document_title: Smallville (season 8)

question_text: when does lex come back in season 8

question_tokens: when does lex come back in season 8

text: Smallville (season 8)

text: Episodes[edit]

text:
No. in
series
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original air date
Prod.
code
U.S. viewers
(million)

153
1
"Odyssey"
Kevin G. Fair
Teleplay by: Todd Slavkin & Darren Swimmer
Story by: Brian Peterson & Kelly Souders
September 18, 2008 (2008-09-18)
3T7451
4.34[8]

After the collapse of the Fortress of Solitude, Oliver Queen, Arthur Curry, and Dinah Lance set out searching for Clark. At the same time, newly promoted Tess Mercer also begins searching for Lex Luthor. Oliver discovers that Clark is being held captive in Russia, and leaves to rescue him. Chloe is revealed to be in the custody of LuthorCorp, who have been testing her developing powers, which now include super-intelligence. Lex's assistant, Regan, has been using Chloe to locate the members of Oliver's team. Oliver and Clark, who has lost his powers, arrive at the LuthorCorp site and rescue Chloe, Arthur and Dinah. John Jones arrives and restores Clark's powers, at the cost of his own. Afterward, Clark decides that he must leave the farm and pursue a new life, one that is free from the things that have been holding him back from his destiny. Clark starts his internship in the Daily Planet with Lois as his co-worker.

154
2
"Plastique"
Rick Rosenthal
Don Whitehead & Holly Henderson
September 25, 2008 (2008-09-25)
3T7452
4.18[9]

On Clark's first day at the Daily Planet a bomb on a bus goes off outside the building. Chloe helps one of the injured passengers, Bette, and meets paramedic Davis Bloome. Bette, a homeless teenager, stays with Chloe while Davis contacts a friend who runs a shelter for the homeless. Clark discovers that there was no bomb on the bus, but that someone blew it up with their meteor power. Clark and Lois deduce that Bette is the one with the meteor power, and Clark arrives at the Talon to save Chloe before Bette can hurt her. As Bette heads to Belle Reve, Tess stops by and persuades her to join a group of individuals, who also have meteor powers, that Tess has been forming.

155
3
"Toxic"
James Conway
Al Septien & Turi Meyer
October 2, 2008 (2008-10-02)
3T7454
4.11[10]

Oliver collapses at a fundraiser and reveals to Clark and Chloe that he has been poisoned and only has twelve hours to live. Chloe calls Davis, who attempts to find a cure for Oliver's ailment, while Clark tries to find out who is responsible. Tess assigns Lois the job of uncovering the truth about Oliver's "drunken fall" at the fundraiser. While unconscious, Oliver relives the time he was shipwrecked on an island and how he first learned to shoot a bow. He also relives his first meeting with Tess, who was kidnapped while doing marine research in Fiji by a man named Marcos. Clark manages to get an antidote for Oliver, who informs him that Tess will be attacked next. Clark saves Tess before Marcos, who has returned, can kill her. Tess later takes revenge and poisons Marcos before sending him to the hospital to die.

156
4
"Instinct"
Mairzee Almas
Caroline Dries
October 9, 2008 (2008-10-09)
3T7453
4.05[11]

Tess and a scientist activate the crystal that built the Fortress of Solitude, which results in an energy beam being sent into space. An alien, Maxima, from the planet Almerac recognizes the beacon as Kryptonian and comes to Earth to search for the Kryptonian she believes sent for her. Maxima tracks the signal to Tess, and then mistakenly identifies Jimmy as the Kryptonian. Maxima's kiss almost kills Jimmy, but Clark comes to the rescue. Maxima realizing Clark is the Kryptonian she has been looking for, finds Clark at the Daily Planet and she uses her hormone-enhanced kiss to take control over Clark. When Clark tries to comfort Lois, who witnesses the pair kissing, Maxima assumes she is a rival mate and attempts to kill her. Clark stops Maxima and uses her bracelet to send her back to her home planet; he also learns that Tess has his crystal.

