what is the name of suriname international airport

Johan Adolf Pengel International Airport (IATA: PBM, ICAO: SMJP), also known as Paramaribo-Zanderij International Airport, and locally referred to simply as JAP, is an airport located in the town of Zanderij and hub for airline carrier Surinam Airways, 45 kilometres (28Â mi) south of Paramaribo. It is the larger of Suriname's two international airports,[2] the other being Zorg en Hoop with scheduled flights to Guyana, and is operated by Airport Management, Ltd./ NV Luchthavenbeheer.

Prior to World War II, Zandery Airport was a Pan American World Airways (PAA) stop. In 1928 Pan American World Airways started mail flights from Miami to Paramaribo, the capital of the then Dutch colony Suriname. Pan American World Airways used Sikorsky S-38 amphibians. Rich and famous Americans, mostly aviators, visited Suriname.[3] On 24 March 1934 female pilot Guggenheim and male pilot Russel Thaw had to make an emergency landing near the Nieuwe Haven, because they could not find Zanderij airfield. The Lockheed airplane was so severely damaged that it was shipped back to the USA. On 16 April 1934 female aviator Laura Ingalls landed in a single engine airplane, the Lockheed Air Express at Zanderij in the first solo flight around South America in a landplane. The KLM tri-motor Fokker F-XVIII, named the SNIP, made a trans-atlantic crossing from Amsterdam via Paramaribo to Curaçao, carrying mail. The trip of 12,200 km (more than 4,000 over water) landed 8 days after take-off from Schiphol, on 22 December 1934 at Hato Airport. Captain was J.J. Hongdong, co-pilot/navigator J.J. van Balkom, engineer L.D. Stolk, wireless operator S. v.d. Molen. The route was from Amsterdam via Marseille, Alicante, Casablanca, Cabo Verde, Paramaribo and Caracas.[4] The SNIP landed at Zanderij Field on 20 December 1934 after a first trans-atlantic crossing of 3600 km, dubbed "the Christmas Mail-flight", directly from Porto Praia. However, the Snip flight did not inaugurate a regular KLM trans-Atlantic service. In January 1937 William Henry Vanderbilt III landed in a baby Clipper Sikorsky S-38 at Zanderij with wife and friends The Flying Hutchinsons. On 3 June 1937 aviation pioneer Amelia Earhart landed at Zanderij with a Lockheed Model 10 Electra at local time 2.38 P.M. The navigator was a retired PAA aviator Fred Noonan.[5] This was on their second attempt of a "World Flight" en route from Miami to Natal and then transatlantic to Dakar, Senegal.[6] They stayed overnight at the Palace Hotel in Paramaribo and left Zanderij again on Friday 4 June 1937 for Fortaleza, Brazil.[7] One month later they disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean near Howland Island.[8] On 16 March 1938 two pilots Whitney and Harmon made an emergency landing with their Beechcraft on an airstrip near the Eerste Rijweg. They could not find Zanderij Airfield. In 1938 the KLM started a weekly service between Paramaribo and Willemstad (Curaçao) with a twin engined Lockheed L-14 Super Electra able to carry 12 passengers and named MEEUW (PJ-AIM). Mail arrived much faster at Curaçao than with PAA, but the service was no commercial success.[9] On 11 May 1939 The Flying Hutchinsons arrived at Zanderij in a twin engine Lockheed Electra, on their "family round-the-world global nations flight" which was broadcast on a radio series sponsored by Pepsi Cola.[10][11]

After the fall of the Netherlands to German forces in 1940, the United States obtained military basing rights to the airport from the Netherlands government-in-exile in London. Suriname was then the world's principal source of bauxite (for aluminium production) and needed protection. The first American armed forces arrived at the airport on 30 November 1941 and expanded the facilities to be a transport base for sending Lend-Lease supplies to England via air routes across the South Atlantic Ocean. The runways were constructed by the US Corps of Engineers. They also built the road from Onverwacht to Zanderij which was completed in 1942.

With the United States entry into the war in December 1941, the importance of Zandery Field increased drastically, becoming a major transport base on the South Atlantic route of Air Transport Command ferrying supplies and personnel to Freetown Airport, Sierra Leone and onwards to the European and African theaters of the war. In addition, antisubmarine patrols were flown from the airfield over the southern Caribbean and South Atlantic coastlines.

Major United States Army Air Force (USAAF) units assigned to the airfield were:

Just before the Pearl Harbor Attack, on 3 December, the 99th Squadron was ordered to distant Zandery Field, Dutch Guiana (by way of Piarco Field, Trinidad) under an agreement with the Netherlands government-in-exile, by which the United States occupied the colony to protect bauxite mines. However, to the disappointment of the crews, the squadron had to leave its B-17 behind. It was, however, reinforced with additional B-18A Bolo's, bringing squadron strength up to six aircraft. On 2 October 1942, a B-18A, piloted by Captain Howard Burhanna Jr. of the 99th Bomb Squadron, depth charged and sank the German submarineÂ U-512 north of Cayenne, French Guiana.[12]

At Zandery, the unit shuttled from Zandery to Atkinson Field, British Guiana and, by January 1942, had eight Curtiss P-40C Warhawks assigned. The P-40s were, in actuality detached for airfield defense by the Trinidad Base Command, under which the 99th fell at the time.[13]

The intensive flying of the first two months of the war soon took its toll, however, and by the end of February 1942, the Squadron was forced to report that it had but three B-18A's operational at Zandery and that ".... none of them are airworthy at this time." Apparently the unit was quickly reinforced and by 1 March strength was back up to six aircraft, and seven combat crews, all of whom had more than 12 months experience.

Operations from Zandery Field consisted of coastal, convoy and anti-submarine patrols until 31 October 1942. Just prior to which time the 4th Antisubmarine Squadron was attached to the Squadron between 9 and 16 October. At this point Antisubmarine Command took over the mission of the 99th and the men and aircraft of the squadron were reassigned.

