileges), and the private.^[5]

The term "judiciary" is also used to refer collectively to the personnel, such as judges, magistrates and other adjudicators, who form the core of a judiciary (sometimes referred to as a "bench"), as well as the staffs who keep the system running smoothly.

History[link]

After the French Revolution, lawmakers stopped interpretation of law by judges, and the legislature was the only body permitted to interpret the law; this prohibition was later overturned by the Code Napoléon.^[6]

In civil law jurisdictions at present, judges interpret the law to about the same extent as in common law jurisdictions^{[citation needed]} – though it may be acknowledged in theory in a different manner than in the common law tradition which directly recognizes the limited power to make law. For instance, in France, the jurisprudence constante of the Court of Cassation or the Council of State is equivalent in practice with case law.

Various functions[link]

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

• In common or provinces^{[clarification needed]}, courts interpret law, including constitutions, statutes, and regulations. They also make law (but in a limited sense, limited to the facts of particular cases) based upon prior case law in areas where the legislature has not made law. For instance, the tort of negligence is not derived from statute law in most common law jurisdictions. The term common law refers to this kind of law.
• In civil law jurisdictions, courts interpret the law, but are, at least in theory, prohibited from creating law, and thus, still in theory, do not issue rulings more general than the actual case to be judged. In practice, jurisprudence plays the same role as case law^{[citation needed]}.
• In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws; in the US federal court system, federal cases are tried in trial courts, known as the US district courts, followed by appellate courts and then the Supreme Court. State courts, which try 98% of litigation,^[7] may have different names and organization; trial courts may be called "courts of common plea", appellate courts "superior courts" or "commonwealth courts".^[8] The judicial system, whether state or federal, begins with a court of first instance, is appealed to an appellate court, and then ends at the court of last resort.^[9]
• In France, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the Council of State for administrative cases, and the Court of Cassation for civil and criminal cases.
• In the People Republic of China, the final authority on the interpretation of the law is the National People's Congress.
• Other countries such as Argentina have mixed systems that include lower courts, appeals courts, a cassation court (for criminal law) and a Supreme Court. In this system the Supreme Court is always the final authority, but criminal cases have four stages, one more than civil law does. On the court sits a total of nine justices. This number has been changed several times.

See also[link]

• Bench (law)
• Constitutional economics
• Corruption
• Judicial independence
• Judicial review
• Legislature
• Rule According to Higher Law
• Rule of law

Further reading[link]

• Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1998). The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Feinberg, Kenneth, Jack Kress, Gary McDowell, and Warren E. Burger (1986). The High Cost and Effect of Litigation, 3 vols.
• Frank, Jerome (1985). Law and the Modern Mind. Birmingham, AL: Legal Classics Library.
• Levi, Edward H. (1949) An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Marshall, Thurgood (2001). Thurgood Marshall: His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions and Reminiscences. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
• McCloskey, Robert G., and Sanford Levinson (2005). The American Supreme Court, 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Miller, Arthur S. (1985). Politics, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Essays on the Future of Constitutional Theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Tribe, Laurence (1985). God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes Our History. New York: Random House.
• Zelermyer, William (1977). The Legal System in Operation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Notes[link]

Look up judiciary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

v t e Law Core subjects Administrative law Constitutional law Contract Criminal law Equity Evidence Law of obligations Procedure Civil Criminal Property law Public international law Public law Restitution Statutory law Tort Other subjects Admiralty law Aviation law Banking law Bankruptcy Commercial law Companies law Competition law Conflict of laws Consumer protection Cyberlaw Election law Energy law Entertainment law Environmental law Family law Financial regulation Health law Immigration law Intellectual property International criminal law International human rights Labour law Military law Product liability Space law Sports law Tax law Trust law Unjust enrichment Wills Sources of law Constitution Custom Decree Edict Executive order Delegated legislation Rulemaking Precedent Case law Statute Legal systems Canon law Civil law Common law Chinese law Jewish law Roman law Russian law Sharia Socialist law Statutory law Xeer Legal theory Critical legal studies Comparative law Economic analysis History International legal theory Philosophy Sociology Legal institutions Bureaucracy Civil society Election commission Executive Judiciary Legal profession Legislature Military Police Category Index Outline Portal