157
5
"Committed"
Glen Winter
Bryan Q. Miller
October 16, 2008 (2008-10-16)
3T7455
4.18[12]

Chloe and Jimmy are kidnapped after their engagement party by a jeweler who wants to test their love. Using a lie-detector to quiz them, every time one is caught in a lie the other is punished with a surge of electricity. Clark and Lois discover that they are missing and pose as a couple to lure the kidnapper out of hiding. Chloe and Jimmy survive, answering the questions to the jeweler's satisfaction, who sets them free; unfortunately, Lois is kidnapped by the jeweler. Clark goes to her rescue, but a kryptonite watch the jeweler wears weakens Clark. During the line of questions, Lois admits that she loves Clark. Before Clark can answer, he manages to strip the watch off the jeweler and then knock him unconscious. Later, Lois chalks up her "love" for Clark as nothing more than a lie, which she was able to accomplish by slipping the lie-detector electrode off her finger.

158
6
"Prey"
Michael Rohl
Kelly Souders & Brian Peterson
October 23, 2008 (2008-10-23)
377456
4.15[13]

A serial killer attacks a local club, injuring and murdering several patrons. Clark arrives and discovers Davis's body, covered in blood and lying unconscious on the floor. Davis denies any memory of the event. While looking for clues, Clark again encounters John Jones, who, since losing his powers, has taken a job as a police detective. John and Clark work together on the attack, with John indicating that there have been others and that Davis has been the first to arrive on each of the scenes. Davis discovers that the blood on his body is not his, and that he has no wounds; Davis starts to believe that he is the killer because he suffers blackouts during the attacks, and finds his skin under the fingernail of a victim. One of Chloe's Isis clients attacks Davis and Jimmy, and after Clark subdues him, the client confesses to all of the murders. John warns Clark that his heroic actions are getting a lot of attention and could expose him to the world, so he needs to be more careful when saving people.

159
7
"Identity"
Mairzee Almas
Todd Slavkin & Darren Swimmer
October 30, 2008 (2008-10-30)
3T7457
4.32[14]

Lois and Jimmy are mugged on the street, and when Jimmy attempts to snap a picture of the mugger he catches a blurred image of Clark saving Lois. Jimmy goes on the hunt to identify the mysterious "Good Samaritan", and Chloe tells Clark that he should use this opportunity to create an alter ego for himself like Oliver has with "Green Arrow". Tess plants a new reporter, Sebastian Kane, at the Daily Planet, who has the ability to steal memories, to find out if Lois stole the crystal. Jimmy's research leads him right to Clark. Having Oliver pose as the Good Samaritan, Clark sets up a scheme and shows Jimmy that he is wrong. Sebastian attempts to kill Lois after discovering that she knows who he is, but Clark intervenes. Chloe visits Sebastian, and when she learns that he knows Clark's secret she uses her abilities to give him a stroke.

160
8
"Bloodline"
Michael Rohl
Caroline Dries
November 6, 2008 (2008-11-06)
3T7459
4.45[15]

Someone sends Clark the crystal to rebuild the Fortress, only, when Clark touches the crystal it activates and sends him and Lois to the Phantom Zone. There, Clark and Lois find Kara, who helps Lois escape back to Earth. Unfortunately, General Zod's wife, Faora, also escapes and takes over Lois's body. Faora sets out to find her son, who turns out to be Davis – Faora explains that he was created when Faora and Zod could not have children. Chloe uses her powers to bring Clark and Kara back to Earth, with Kara getting John Jones's crystal to exorcise Faora from Lois's body. Tess pieces together that Clark was in the Arctic with Lex when he disappeared, while Kara decides to leave Earth in search of Kandor, a city that could possibly house survivors of Krypton.

161
9
"Abyss"
Kevin G. Fair
Don Whitehead & Holly Henderson
November 13, 2008 (2008-11-13)
3T7458
3.55[16]

Chloe's memories begin rapidly disappearing, as Brainiac replaces them with Kryptonian code, with the symbol for "Doom" appearing repeatedly. After Chloe forgets everyone, except Davis, Clark decides he has to use the crystal to rebuild the Fortress of Solitude and have Jor-El restore her memories. However, Clark makes a sole provision, that all of Chloe's knowledge about Clark's true identity be removed. As Jor-El restores her memories, Brainiac leaves Chloe and infects the Fortress, unknown to Clark. With her memories restored, Chloe continues planning her wedding with Jimmy. Davis visits Chloe and confesses his love for her, and that he believes she is marrying the wrong man.