In the middle of World War II, on 2 November 1943, Her Royal Highness Princess Juliana visited Suriname from Canada. She landed at Zanderij with KLM airplane Lockheed Model 14 Super Electra PJ-AIM Meeuw as the first ever member of the Dutch Royal Family. After the landing of the Meeuw and escorting Dutch and US military planes, the Royal Princess was welcomed by governor Kielstra and inspected the guard of honour.

With the end of World War II Zandery Airfield was reduced in scope to a skeleton staff. It was closed as a military facility on 30 April 1946. And on 22 October 1947 the Zandery Air Force Base was turned over to Dutch authorities which returned it to a civil airport. At that time the value of the facility was estimated to be Sf. 400.000,-.

In March 1947 Alfredo de Los Rios landed with a 8-F Luscombe plane at Zanderij. He had traveled from the aircraft factory Dallas, Texas in the U.S.A.. In June 1959 pilots and missionaries Robert Price and Eugene Friesen arrived at Zandery with a single engine plane. They performed many medical treatment work in the interior and the Sipaliwini savannah. On 3 March 1960 American president Dwight D. Eisenhower landed at Zanderij on board Air Force One operated by the U.S. Air Force with a Boeing 707 jetliner. He was accompanied by Secretary of State Christian Herter. They left Suriname the same day. On 14 April 1967 American president Lyndon B. Johnson arrived during a rainstorm at Zanderij on board Air Force One, a Boeing 707 jet. Security was tight around Zanderij Airport. An agreement was signed by the Dutch government and the USA to use Zanderij Airport for Military Airlift Command (MAC) usage. The USA paid US$22.000,- for 400 landings per year. The crews stayed overnight at the Torarica Hotel. The North American X-15 NASA rocket-powered aircraft was on exhibition at Zanderij Airport for an Airshow held from 8â€“13 November 1963. On 7 April 1972, the first ever Boeing 747 wide body jetliner to land in South America, operated by KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, landed at Zanderij Airport, Suriname.

The airport has officially been named after the popular Surinamese politician and former Prime Minister of Suriname Johan Adolf Pengel, but is locally still common named Zanderij. This is parallel to the small village and savannah where it is situated. The airport now has one runway of approximately 3.5Â km and sees an average of 100.000 passengers yearly, mainly on transatlantic flights between Paramaribo and Amsterdam from KLM and Surinam Airways and some regional flights to Belem, Georgetown, Cayenne, Miami and the Caribbean, also with Caribbean Airlines and Insel Air, besides Surinam Airways.

The state will invest an extra US$70 million in expanding and modernizing the J.A. Pengel airport.[14] US$28.5 million has been invested so far in the airport's modernization. For the time being, the arrival lounge, commercial center and parking lot have been handed over, while the runway has been repaved, the platform for planes has been renovated, the runway lights on the arrival side have been replaced and a backup system for electricity has been installed as well. This was all done prior to the August 30, 2013 UNASUR heads-of-state summit, hosted by Suriname. The project, which was prepared during the previous administration, is insufficient to actually turn the airport into an international hub. The departure and arrival lounges are currently apart from each other, but plans are to connect them in the future with airbridges. Lights were placed on the departure side of the runway, and the platform was expanded to accommodate more planes. The fire department barracks were moved to a more central location. Plans are to have the airbridges installed in the future, while the other matters were finished by 2017.[citation needed]


who was the top musical director known for geometric dance patterns and startling camera angles

Berkeley devised elaborate musical production numbers that often involved complex geometric patterns. Berkeley's works used large numbers of showgirls and props as fantasy elements in kaleidoscopic on-screen performances.

Busby Berkeley

Busby Berkeley (born Berkeley William Enos; November 29, 1895 â€“ March 14, 1976)[1] was an American movie director and musical choreographer.

Berkeley was born in Los Angeles, California, to stage actress Gertrude Berkeley (1864–1946). Among Gertrude's friends, and a performer in Tim Frawly's Stock company run by Busby Berkeley's father Francis Enos (who died when Busby was eight), were actress Amy Busby from which Berkeley gained the appellation "Buzz" or "Busby"[2][3] and actor William Gillette, then only four years away from playing Sherlock Holmes. Whether he was actually christened Busby Berkeley William Enos,[4] or Berkeley William Enos, with "Busby" being a nickname, is not unanimous[2][5] – the "Child's names" entry on his birth certificate is blank.[4]

In addition to her stage work, Gertrude played mother roles in silent films while Berkeley was still a child. Berkeley made his stage dÃ©but at five, acting in the company of his performing family. In 1917, he lived in Athol, Massachusetts, working as an advertising and sales manager.[6] During World War I, Berkeley served as a field artillery lieutenant. Watching soldiers drill may have inspired his later complex choreography. During the 1920s, Berkeley was a dance director for nearly two dozen Broadway musicals, including such hits as A Connecticut Yankee. As a choreographer, Berkeley was less concerned with the terpsichorean skill of his chorus girls as he was with their ability to form themselves into attractive geometric patterns. His musical numbers were among the largest and best-regimented on Broadway.[citation needed]

His earliest film work was in Samuel Goldwyn's Eddie Cantor musicals, where he began developing such techniques as a "parade of faces" (individualizing each chorus girl with a loving close-up), and moving his dancers all over the stage (and often beyond) in as many kaleidoscopic patterns as possible.[citation needed] Berkeley's top shot technique (the kaleidoscope again, this time shot from overhead) appeared seminally in the Cantor films, and also the 1932 Universal drama film Night World (where he choreographed the number "Who's Your Little Who-Zis?"). His numbers were known for starting out in the realm of the stage, but quickly exceeding this space by moving into a time and place that could only be cinematic, only to return to shots of an applauding audience and the fall of a curtain. As choreographer, Berkeley was allowed a certain degree of independence in his direction of musical numbers, and they were often markedly distinct from (and sometimes in contrast to) the narrative sections of the films.[citation needed] The numbers he choreographed were mostly upbeat and focused on decoration as opposed to substance; one exception to this is the number "Remember My Forgotten Man" from Gold Diggers of 1933, which dealt with the treatment of World War I veterans during The Great Depression.

