I Know It When I See It Justice6 min read

I Know It When I See It Justice is a legal principle that dictates that a court should only rule on a matter if it has a firm understanding of what is being disputed. The principle is based on the idea that a court should only make a ruling if it can define the specific issues in dispute and has a clear understanding of the applicable law.

I Know It When I See It Justice is often invoked in cases where the law is unclear or where the facts of the case are in dispute. In such cases, a court will typically refuse to issue a ruling until it has a better understanding of the law and the facts of the case.

I Know It When I See It Justice is a commonly used principle in civil law cases. It is less commonly used in criminal law cases, where a court is more likely to issue a ruling even if it is not fully aware of all the relevant facts and law.

I Know It When I See It Justice is based on the principle of stare decisis, which dictates that a court should follow the rulings of earlier courts when there is no clear precedent on the issue.

What is the most important quote from the 1964 Jacobellis v Ohio case?

The most important quote from the 1964 Jacobellis v Ohio case is Justice Potter Stewart’s statement that “I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it.” This quote is important because it lays out the basis for the obscenity standard that is still used today.

When did Potter Stewart say Ethics is knowing the difference?

In a speech at the University of Chicago in 1959, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said that “ethics is knowing the difference.” In other words, ethics is about making informed and principled decisions, even in difficult situations.

Read also  How A Bill Becomes A Law Infographic

Stewart’s statement is a concise summary of one of the central ideas in ethical thinking: the principle of consequentialism. This principle holds that the morality of an act is determined by its consequences, not by its intentions. So, for example, an act that results in harm but was done with good intentions is still morally wrong, while an act that results in good consequences but was done with bad intentions is still morally good.

This principle is often difficult to apply in practice, but it is a valuable tool for ethical thinking. It helps us to consider the consequences of our actions, and to make decisions that will have the best possible outcome.

Was Potter Stewart a Republican?

Potter Stewart was born in Dayton, Ohio, on October 7, 1915. In 1952, he was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Stewart served on the Court for more than 18 years, retiring in 1981.

Stewart was known as a moderate conservative on the Court. He was often in the minority on 5-4 decisions, but was often able to sway his fellow justices to his point of view. He was a strong believer in the separation of powers and in the importance of the rule of law.

Stewart was also a strong supporter of free speech and freedom of the press. He wrote the majority opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States, which protected the right of the press to publish the Pentagon Papers.

Stewart was not a rigid conservative; he was willing to compromise and find common ground. For example, he was a strong supporter of the right to privacy, writing the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized contraception.

Read also  Important Social Justice Issues

In the area of civil rights, Stewart was a moderate. He voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, he did not believe in quotas or affirmative action, and he was opposed to busing to achieve racial integration.

So, was Potter Stewart a Republican? The answer is yes and no. Stewart was a conservative on many issues, but he was also willing to compromise and find common ground. He was not a rigid conservative, and he was not opposed to change. This made him somewhat difficult to pigeonhole, and it is probably why he was not always able to get his colleagues on the Court to agree with him.

Why is obscenity so hard to define?

Obscenity is hard to define because it is a subjective term. What one person finds obscene, another person may not. Additionally, what is considered obscene varies from culture to culture.

One definition of obscenity is that it is something that is indecent or offensive to most people. However, what is considered indecent or offensive varies from person to person. For example, some people may find certain jokes or comments obscene, while others may not.

Another definition of obscenity is that it is something that is sexual in nature and considered to be revolting or offensive. However, what is considered sexual in nature also varies from person to person. Some people may find any kind of sexual activity obscene, while others may only find certain activities obscene.

There is no single, definitive answer to the question of what obscenity is. It is a subjective term that is defined by each individual based on their own personal beliefs and values.

What was Potter Stewart’s most famous quote?

Potter Stewart was an influential figure in American politics, serving as a justice on the Supreme Court for over three decades. He is perhaps most famous, however, for his quote regarding the definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” This quote has been referenced time and time again in regards to the subjective nature of pornography and the difficulty in drawing a clear line between what is and is not pornographic.

Read also  How To Cite A Case Law

What happened in Jacobellis v Ohio?

On February 26, 1964, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jacobellis v. Ohio. The case revolved around the seizure and destruction of a copy of the Louis Malle film “Les Amants” (The Lovers) by the police in the town of Louisville, Ohio. The film, which depicted a brief nude scene, was judged obscene by a local grand jury and the Ohio state courts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of theater owner Harry Jacobellis and projectionist Alvin Freedman, ruling that the film was not obscene. In his majority opinion, Justice William Brennan wrote that “the motion picture is an art form and a form of communication” and that, while the film may have been offensive, it was not obscene.

The Jacobellis v. Ohio case is considered a landmark free speech case, and has been cited in subsequent Supreme Court decisions on First Amendment issues.

How did Justice Potter define obscenity?

Justice Potter Stewart famously said in 1964 that he couldn’t define obscenity, but he “knew it when he saw it.” Stewart’s definition of obscenity has been widely quoted and is still considered the standard today.

Stewart said that obscenity is “material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest.” In other words, it’s anything that stimulates sexual desire or arousal. This definition is still used today, and it applies to both written and visual material.

Stewart also said that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, meaning that it can be banned or censored. This is still the law today.