162
10
"Bride"
Jeannot Szwarc
Al Septien & Turi Meyer
November 20, 2008 (2008-11-20)
3T7460
4.18[17]

While Lois organizes Jimmy and Chloe's wedding, Oliver shows up on the Kent farm and informs Clark that Lex is still alive, but he needs Clark's help to find Lex's exact location. Clark declines his immediate assistance, explaining that Chloe no longer knows his secret and would never understand why he could not give her away at her wedding. Traveling to Cuba, Oliver meets Lana Lang, who has also been following Lex's trail. Oliver convinces Lana to come back to Smallville, and she arrives at the wedding interrupting Clark and Lois just as they are about to kiss. A security guard discovers Davis disposing of evidence, but before he can call the police, Davis morphs into a Kryptonian monster and kills him. The monster arrives at the ceremony, where he critically injures Jimmy and kidnaps Chloe; he then takes Chloe to the Fortress of Solitude. Lois decides to leave Smallville to help Jimmy although her real reason is the arrival of Lana and leaves heartbroken.

163
11
"Legion"
Glen Winter
Geoff Johns
January 15, 2009 (2009-01-15)
3T7461
4.29[18]

Clark is attacked by the Persuader in his barn, but before he is killed a trio of superpowered aliens from the 31st Century, called the Legion, shows up and saves him. While inhabiting Chloe's body, Brainiac informs Davis that he will soon become the creature "Doomsday" permanently, and places him in an ice cocoon for the metamorphosis. Rokk, Imra and Garth inform Clark that today is the day he is supposed to destroy Brainiac for good, but the only way for him to do that would be to kill Chloe. Brainiac begins sucking the knowledge from every human mind through the world's computer network when he is attacked by the Legion. Before the Legionnaires can kill Chloe, Clark intervenes and convinces them to focus their powers and pull Brainiac out of Chloe. Afterward, the Legion takes what is left of Brainiac with them back to the future to reprogram him into Brainiac 5, leaving Clark with a Legion ring of his own.

164
12
"Bulletproof"
Morgan Beggs
Bryan Miller
January 22, 2009 (2009-01-22)
3T7462
3.85[19]

John Jones is shot by an unseen assailant while on duty, and Chloe and Clark suspect that the shooter was another police officer. Clark goes undercover as a cop to identify the shooter. Clark discovers that a group of officers are taking the law into their own hands, and killing criminals. The group realize who Clark really is, and frame him for John's attempted murder. Believing that Green Arrow is on to them, the cops attempt to kill him as well. Luckily, Clark's words of encouragement persuade one of the cops, a young Dan Turpin, to turn on the others. With some help from John, who has recovered, Clark is cleared of all charges. Lana informs Tess that Lex inserted a nano-transmitter into her optic nerve so that he could keep an eye on everything she was doing. As retribution, Tess offers Oliver the chance to buy LuthorCorp.

165
13
"Power"
Allison Mack
Todd Slavkin & Darren Swimmer
January 29, 2009 (2009-01-29)
3T7463
4.21[20]

Believing that Lana has been kidnapped, Tess tells Clark that she believes Lex took her. She also informs Clark that the reason Lana left after coming out of her coma was because Lex had her taken into custody when she woke, and forced her to break up with Clark via a video. After Clark talks with Chloe, he realizes that Lana never returned because she was busy plotting her revenge against Lex. Clark and Chloe discover that Lana was not kidnapped, but intends to use Lex's "Prometheus" technology, which harnesses alien DNA to give an individual super-human abilities, on herself. It is a success, and Lana is imbued with super-powers of her own. Later, she tells Clark that he no longer has to worry about her, and that they can work together to make the world a better place.

166
14
"Requiem"
Michael Rohl
Don Whitehead & Holly Henderson
February 5, 2009 (2009-02-05)
3T7464
3.93[21]

Just as Oliver is announcing to the LuthorCorp board of executives that Queen Industries has bought controlling interest in LuthorCorp a bomb detonates in the meeting room. Clark and Lana investigate the bombing and discover that the bomb was made with kryptonite. Lana also discovers that her suit not only gives her strength and speed, but absorbs kryptonite radiation as well. The bombmaker, Winslow Schott, a former Queen Industries employee now under the employ of Lex, plants another bomb on the roof of the Daily Planet. When Lana absorbs the kryptonite in this bomb to deactivate it, she becomes so irradiated that she and Clark can never again be near each other. Clark tracks Lex down, but Lana stops him from doing something he would regret, and Lex's mobile safe-house explodes and kills him. To keep from harming Clark, Lana leaves Smallville, again.

