you know that everything is by the will of the supreme consciousness. it is also a blessing for him in his soul that fixes all feelings, peace of mind, it seems that you are the happiest person on this earth. hope , security, contentment and inner peace are the fruits that a believer reaps, full faith, and in consciousness and soul. a muslim is always pleased with allah almighty and in whatever situation he finds himself, in whatever situation he finds himself, he is always pleased with the almighty creator, for he believes in his mercy and relies on him, if allah does not answer prayer momentarily, then even in this wisdom is hidden above, the virus does not forget that the almighty will ultimately reward him in both worlds, because he rewards the patient and he does not break his promises. we also, following the example of the prophets and messengers, should in our words and deeds call only for the good, and for this it is important to be the bearer of good qualities ourselves, not only in words, but with all our hearts to follow, but also with all ou

supreme court justice. in 2005 it was john roberts turn, and together these two men, these two justices have made ending race consciousness in american law whether in affirmative action or voting rights, they have made that one central causes of the court. >> the u.s. supreme court today ended its 2007 term with a history making ruling. the court made it much tougher for school districts to control the mixri of children in americ classrooms based on race. the court said deciding on a student d body in that way is n allowed under the constitution. >> so theyun tried in 2000 and tried again in 2013 and then again in 2014. but today -- today they succeed. roberts and thomas joined by the court's four other conservative justices voted to effectively strike down race conscious admissions. in a 6-3 ruling the supreme court found race admissions program at harvard and the university of north carolina, they found them unconstitutional in violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. chief justice roberts wrote the harvard and unc admissions programs cannot be reconciled with thebe equal protection clause. both

diligently urge people to obey the supreme court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in public schools excuse me, at first glance, it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. one might well ask quote how can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others, unquote? the answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws. just and unjust. i would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. one is only one has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. conversely, one is a moral response to ability to disobey unjust laws. i would agree with saint augustine that quote an unjust law is no law at all. unquote. now what is the difference between the two? how does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? a just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of god. an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law to put it in the term in terms of saint thomas aquinas. an unjust law is, a human law that is not rooted in eternal law or in natural law. any law that uplifts human personality is just any that degrades human personality is unjust. all segregation statutes are unjust b

supreme court and the ambivalent constitution. i taught that wow. yeah, his current research explores the influence of historical consciousness on constitutional thinking as well as the nature of constitutional change. over time to my left is dr. jane manners who has been at temple university law school since 2021 and holds a court courtesy appointment as affiliated faculty in the history department in addition to her 2018 phd from princeton university. she merely has a ba and jd from harvard university. she has published in the fordham law review the columbia law review has written for the new york times the washington post and it goes on and on after law school. she clerked for chief judge mark l wolf of the us district court in the district of massachusetts and was named a prior scholar by the american society for legal history. julian mortensen is seated at the end of the table and he holds a jd from stanford law. he clerked for supreme court just david souter julian was lead counsel in a pre-obergefell suit that required michigan to recognize the marriages of more than 300 same-sex couples. he was lead a pellet council for the arab american civil