title: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
Manuel v. Joliet
Ex parte Milligan
Samuel Alito
Beal v. Doe
Burnham v. Superior Court of California
William Scott (Missouri)
Epperson v. Arkansas
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
United States v. GlaxoSmithKline
sentences: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US _ (2012) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.
 It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay.
 The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.
Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement.
 In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process".
 This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
 Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.
 Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.
) 2 (1866) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional.
 In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War.
 Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown.
 Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.
Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. ( ; born April 1, 1950) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006.
Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) , was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania.
 Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics.
 The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood.
 The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the "Roe v. Wade" decisionabortion as a rightintact.
 The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion.
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) , was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.
 All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible.
 However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed.
 Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices.
 Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices.
 Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions.
William Scott (June 7, 1804 – 1862) was an American lawyer and judge who served on the Supreme Court of Missouri from 1841 to 1849 and from 1851 to 1862.
 He also served on the Jefferson City Circuit Court.
 Justice Scott was the author of the majority opinion in "Scott v. Emerson", 15 Missouri 572 (1852), which was part of the "Dred Scott v. Sandford" case.
 Scott's opinion, which overturned well-established precedent in Missouri, set the stage for Dred Scott's case in the Supreme Court.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.
 The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
 The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.
 These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard".
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standing of taxpayers to challenge state tax laws in federal court.
 The Court unanimously ruled that state taxpayers did not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers.
 Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion (his fifth on the Court), which was joined by all of the justices except for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who concurred separately.
United States v. GlaxoSmithKline was a case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
 Robert J. Merena was one of the first who filed claims against SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories on November 12, 1993.
 The complaints alleged that GlaxoSmithKline, which operated a system of clinical laboratories, adopted myriad complicated procedures for the purpose of defrauding state and federal healthcare programs, in particular Medicare and Medicaid.
 The U.S. Justice Department publicly praised Robert Merena for his "cooperation and support" in helping the government collect the largest settlement ever involving a whistle-blower lawsuit.
 The SmithKline settlement is considered to be one of the largest whistleblower assisted recoveries in the history of the United States.

Question: Question: Who nominated the justice who wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp? 

 Your answer will be verified with exact match score. To ensure correct verification, only provide the answer within the <answer> </answer> tags. Do not put any sentences or reasoning process within the <answer> </answer> tags. 

Supporting Information: Paragraph 0 

 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US _ (2012) is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.
 It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay.
 The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 1 

 Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement.
 In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process".
 This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
 Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.
 Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 2 

 Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.
) 2 (1866) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional.
 In this particular case the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War.
 Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails," and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown.
 Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 3 

 Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. ( ; born April 1, 1950) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
 He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 4 

 Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) , was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania.
 Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics.
 The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood.
 The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the "Roe v. Wade" decisionabortion as a rightintact.
 The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 5 

 Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990) , was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.
 All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible.
 However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed.
 Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices.
 Justice Brennan wrote an opinion joined by three other Justices.
 Justices White and Stevens wrote separate opinions. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 6 

 William Scott (June 7, 1804 – 1862) was an American lawyer and judge who served on the Supreme Court of Missouri from 1841 to 1849 and from 1851 to 1862.
 He also served on the Jefferson City Circuit Court.
 Justice Scott was the author of the majority opinion in "Scott v. Emerson", 15 Missouri 572 (1852), which was part of the "Dred Scott v. Sandford" case.
 Scott's opinion, which overturned well-established precedent in Missouri, set the stage for Dred Scott's case in the Supreme Court. 

--------------------------------

Paragraph 7 

 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.
 The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
 The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
 After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.
 These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard". 

--------------------------------

 


Answer: President George W. Bush