Berkeley's popularity with an entertainment-hungry Great Depression audience was secured when he choreographed four musicals back-to-back for Warner Bros.: 42nd Street, Footlight Parade, the aforementioned Gold Diggers of 1933, Dames, and Fashions of 1934, as well as In Caliente and Wonder Bar with Dolores del Río. Berkeley always denied any deep significance to his work, arguing that his main professional goals were to constantly top himself and to never repeat his past accomplishments.

As the outsized musicals in which Berkeley specialized became passÃ©, he turned to straight directing. The result was 1939's They Made Me a Criminal, one of John Garfield's best films. Berkeley had several well-publicized run-ins with MGM stars such as Judy Garland. In 1943, he was removed as director of Girl Crazy because of disagreements with Garland, although the lavish musical number "I Got Rhythm", which he directed, remained in the picture.[7]

His next stop was at 20th Century-Fox for 1943's The Gang's All Here, in which Berkeley choreographed Carmen Miranda's "Lady in the Tutti-Frutti Hat" number. The film made money, but Berkeley and the Fox brass disagreed over budget matters.[citation needed] Berkeley returned to MGM in the late 1940s, where among many other accomplishments he conceived the Technicolor finales for the studio's Esther Williams films. Berkeley's final film as choreographer was MGM's Billy Rose's Jumbo (1962).

In the late 1960s, the camp craze brought the Berkeley musicals back to the forefront. He toured the college and lecture circuit, and even directed a 1930s-style cold medication commercial, complete with a top shot of a dancing clock.[citation needed] In his 75th year, Berkeley returned to Broadway to direct a successful revival of No No Nanette starring his old Warner Brothers colleague and "42nd Street" star Ruby Keeler; both also played cameos in the 1970 film The Phynx the same year.

Berkeley was inducted into the National Museum of Dance's Mr. & Mrs. Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney Hall of Fame in 1988.

Berkeley was married six times[8] and was survived by his wife Etta Dunn. He was also involved in an alienation of affections lawsuit in 1938 involving Carole Landis.[9]

In September 1935, Berkeley was the driver responsible for an automobile accident in which two people were killed, five seriously injured; Berkeley himself was badly cut and bruised.[10] Berkeley, brought to court on a stretcher,[11] heard testimony that Time magazine said made him wince:[10]

After the first two trials for second degree murder ended with hung juries, he was acquitted in a third trial.

Berkeley died on March 14, 1976 in Palm Springs, California at the age of 80 from natural causes.[12] He is buried in the Desert Memorial Park in Cathedral City, California.[1][13]


how does the government define first time buyer

A first-time buyer (FTB) is a term used in the British and Irish property markets, and in other countries, for a potential house buyer who has not previously owned a property.

First-time buyer

A first-time buyer is usually desirable to a seller as they do not have to sell a property, and as such will not involve a housing chain.[1]

There are many factors a first-time buyer may need to consider before purchasing their first property; how much initial cash they will need for stamp duty and any solicitors fees, and if they need to arrange a mortgage how much are they able to afford.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, home ownership is seen as a natural step in the life cycle and the natural form of property tenure.[2][3] Ireland has one of the highest proportions of owner-occupiers in the EU at around 80%.[4]

In the UK in the 1980s almost half of all mortgages were taken out by first-time buyers, but this has now declined to only about 15%.[citation needed]. In Ireland, FTB's represent 34% of the market.

In recent years the number of new buyers purchasing property has declined,[5] with FTBs being "priced out of the market" by ever increasing house prices.[6]

In the 2007 Scottish parliamentary election the Scottish National Party proposed a Â£2,000 grant for first-time buyers to help them get onto the property ladder.[7]

Grants have not been forthcoming in the rest of the UK, but in July 2007 Housing Minister Yvette Cooper announced it would be broadening the government's Homebuy Shared Equity scheme to help buyers. "Unless we act now by 2026 first-time buyers will find average house prices are ten times their salary. That could lead to real social inequality and injustice," Cooper told Parliament.[citation needed]

Since then, first time buyers have regained momentum in the market, with reports[clarification needed] in 2010 citing first-time buying as the most popular of consumer enquiries for a local, whole of market mortgage adviser - accounting for 37% of total enquiries.[8]

In 2016 the UK Government launched the Help to Buy ISA for first time buyers through incentivising them to use savings to fund a deposit on a property.[9] The money saved is then boosed by 25% up to a maximum of Â£3000.


who made the rings of power in lord of the rings

The Rings of Power in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth legendarium are magic rings created by Sauron or by the Elves of Eregion under Sauron's tutelage. Sauron intended three of the rings to be worn by Elves, Seven by Dwarves, Nine by Men, and one, the One Ring, by the Dark Lord Sauron himself in Mount Doom.

Rings of Power

Sauron intended the rings to subvert these races of Middle-earth to his power, since the One Ring controlled the others. Sauron's plan was not completely successful, for the Elves hid their rings and did not use them while Sauron held the One, and the Dwarves did not respond to the One's control as Sauron expected. But the Men who wore the Nine were enslaved by Sauron, and became the Nazgûl ("ringwraiths").

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is largely concerned with the attempt of Sauron to recover the One and the efforts of the West to forestall him by destroying it. The One is destroyed near the end of the War of the Ring when it falls into the Cracks of Doom in Mount Doom, along with Gollum, who had bitten Frodoâ€™s finger off. Tolkien is not entirely clear about what happened to the other rings, though he implied that the power of any that survived came to an end. After the War of the Ring, the three Elven Rings were taken by their bearers over the sea to the Undying Lands.