Megyn Marie Kelly (born November 18, 1970), formerly known as Megyn Kendall,^[1] is an American journalist and news anchor employed by the Fox News Channel. Kelly currently hosts America Live from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM EST live from the network’s New York City headquarters. She occasionally also co-hosts on America's Newsroom along with Bill Hemmer during the Fox Channel Network's Morning Line-Up at 10:00 AM EST. Since 2007, the two have hosted Fox News Channel's New Year's Eve special every year.

Personal life and education[link]

Kelly was nine years of age when her parents moved to Delmar, New York from Syracuse, New York. At Bethlehem Central High School, she played on the basketball and field hockey teams, as well as captaining the cheerleading squad. Kelly's father, who was on the staff of the University at Albany, died when she was 15.^[2] After high school, she pursued an undergraduate degree in Political Science from Syracuse University and later pursued a J.D. from Albany Law School; she served as an associate editor of the Albany Law Review while enrolled at Albany Law School.^[3][4][5] Kelly's first marriage to Daniel Kendall, an anesthesiologist, ended in divorce in 2006.^[6][7] In 2008 she married Douglas Brunt, the President and CEO of Authentium, at Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York.^[8] They have two children: Edward Yates Brunt (September 25, 2009) and Yardley Evans Brunt (April 15, 2011).^[9][10]

Career in law[link]

Following her graduation from Albany Law School in 1995^[11], Kelly practiced law for nine years at Jones Day^[12] She first worked as an associate in the Chicago office of Bickel & Brewer LLP during which the time when she co-wrote an article for the American Bar Association's Litigation journal entitled "The Conflicting Roles of Lawyer as Director."^[13]

Career in journalism[link]

Kelly moved to Washington, D.C. where she was hired by the ABC News affiliate WJLA-TV as a General Assignment Reporter.^[14] While at WJLA-TV she covered significant national and local events including major national events such as the 2004 Presidential Election and the D.C. Sniper cases.^[15] She then applied for a job at Fox Entertainment Group in 2004.^[15] Prior to her anchor role on the Fox News Network she served as a General Assignment Reporter located in Washington D.C where she provided live coverage of the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John Roberts; she reported on the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.^[15]

Kelly contributed legal segments for Special Report with Brit Hume and hosted her own legal segment, "Kelly's Court," during Weekend Live; she frequently appears on The O'Reilly Factor and occasionally fills in for Greta Van Susteren on On the Record. Most of her reporting focused on legal and political matters. At this time she occasionally contributed as an anchor but she was often stationed as a substitute anchor, mostly on the weekends.^[16] On February 1, 2010, Kelly hosted her own show, America Live, replacing Fox News’ previous show The Live Desk co-hosted by Martha MacCallum and Trace Gallagher. In turn, MacCallum took Kelly's position on America’s Newsroom. She has been a regular guest-panelist on Fox News' late-night satire program Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld. Kelly's "America Live" program has been up 20% in total viewers (averaging 1,293,000) and up 4% in the 25–54 demographic (averaging 268,000).^[17] On November 23 Megyn Kelly made the following statement about a Police officer who had used pepper spray on protestors at UC Davis: "It's a food product, essentially", this episode was satirized on Funny or Die, and also went on to generate an Internet Meme.^[18][19][20]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Bio on FoxNews.com
• Megyn Kelly at the Internet Movie Database
• Megyn Kelly on Twitter

David Drummond may refer to:

• David Drummond (Google), Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer of Google
• David Drummond (politician), a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly in 1920
• David Drummond (academic)
• David Drummond, 2nd Lord Drummond (c. 1515–1571), see Lord Drummond (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page lists articles about people with the same name. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Vincent Bugliosi ( /ˌbuːliˈoʊsi/; born August 18, 1934) is an American attorney and author, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson and other defendants accused of the Tate-LaBianca murders, and for defending Stephanie Stearns in the Sea Wind murders of 1974. His most recent books are Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007), The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (2008), and Divinity of Doubt: The God Question (2011).