167
15
"Infamous"
Glen Winter
Caroline Dries
March 12, 2009 (2009-03-12)
3T7465
3.56[22]

Lois Lane returns to Smallville and is not happy to see Clark. Linda Lake comes back and threatens to expose Clark's secret if he does not agree to provide her with the inside scoop on all of the "Red-Blue Blur" heroics he performs. Instead, Clark has Lois write his story as a means of controlling the inevitable. In response, Linda announces that Clark is part of an alien invasion, and that he killed Lex Luthor. With the police after him, Clark uses his Legion ring to go back in time and stops Linda from writing her story; Clark destroys the ring afterward. Davis begins taking antipsychotic medication to keep his alien side from coming out. When Linda tries to bring out Doomsday, in an effort to escape from going to prison, Davis keeps the creature from coming by killing her.

168
16
"Turbulence"
Kevin G. Fair
Al Septien & Turi Meyer
March 19, 2009 (2009-03-19)
3T7466
3.49[23]

Clark begins to embrace the idea of a double identity by wearing his blue shirt under his suit, carrying his red jacket in his backpack, and switching into his Red-Blue Blur persona whenever he needs to. Tess orchestrates an elaborate plan to expose Clark's secret, which involves stranding the two of them on a plane on the verge of crashing. Clark manages to get the two to safety without Tess seeing him use his powers. Meanwhile, Jimmy witnesses Davis murdering a man in the hospital, but Davis drugs Jimmy with a hallucinogen to make it appear that he is delusional. After witnessing Chloe and Davis hugging, and having Chloe stun him with a taser before he could hit Davis with a pipe, Jimmy informs Chloe that marrying her was a mistake and he walks out on her.

169
17
"Hex"
Mairzee Almas
Bryan Miller
March 26, 2009 (2009-03-26)
3T7467
3.79[24]

A magician, Zatanna, grants Chloe's wish to have Lois's life, and as a result Chloe wakes up with Lois's body. Chloe informs Clark about what has happened, and the pair track down Zatanna. Chloe learns that to reverse the spell she has to not want the wish any longer; at the same time, Clark inadvertently wishes to have a normal life, which deprives him of the knowledge of his abilities. Zatanna visits Oliver and offers to grant him one wish if he can find her father's book of spells. Oliver gets the book, and Zatanna sets out to resurrect her father with it, which will require her to sacrifice her own life. Clark regains the memory of his alien heritage with help from Chloe, and convinces Zatanna not to sacrifice herself but instead use her gifts to honor her father's memory.

170
18
"Eternal"
James Marshall
Brian Peterson & Kelly Souders
April 2, 2009 (2009-04-02)
3T7468
3.84[25]

After doing some research, Tess informs Davis that he crash landed to Earth in 1989, during the Smallville meteor shower, alongside another boy. She tells Davis that he and Clark Kent are destined to fight and kill each other, and that Clark cannot accept his role as Earth's savior until he kills Davis. Davis remembers that he was hurt by kryptonite as a child, and has Chloe lock him in a tank and drown him in a kryptonite solution until he dies. Tess tries to convince Clark that she knows who he is, and her theory about his needing to kill Davis, but she fails. In the end, Davis returns to life and is now immune to kryptonite; he informs Chloe that her presence is the only thing that keeps Doomsday at bay. It is also revealed that Tess is in possession of the Kryptonian orb that took Clark's powers.

171
19
"Stiletto"
Kevin G. Fair
Caroline Dries
April 23, 2009 (2009-04-23)
3T7469
3.10[26]

After saving Chloe from a carjacker, who turns out to be local mobster, Bruno Mannheim, Lois takes on the superhero persona of "Stiletto", which she uses to get closer to the Red-Blue Blur and convince him to give an interview to "Lois Lane". Jimmy is enlisted to take photos of Lois in her Stiletto costume, but his camera is taken by the mobster, who wants revenge on Stiletto. Clark goes looking for Stiletto, in an effort to track down Chloe's laptop that contains files on Oliver and his team, and discovers that Lois is Stiletto. After lecturing her on faking a story, he tracks down the laptop but is incapacitated by kryptonite. Lois arrives just in time to save Clark. In the end, Lois receives a call from the Red-Blue Blur who informs her that she does not need to fake stories to be a good reporter, and when he is ready to come out to the world she will be the first to know.