Tolkien's essay "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" in The Silmarillion gives the background of the making of the rings.[1] At the end of the First Age, Sauron evaded the call of the Valar to surrender, and fled to Middle-earth. Midway through the Second Age he came in disguise as Annatar ("Lord of Gifts") to the Elven smiths of Eregion, who were led by Celebrimbor, and taught them the craft of forging magic rings. Tolkien writes that the Elves made many lesser rings as essays in the craft,[2] but eventually with Sauron's assistance they forged the Seven and the Nine. The Three were made by Celebrimbor himself without Sauron's assistance; they remained unsullied by his touch.

Sauron returned to Mordor, and in his forge in Mount Doom he made the One Ring, imbuing it with a large portion of his power. Its purpose was to dominate and command the wearers of the other Rings. However, when Sauron put on the One Ring and recited the incantation inscribed on it, the Elves became aware of him, and understood who he was and his purpose. The words he spoke are in the language that Westron speakers call Black Speech:

Ash nazg durbatulûk,
Ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakatulûk
Agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

When the Elves wearing the rings discerned Sauron's intention, they immediately removed them and hid them. Sauron invaded the West to recover the rings that the Elves had made; much of the West, including Eregion, was destroyed before he was driven back to Mordor. Sauron recovered the Nine and three of the Seven, but not the Three elven rings, which remained hidden.

The words inscribed on the One Ring come from the following verse, which describes 20 of the Rings of Power:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie,
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Later in the Second Age, Sauron gave the Nine to powerful men, "kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old".[3] All of them fell under the rings' dominance, and they became the Nazgûl (Ringwraiths), spirits of terror whom Sauron could command even without the One. Their lives were extended indefinitely by the rings, and they became Sauron's chief servants.

To mortal observers who were not themselves wearing a Ring, a Ring of Power seemed to render the wearer invisible.[2] Although the NazgÃ»l could not be seen, they emanated an evil presence;[4] their steeds were also visible. When they wished to adopt a noticeable form, they wore dark cloaks over their invisible bodies.

It is not clear whether the Nazgûl kept their rings. Tolkien says both "the Nine the Nazgûl keep"[5] and that Sauron had gathered the Nine to himself,[2] though in the latter case his meaning may be metaphorical. When the Nazgûl are destroyed, no mention is made of their rings.

Only two of the Nazgûl are identified in the texts: the Witch-king of Angmar was the leader of the nine, and his second in command was Khamûl, an Easterling.[6] Khamûl is the only Nazgûl identified by name. Three of the Nine were Númenórean.[7]

Also in the Second Age Sauron gave the Seven to various Dwarf-lords (though the Dwarves of Moria maintained a tradition that the ring given to Durin III came directly from the Elven smiths).[8][9] Gandalf mentions a rumour that the seven hoards of the dwarves began each with a single golden ring, and although the Dwarves used their rings to increase their treasure, Tolkien does not explain how the rings accomplished this (save for a reference that the rings "need gold to breed gold"). The main power of the Seven on their wearers was to excite their sense of avarice. The wearers did not become invisible, did not get extended life-spans, nor succumb directly to Sauron's control â€“ though he could still influence them to anger and greed.[1]

Over the years, Sauron recovered three rings from the Dwarves, the last from Thráin II during his final captivity in Dol Guldur, some years before the beginning of The Hobbit. The remaining four, according to Gandalf, were destroyed by dragons.[2]

Until the Council of Elrond, the Dwarves did not know that Thráin had held the ring of Durin's line and had lost it to Sauron. They thought instead that it might have been lost when Thrór was killed by Azog in Moria.[5] One of the motivations for Balin's doomed expedition to Moria was the possibility of recovering the ring. Sauron's messenger attempted to bribe the Dwarves of Erebor for news of Bilbo (the last known bearer of the One) with the promise of the return of the remaining three of the Seven and control over the Mines of Moria.

The Three Rings of the Elves were called Narya, the Ring of Fire (set with a ruby); Nenya, the Ring of Water or Ring of Adamant (made of mithril and set with a "white stone"), and Vilya, the Ring of Air, the "mightiest of the Three" (made of gold and set with a sapphire).[10]

Before the sack of Eregion, Celebrimbor gave Vilya and Narya to Gil-galad and Nenya to Galadriel. Gil-galad later gave Narya to Círdan, and gave Vilya to Elrond.

The Three remained hidden from Sauron and untouched by him. During the Third Age, after he lost the One, they were used for the preservation and enhancement of three remaining realms of the Eldar. Vilya was used by Elrond in Rivendell, Nenya by Galadriel in Lothlórien, and Narya by Círdan in Lindon. When the Istari, or wizards, arrived about T.A. 1100, Círdan gave Narya to Gandalf, who bore it until the end of the Third Age.

During the period of The Lord of the Rings, the Three were borne by Elrond, Galadriel, and Gandalf; but until the end of the book their rings are not seen. Only Frodo, the bearer of the One, sees Galadriel's ring, and only when she draws his attention to it. At the end of the book, these three take their rings, now visible and powerless, over the sea to the Undying Lands.

Although the Verse of the Rings describes Three Rings for the Elven-kings, the only Elven king who actually held a ring was Gil-galad. He held both Vilya and Narya, but entrusted them to Elrond and CÃrdan before perishing in Mordor.

Unlike the other Rings of Power, the One was unadorned. It bore only the inscription of the incantation Sauron spoke when he made it, and even that was invisible unless the ring was heated.[2] Though the other rings could be destroyed in dragon-fire, the One could be unmade only in the unyielding fires of Mount Doom where it was forged.[2]

When Sauron made the ring, he was obliged to transfer much of his power into it so that it could control the other rings, themselves objects of great potency. With the ring, Sauron remained very powerful, and he could use it to dominate the will of others; he very quickly corrupted Númenor into the worship of Melkor and open rebellion against the Valar.

When Isildur cut the ring from his hand, Sauron became much weaker. He required the ring to effect his conquest of Middle-earth, and spent most of the Third Age attempting to get it back.