Personal life and education[link]

Bugliosi, who is of Italian ancestry, was born in Hibbing, Minnesota. Bugliosi is a graduate of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, which he attended on a tennis scholarship. In 1964, he received his law degree from UCLA, where he was president of his graduating class.

He is married with two children: Wendy and Vince Jr. He often refers to his wife, Gail, in his books, referencing her understanding and patience with him. He has also stated that he is an agnostic, although open to the ideas of deism.^[1]

Manson prosecution[link]

As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of his "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases.^[2] He later wrote, jointly with Curt Gentry, a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. The book went on to become the biggest selling true crime book in publishing history with over 7 million copies sold.^[3]

Political candidate[link]

In 1972, Bugliosi ran for Los Angeles County District Attorney against longtime incumbent Joseph Busch. Joseph Gellman was his legal counsel for this campaign. Bugliosi narrowly lost the campaign. Bugliosi ran again in 1976, after Busch resigned, but lost to interim District Attorney John Van de Kamp.

Legal author and commentator[link]

Bugliosi subsequently became an outspoken critic of the media and lawyers and judges in major trials. In his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he made the case that President George W. Bush should be prosecuted for murder, based on evidence showing that he had lied to the American people into waging a war of aggression.

O. J. Simpson case[link]

Bugliosi wrote a bestselling book, Outrage, on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, in which Bugliosi asserted Simpson's guilt, and criticized the work of the district attorney, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and Judge Lance Ito; he used these profiles to illustrate broader problems in American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of judges.

Bugliosi was very critical of prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden and pointed out what he regarded as glaring mistakes that they made during the trial. He faulted them, for example, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. Bugliosi said that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that there was a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit found in the Bronco, of which the jury was never informed.

Bugliosi took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the tape of Simpson's statement to police about cutting his finger the night of the murders.

Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly African-American jury that Simpson had little impact in the black community and had done nothing to help blacks less fortunate than him. Bugliosi pointed out that, although the prosecutors knew that Simpson's race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense "opened the door" by trying to paint Simpson falsely as a "leader" in the black community, the evidence to the contrary should have been presented, to prevent the jury from allowing it to bias their verdict.

In several books, Bugliosi has written that, when preparing a case for trial, he starts with his final summation. In this book, he stated that, if he had been prosecuting the case, he would have put at least 500 hours of preparation into his final summation, and that it was obvious that Clark and Darden had waited until the night before to prepare for it.

Bugliosi wrote at length about the allegations that LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman had planted a bloody glove in order to frame Simpson. He argued that in order for Fuhrman to do this, there would have had to have been a broad-reaching conspiracy between Fuhrman and the other officers who worked the case. Bugliosi pointed out that it was highly improbable that Fuhrman and anyone else involved in the case would have tried to frame Simpson, as California law of the time provided that anyone who planted evidence in a death penalty case could have faced the death penalty themselves.

Bill Clinton[link]

Bugliosi criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones. He wrote the book, No Island of Sanity, in which he argued that the right of a president to be unburdened by a private lawsuit outweighed Paula Jones's interest in having her case brought to trial immediately.

George W. Bush[link]

Bugliosi condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Bush v. Gore decision that decided the 2000 presidential election.

Louis Posner of Voter March, with Vincent Bugliosi (left) at New York City Speaking Tour

He wrote a lengthy criticism of the case for The Nation titled "None Dare Call It Treason," which he later expanded into a book titled The Betrayal of America. During 2001 and 2002, Lou Posner of Voter March organized speaking tours in New York City and Voter West in California for Vincent Bugliosi. Some of his criticisms were depicted in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave.

He also believes that George W. Bush should be charged with the murders of more than 4,000 American soldiers as well as more than 100,000 Iraqis who have died in Iraq since the American-led invasion of that country, because of his belief that Bush launched the invasion under false pretenses. In his book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, he laid out that evidence and outlined what questions he would ask Bush at a potential murder trial. Bugliosi testified at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on 25 July 2008, at which he urged impeachment proceedings for Bush.

Kennedy assassination[link]

In 1986, Bugliosi played the part of prosecutor in an unscripted 21-hour mock television trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. His legal opponent, representing Oswald, was the well-known attorney, Gerry Spence. The program, sponsored by London Weekend Television, required extensive preparations by Bugliosi and inspired him to later write a comprehensive book on the subject of the assassination. His 1612-page book (with a CD-ROM containing an additional 958 pages of endnotes and 170 pages of source notes), Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was published in May 2007. His book examined the JFK assassination in detail and drew on a variety of sources; his findings were in line with those of the Warren Report, which had concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of the 35th President. He called Reclaiming History his "magnum opus."^[4]

The title of Reclaiming History derived from Bugliosi's belief that the history of the Kennedy assassination has been hijacked by conspiracy theories, the popularity of which, he asserts, has a pernicious and ongoing effect on American thought:

"Unless this fraud is finally exposed, the word believe will be forgotten by future generations and John F. Kennedy will have unquestionably become the victim of a conspiracy. Belief will have become unchallenged fact, and the faith of the American people in their institutions further eroded. If that is allowed to happen, Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who hated his country and everything for which it stands, will have triumphed even beyond his intent on that fateful day in November."

- Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p.1011.

Style of writing[link]

Bugliosi does not own a computer and at one time did all his research through library microfilm archives.^[4] More recently, he has relied on his virtual secretary, Rosemary Newton, to help with these tasks.^[4] He also writes his books entirely by hand; Newton later transcribes his long-hand texts.^[4]

Works[link]

Books[link]

• Helter Skelter (with Curt Gentry) (1974) (Edgar Award, 1975, Best Fact Crime book)
• Till Death Us Do Part: A True Murder Mystery (with Ken Hurwitz) (1978) (Edgar Award, 1979, Best Fact Crime book)
• Shadow of Cain (with Ken Hurwitz) (1981)
• Lullaby and Good Night (with William Stadiem) (1987)
• And the Sea Will Tell (with Bruce B. Henderson) (1991)
• Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder (1996)
• The Phoenix Solution: Getting Serious About Winning America's Drug War (1996)
• No Island of Sanity: Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton — The Supreme Court on Trial (1998)
• The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (2001)
• Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007)(Edgar Award, 2009, Best Fact Crime book)
• The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (2008)
• Divinity of Doubt: The God Question (2011)

In film[link]

Bugliosi has had many of his books adapted to the screen, and appears as a character in several of them.

• Helter Skelter (1976 film) (portrayed by George DiCenzo)
• And the Sea Will Tell (1991 TV) (portrayed by Richard Crenna)
• Till Death Us Do Part (1992 TV) (portrayed by Arliss Howard)
• Helter Skelter (2004) (portrayed by Bruno Kirby)

Articles[link]

• "None Dare Call It Treason", The Nation, February 5, 2001.

References[link]

External links[link]

• VIDEO: Bugliosi talks with Investigation Discovery about the Manson Family murders. July 2, 2008
• Vincent Bugliosi profile, NNDB
• Vincent Bugliosi video interview with the American Book Tour on the Kennedy Assassination
• Vincent Bugliosi Interview on Democracy Now! regarding The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
• Interview on TYT.
• In Depth interview with Bugliosi, November 4, 2007
• Vincent Bugliosi at the Internet Movie Database