The ring had a great effect on the human bearers who held it in the interim. It granted them indefinite life; though the effort of living became more difficult as time went on, for it did not grant new life.[2] If they wore it, it made them invisible, enhanced their hearing, and made the shadowy world of the wraiths visible to them. It exerted a malicious influence; Gandalf mentions that though a bearer might begin with good intentions, the good intentions would not last.[2] The Ring would give its bearer a fraction of Sauron's power, proportionate with the bearer's strength and force of will. Gollum, Bilbo, Sam, and Frodo only became invisible, although when Frodo bound Gollum to his service in The Two Towers, he indicated that he could use the Ring to control Gollum (because the Ring had mastered Gollum long ago). Gandalf and Galadriel, however, recognized that they could use the full power of the Ring, becoming even more powerful than Sauron himself, but they resisted, knowing that in the end, the Ring would corrupt them. Gandalf explained to Frodo that, with great concentration and training, even he could tap into the Ring's power, but probably at the cost of his sanity.

The One Ring possessed something of a will of its own. Its only accepted master was Sauron himself, and it would seek to leave any other bearer when it would cause the greatest harm, or when it might return to Sauron. Bilbo warned Frodo of this, and Frodo kept it on a chain so that it would not slip off unnoticed. In the end, Gollum succumbs to the malevolent influence of the ring, defies Frodo, and takes the ring for himself. While dancing with joy over the recovery of the ring, Gollum falls into the Cracks of Doom in Orodruin, where the ring is destroyed. With the destruction of the Ring, Gandalf explains that Sauron is weakened to the point that he will never be able to materialize again.[11]

Ralph Bakshi's 1978 animated film begins with the forging of the Rings of Power and the events of the Last Alliance's war against Sauron, all portrayed in silhouette against a red background.

Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring begins with a similar prologue, though longer and more detailed. The three Elven rings are shown being cast using a cuttlebone mold, an ancient primitive casting technique. Additionally, Tolkien illustrators John Howe and Alan Lee, employed as conceptual designers for the films, have cameos as two of the nine human Ring-bearers who become NazgÃ»l.


who is current chief justice of supreme court

John Glover Roberts Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American lawyer who serves as the 17th and current Chief Justice of the United States.  He took his seat on September 29, 2005, having been nominated by President George W. Bush after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He has been described as having a conservative judicial philosophy in his jurisprudence.

John Roberts

Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York but grew up in northwest Indiana and was educated in a private school. He then attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. After being admitted to the bar, he served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly and then Rehnquist before taking a position in the Attorney General's office during the Reagan Administration. He went on to serve the Reagan administration and the George H. W. Bush administration in the Department of Justice and the Office of the White House Counsel, before spending 14 years in private law practice. During this time, he argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court.[1] Notably, he represented 19 states in United States v. Microsoft Corp.[2]

In 2003, Roberts was appointed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by George W. Bush. During his two-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting two dissents from other judges, and authoring three dissents of his own.[3] In 2005, Roberts was nominated to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, initially to succeed retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. When Rehnquist died before Roberts's confirmation hearings began, Bush instead nominated Roberts to fill the chief justice position.

Roberts has authored the majority opinion in many landmark cases, including Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Shelby County v. Holder, and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

John Glover Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, the son of Rosemary (née Podrasky) and John Glover "Jack" Roberts Sr. (1928–2008). His father was a plant manager with Bethlehem Steel.[4] He has Irish, Welsh, and Czech ancestry.[5] When Roberts was in fourth grade, his family moved to Long Beach, Indiana. He grew up with three sisters: Kathy, Peggy, and Berbere.

Roberts attended Notre Dame Elementary School, a Roman Catholic grade school in Long Beach. In 1973, he graduated from La Lumiere School, a Roman Catholic boarding school in La Porte, Indiana, where he was a student and athlete.[6] He studied five years of Latin (in four years),[4] some French, and was known generally for his devotion to his studies. He was captain of the football team (he later described himself as a "slow-footed linebacker"), and was a regional champion in wrestling. He participated in choir and drama, co-edited the school newspaper, and served on the athletic council and the executive committee of the student council.[4]

After graduating from high school in 1973, Roberts entered Harvard University as a history major. Due to his academic excellence in high school, Roberts entered Harvard with sophomore (second-year) standing.[7] One of his first papers, "Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice," won the William Scott Ferguson Prize for most outstanding essay assignment by a sophomore history major.[7] He graduated in 1976 with a B.A. summa cum laude, having written a senior honors thesis entitled "Old and New Liberalism: The British Liberal Party's Approach to the Social Problem, 1906â€“1914".[7] Roberts originally planned to pursue a Ph.D. in history and become a professor, but decided to study law instead.[4]  He attended Harvard Law School, where he was a managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated in 1979 with a J.D. magna cum laude.[4][7]

After graduating from law school, Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979 to 1980.[4]  From 1980 to 1981, he clerked for Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court. From 1981 to 1982, he served in the Reagan administration as a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith.[4] From 1982 to 1986, Roberts served as associate counsel to the president under White House counsel Fred Fielding.
Roberts then entered private law practice in Washington, D.C. as an associate at the law firm Hogan & Hartson (now Hogan Lovells).[8] As part of Hogan & Hartson's pro bono work, he worked behind the scenes for gay rights advocates, reviewing filings and preparing arguments for the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans (1996), which was described in 2005 as "the movement's most important legal victory". Roberts also argued on behalf of the homeless, a case which became one of Roberts' "few appellate losses."[9] Another pro bono matter was a death penalty case in which he represented John Ferguson, who was convicted of killing eight people in Florida.[10][11]

Roberts left Hogan & Hartson to serve in the George H. W. Bush administration as principal deputy solicitor general, from 1989 to 1993[4] and as acting solicitor general for the purposes of at least one case when Ken Starr had a conflict.[12][13]

In 1992, George H. W. Bush nominated Roberts to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but no Senate vote was held, and Roberts's nomination expired at the end of the 102nd Congress.[14]

Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner and became the head of the firm's appellate practice in addition to serving as an adjunct faculty member at the Georgetown University Law Center. During this time, Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, prevailing in 25 of them.[15] He represented 19 states in United States v. Microsoft.[2] Those cases include:

During the late 1990s, while working for Hogan & Hartson, Roberts served as a member of the steering committee of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the conservative Federalist Society.[16]

In 2000, Roberts traveled to Tallahassee, Florida to advise Jeb Bush, then the Governor of Florida, concerning the latter's actions in the Florida election recount during the presidential election.[17]

On May 10, 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts for a different seat on the D.C. Circuit, which had been vacated by James L. Buckley. The Senate at the time, however, was controlled by the Democrats, who were in conflict with Bush over his judicial nominees. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-VT, refused to give Roberts a hearing in the 107th Congress.[18] The GOP regained control of the Senate on January 7, 2003, and Bush resubmitted Roberts's nomination that day. Roberts was confirmed on May 8, 2003,[19] and received his commission on June 2, 2003.[20] During his two-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting two dissents from other judges, and authoring three dissents of his own.[3]

Notable decisions on the D.C. Circuit include the following:

Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148,[21] involved a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, searched, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked, and fingerprinted after she violated a publicly advertised zero tolerance "no eating" policy in a Washington Metro station by eating a single french fry.  She was released to her mother three hours later. She sued, alleging that an adult would have only received a citation for the same offense, while children must be detained until parents are notified. The D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court's dismissal of the girl's lawsuit, which was predicated on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) and Fifth Amendment (equal protection).

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts wrote, and noted that the policies under which the girl was apprehended had since been changed. Because age discrimination is evaluated using a rational basis test, however, only weak state interests were required to justify the policy, and the panel concluded they were present. "Because parents and guardians play an essential role in that rehabilitative process, it is reasonable for the District to seek to ensure their participation, and the method chosen—detention until the parent is notified and retrieves the child—certainly does that, in a way issuing a citation might not." The court concluded that the policy and detention were constitutional, noting that "the question before us... is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution," language reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut. "We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine," Stewart had written; "[w]e are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts was part of a unanimous Circuit panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden,[22] could be tried by a military court because:

The court held open the possibility of judicial review of the results of the military commission after the current proceedings ended.[23] This decision was overturned on June 29, 2006 by the Supreme Court in a 5â€“3 decision, with Roberts not participating due to his prior participation in the case as a circuit judge.[24]

Roberts wrote a dissent in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, a case involving the protection of a rare California toad under the Endangered Species Act. When the court denied a rehearing en banc, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Roberts dissented, arguing that the panel opinion was inconsistent with United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison in that it incorrectly focused on whether the regulation substantially affects interstate commerce rather than on whether the regulated activity does. In Roberts's view, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California." He said that reviewing the panel decision would allow the court "alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."[25]

On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill a vacancy that would be created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts was the first Supreme Court nominee since Stephen Breyer in 1994. Bush announced Roberts's nomination in a live, nationwide television broadcast from the East Room of the White House at 9 p.m. Eastern Time.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005, while Roberts's confirmation was still pending before the Senate. Shortly thereafter, on September 5, Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and announced Roberts's new nomination to the position of Chief Justice.[26] Bush asked the Senate to expedite Roberts's confirmation hearings to fill the vacancy by the beginning of the Supreme Court's session in early October.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that he did not have a comprehensive jurisprudential philosophy, and he did "not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document".[27][28] Roberts analogized judges to baseball umpires: "[I]t's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."[29] Roberts demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of Supreme Court precedent, which he discussed without notes. Among the issues he discussed were:

In Senate hearings, Roberts has stated:

Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained generally that if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause.

I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportantâ€”and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.[28]

Roberts stated the following about federalism in a 1999 radio interview:

We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant is I think exactly the right term, more attuned to the different situations in New York, as opposed to Minnesota, and that is what the Federal system is based on.[30]

At a Senate hearing, Roberts stated:

The Supreme Court has, throughout its history, on many occasions described the deference that is due to legislative judgments. Justice Holmes described assessing the constitutionality of an act of Congress as the gravest duty that the Supreme Court is called upon to perform.... It's a principle that is easily stated and needs to be observed in practice, as well as in theory.

Now, the Court, of course, has the obligation, and has been recognized since Marbury v. Madison, to assess the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and when those acts are challenged, it is the obligation of the Court to say what the law is. The determination of when deference to legislative policy judgments goes too far and becomes abdication of the judicial responsibility, and when scrutiny of those judgments goes too far on the part of the judges and becomes what I think is properly called judicial activism, that is certainly the central dilemma of having an unelected, as you describe it correctly, undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic.[28]

On the subject of stare decisis, referring to Brown v. Board, the decision overturning school segregation, Roberts said that "the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."[31]

While working as a lawyer for the Reagan administration, Roberts wrote legal memos defending administration policies on abortion.[32] At his nomination hearing Roberts testified that the legal memos represented the views of the administration he was representing at the time and not necessarily his own.[33] "Senator, I was a staff lawyer; I didn't have a position," Roberts said.[33] As a lawyer in the George H. W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.[34]

In private meetings with senators before his confirmation, Roberts testified that Roe was settled law, but added that it was subject to the legal principle of stare decisis,[35] meaning that while the Court must give some weight to the precedent, it was not legally bound to uphold it.

In his Senate testimony, Roberts said that, while sitting on the Appellate Court, he had an obligation to respect precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." Following the traditional reluctance of nominees to indicate which way they might vote on an issue likely to come before the Supreme Court, he did not explicitly say whether he would vote to overturn either.[27]

On September 22, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Roberts's nomination by a vote of 13–5, with Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein casting the dissenting votes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29 by a margin of 78–22.[36] All Republicans and the one Independent voted for Roberts; the Democrats split evenly, 22–22. Roberts was confirmed by what was, historically, a narrow margin for a Supreme Court justice. However, all subsequent confirmation votes have been even narrower.[37][38][39][40]

Roberts took the Constitutional oath of office, administered by Associate Justice John Paul Stevens at the White House, on September 29. On October 3, he took the judicial oath provided for by the Judiciary Act of 1789  at the United States Supreme Court building, prior to the first oral arguments of the 2005 term. Ending weeks of speculation, Roberts wore a plain black robe, dispensing with the gold sleeve-bars added to the Chief Justice's robes by his predecessor. Then 50, Roberts became the youngest member of the Court, and the third-youngest person to have ever become Chief Justice (John Jay was appointed at age 44 in 1789 while John Marshall was appointed at age 45 in 1801). However, many Associate Justices, such as Clarence Thomas (appointed at age 43) and William O. Douglas (appointed at age 40 in 1939), have joined the Court at a younger age than Roberts.

Justice Antonin Scalia said that Roberts "pretty much run[s] the show the same way" as Rehnquist, albeit "let[ting] people go on a little longer at conference... but [he'll] get over that."[41] Roberts has been portrayed as a consistent advocate for conservative principles by analysts such as Jeffrey Toobin.[42]

Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, surveying Roberts's first term on the court, concluded that his jurisprudence "appears to be strongly rooted in the discipline of traditional legal method, evincing a fidelity to text, structure, history, and the constitutional hierarchy. He exhibits the restraint that flows from the careful application of established decisional rules and the practice of reasoning from the case law. He appears to place great stock in the process-oriented tools and doctrinal rules that guard against the aggregation of judicial power and keep judicial discretion in check: jurisdictional limits, structural federalism, textualism, and the procedural rules that govern the scope of judicial review."[43] The Chief Justice is ranked 50th in the 2016 Forbes ranking of "The World's Most Powerful People."[44]

On January 17, 2006, Roberts dissented along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon, which held that the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the United States Attorney General to prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. The point of contention in the case was largely one of statutory interpretation, not federalism.

On March 6, 2006, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights that colleges accepting federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Clinton administration-initiated "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Roberts wrote his first dissent in Georgia v. Randolph (2006). The majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if both occupants are present but one objected and the other consented. Roberts criticized the majority opinion as inconsistent with prior case law and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of social custom. He said the social expectation test was flawed because the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not social expectations.[45]

In Utah v. Strieff (2016), Roberts joined the majority in ruling (5-3) that a person with an outstanding warrant may be arrested and searched, and that any evidence discovered based on that search is admissible in court; the majority opinion held that this remains true even when police act unlawfully by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion, before learning of the existence of the outstanding warrant.[46]

Although Roberts has often sided with Scalia and Thomas, Roberts provided a crucial vote against their position in Jones v. Flowers. In Jones, Roberts sided with liberal justices of the court in ruling that, before a home is seized and sold in a tax-forfeiture sale, due diligence must be demonstrated and proper notification needs to be sent to the owners. Dissenting were Anthony Kennedy along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito did not participate, while Roberts's opinion was joined by David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

On the Supreme Court, Roberts has indicated he supports some abortion restrictions. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), he voted with the majority to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, distinguished Stenberg v. Carhart, and concluded that the court's previous decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not prevent Congress from banning the procedure. The decision left the door open for future as-applied challenges, and did not address the broader question of whether Congress had the authority to pass the law.[47] Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Casey should be reversed; Roberts declined to join that opinion.

Roberts opposes the use of race in assigning students to particular schools, including for purposes such as maintaining integrated schools.[48] He sees such plans as discrimination in violation of the constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Brown v. Board of Education.[48][49] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the court considered two voluntarily adopted school district plans that relied on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The court had held in Brown that "racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional,"[50] and later, that "racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor,... are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests,"[51] and that this "[n]arrow tailoring... require[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives."[52]  Roberts cited these cases in writing for the Parents Involved majority, concluding that the school districts had "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals."[53] In a section of the opinion joined by four other Justices, Roberts added that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Roberts authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick, ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school discipline.[54]

On April 20, 2010, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down an animal cruelty law. Roberts, writing for an 8â€“1 majority, found that a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Court held that the statute was substantially overbroad; for example, it could allow prosecutions for selling photos of out-of-season hunting.[55]

On June 28, 2012, Roberts delivered the majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,  which upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by a 5â€“4 vote. The Court indicated that although the "individual mandate" component of the Act could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, the mandate could be construed as a tax and was therefore ruled to be valid under Congress's authority to "lay and collect taxes."[56][57] The Court overturned a portion of the law related to the withholding of funds from states that did not comply with the expansion of Medicaid; Roberts wrote that "Congress is not free... to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."[57]
Sources within the Supreme Court state that Roberts switched his vote regarding the individual mandate sometime after an initial vote[58][59] and that Roberts largely wrote both the majority and minority opinions.[60] This extremely unusual circumstance has also been used to explain why the minority opinion was also unsigned, itself a rare phenomenon from the Supreme Court.[60]

Roberts has been compared and contrasted to other court members by commentators.[61][62] Although Roberts is identified as having a conservative judicial philosophy, his vote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) caused the press to contrast him with the Rehnquist court. Roberts is seen as having a more moderate conservative orientation, particularly when Bush v. Gore is compared to Roberts' vote for the ACA.[63] Roberts' judicial philosophy is seen as more moderate and conciliatory than Antonin Scalia's and Clarence Thomas'.[61][62][63] He wishes more consensus from the Court.[61] Roberts' voting pattern is most closely aligned to Samuel Alito's.[64]

As Chief Justice, Roberts also serves in a variety of non-judicial roles, including Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution and leading the Judicial Conference of the United States. Perhaps the best known of these is the custom of the Chief Justice administering the oath of office at Presidential inaugurations. Roberts debuted in this capacity at the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. (As a Senator, Obama had voted against Roberts's confirmation to the Supreme Court, making the event doubly a first: the first time a president was sworn in by someone whose confirmation he opposed.[65]) Things did not go smoothly. According to columnist Jeffrey Toobin:

Through intermediaries, Roberts and Obama had agreed how to divide the thirty-five-word oath for the swearing in. Obama was first supposed to repeat the clause "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear." But, when Obama heard Roberts begin to speak, he interrupted Roberts before he said "do solemnly swear." This apparently flustered the Chief Justice, who then made a mistake in the next line, inserting the word "faithfully" out of order. Obama smiled, apparently recognizing the error, then tried to follow along. Roberts then garbled another word in the next passage, before correctly reciting, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."[66]

Part of the difficulty was that Roberts did not have the text of the oath with him but relied on his memory.  On later occasions when Roberts has administered an oath, he has taken the text with him.

The Associated Press reported that "[l]ater, as the two men shook hands in the Capitol, Roberts appeared to say the mistake was his fault."[67]  The following evening in the White House Map Room with reporters present, Roberts and Obama repeated the oath correctly. This was, according to the White House, done in "an abundance of caution" to ensure that the constitutional requirement had been met.

Roberts is one of 13 Catholic justices—out of 111 justices total—in the history of the Supreme Court.[68] Of those thirteen justices, five (Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor) are currently serving. Roberts married Jane Sullivan in Washington in 1996.[4] She is an attorney, a Catholic, and a trustee (along with Clarence Thomas) at her alma mater, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. The couple adopted two children, John (Jack) and Josephine (Josie).[4]

Roberts suffered a seizure on July 30, 2007, while at his vacation home on Hupper Island off the village of Port Clyde in St. George, Maine.[69][70] As a result of the seizure he fell 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3.0Â m) on a dock near his house but suffered only minor scrapes.[69] He was taken by private boat to the mainland[70] (which is several hundred yards from the island) and then by ambulance to Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport, where he stayed overnight, according to Supreme Court spokesperson Kathy Arberg.[71] Doctors called the incident a benign idiopathic seizure, which means there was no identifiable physiological cause.[69][70][72][73]

Roberts had suffered a similar seizure in 1993.[69][70][72] After this first seizure, Roberts temporarily limited some of his activities, such as driving. According to Senator Arlen Specter, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during Roberts's nomination to be Chief Justice in 2005, senators were aware of this seizure when they were considering his nomination, but the committee did not think it was significant enough to bring up during his confirmation hearings. Federal judges are not required by law to release information about their health.[69]

According to neurologist Marc Schlosberg of Washington Hospital Center, who has no direct connection to the Roberts case, someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is by definition determined to have epilepsy. After two seizures, the likelihood of another at some point is greater than 60 percent.[70] Steven Garner of New York Methodist Hospital, who is also uninvolved with the case, said that Roberts's previous history of seizures means that the second incident may be less serious than if this were a newly emerging problem.[72]

The Supreme Court said in a statement that Roberts has "fully recovered from the incident" and that a neurological evaluation "revealed no cause for concern." Sanjay Gupta, a CNN contributor and a neurosurgeon not involved in Roberts's case, said that when an otherwise healthy person has a seizure his doctor would investigate whether the patient had started any new medications and had normal electrolyte levels. If those two things were normal, then a brain scan would be performed. If Roberts does not have another seizure within a relatively short time period, Gupta said that he was unsure if Roberts would be given the diagnosis of epilepsy. He said the Chief Justice may need to take an anti-seizure medication.[73]

According to a 16-page financial disclosure form Roberts submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee prior to his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, his net worth was more than $6 million, including $1.6 million in stock holdings.[citation needed] At the time Roberts left private practice to join the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, he took a pay cut from $1 million a year to $171,800; as Chief Justice, his salary is $255,500 as of 2014. Roberts also holds a one-eighth interest in a cottage in Knocklong, an Irish village in County Limerick.[74]

In August 2010, Roberts sold his stock in Pfizer, which allowed him to participate in two pending cases involving the pharmaceutical maker. Justices are required to recuse themselves in cases in which they own stock of a party.[75]

The University of Michigan Law Library (External Links, below) has compiled fulltext links to these articles and a number of briefs and arguments.


where is the glass bridge located in china

Zhangjiajie Glass Bridge (also called Zhangjiajie Grand Canyon Glass Bridge) is a bridge in Zhangjiajie, China, above the Wulingyuan area. The bridge, built as an attraction for tourists, is glass-bottomed and is transparent. When it opened it was the longest and tallest glass bottomed bridge in the world. The bridge, opened to the public on August 20, 2016, measures 430 metres in total length and 6 metres in breadth, and is suspended about 260 metres above the ground.[1] The bridge spans the canyon between two mountain cliffs in Zhangjiajie National Forest Park in China's central Hunan province. It is designed to carry up to 800 visitors at a time. The bridge was designed by Israeli architect Haim Dotan.[2]

Zhangjiajie Glass Bridge

To build the bridge, engineers erected 4 support pillars on the edges of the walls of the canyon. The bridge is made of a steel frame with more than 120 glass panels. Each of these panels is 3-layered and is a 2-inch-thick slab of tempered glass. There are 3 long swings attached to the underside of the bridge. Also there is a provision for making an 870-foot bungee-jump. This is considered to be highest such jump in the world.[3]

According to the Management Committee of the Bridge, the bridge has set ten world records spanning its design and construction.[4]

The record as longest glass bridge has since passed to a glass bridge in the Hongyagu Scenic Area, Hebei.[5]

On September 2, 2016, just 13 days after the bridge was opened, the authorities put out a notice saying that they are closing the bridge due to overwhelming visitor traffic.[6] The bridge, designed to hold 800 people at a time and expected to be visited by about 8,000 people per day, had reportedly attracted more than 80,000 visitors per day.[7] The authorities said that the government decided to suspend operations due to the "urgency to improve and update" the attraction, including its car parks, ticket-booking system, and customer service. The bridge reopened on September 30, 2016.[8]