172
20
"Beast"
Michael Rohl
Genevieve Sparling
April 30, 2009 (2009-04-30)
3T7470
3.23[27]

Clark begins to suspect that Davis is alive, and when the Metropolis police issue a manhunt for Davis, whom they believe to be a local serial killer, Chloe decides it would be best if they both just left Smallville. Clark informs Chloe that he can send Davis to the Phantom Zone using the crystal from the Fortress of Solitude; hearing this, Chloe lies and tells Clark she thinks Davis could be in Alaska. Clark finds Davis in the process of killing Oliver, but he intervenes and takes Davis to the Fortress. Clark uses the crystal to open the Phantom Zone, but Chloe arrives, removes the crystal, and chastises Clark for giving up on Davis. Chloe and Davis leave the Fortress and Smallville, going off the grid so that Clark and Oliver can not track them.

173
21
"Injustice"
Tom Welling
Al Septien & Turi Meyer
May 7, 2009 (2009-05-07)
3T7471
3.39[28]

Tess gathers a team of meteor-infected individuals to track Doomsday so that she can give Clark his location, and hopefully convince him to kill Doomsday. One of Tess' team members pretends to be Chloe in order to trick Clark into killing Doomsday. Instead, Tess learns that Clark plans to use black kryptonite to split Davis from his Doomsday persona, and send the beast into the Phantom Zone. As a result, Tess steals the crystal that opens the Phantom Zone and destroys it, all at the request from a disembodied voice claiming to be from Kandor that emanates from the Kryptonian orb she has. Tess informs Clark that now he has no choice but to kill Doomsday. Meanwhile, Oliver confesses to Clark that he killed Lex, which forces Clark to question who Oliver has become if he's willing to take another man's life.

174
22
"Doomsday"
James Marshall
Brian Peterson & Kelly Souders
May 14, 2009 (2009-05-14)
3T7472
3.13[29]

Rokk returns from the 31st Century and informs Clark that Doomsday will kill him, and gives him a new Legion ring to transport Doomsday to the future. Instead, Clark decides to use black kryptonite to split Davis from Doomsday, and bury the beast a mile underground. Tess confronts Lois about stealing the Kryptonian orb, but as the two fight, Lois finds the Legion ring and is transported to another time in history. When Davis starts to change, Chloe uses the black kryptonite to split him herself. Clark battles Doomsday in the streets of Metropolis and manages to bury Doomsday, as planned, using explosives to seal the tunnel. Davis stabs Jimmy when he realizes that Chloe still loves Jimmy, but before he dies Jimmy impales Davis on a metal rod. Clark tells Chloe that it is human-learned emotions that have caused him the most trouble, and vows that "Clark Kent is dead"; the orb returns to Tess and releases Zod.

text: Production[edit]

text: Writing[edit]

text: Executive producer Kelly Souders explained that the loss of show creators Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, as well as series regulars Michael Rosenbaum and Kristin Kreuk at the end of the seventh season, forced the creative team to look at the show from a new angle. As Souders explained, it allowed the writers to work with "blank slates", and come up with ways to "reinvigorate and reinvent the show".[5] Executive producer Darren Swimmer explained that this season would feature Chloe's powers manifesting in a way that they have not previously been seen. He went on to express that the theme of season eight would be "double identity"; specifically, Swimmer explained that Clark would begin to understand that he is going to have to live a double life, or he will never be able to continue forward with his destiny. Season eight would be about Clark moving forward to his destiny in a way that the show has never attempted before.[30] Swimmer further explained that Clark will be acting more with his superpowers, whereas previously he would "react" to the situation; "he's going to seek out trouble." Clark joined the Daily Planet to help his cause, using the Planet as a means to get information about where there is trouble. Clark's heroic actions put him in Jimmy's sights, who starts connecting things to Clark; this helped fuel Clark's decision to develop a "secret identity".[31] Another reason for Clark's decision to develop a secret identity will be the stark contrast between saving people in the secluded streets of Smallville, and saving people in the crowded streets of Metropolis.[32] While working at the Daily Planet, Clark was paired up with Lois on various assignments. Lois Lane actress Erica Durance, explained the episodes would be more focused on her character than they have been in the past, and that Lois and Clark would be both rivals and supportive partners to each other. Durance also revealed that Lois would begin to realize her true romantic feelings for Clark, but that she does not want him to know the truth because she does not know what she wants to do with those feelings. Season eight explored these romantic notions between the two characters.[33] Jeph Loeb added that season eight would explore more of the DC Comics mythology, and would introduce new characters, as well as expand on already existing ones in Smallville continuity.[34] Peterson also revealed that there would be a chance that the show would break the "No flights, no tights" rule, at least in regard to the flying part of the rule.[32]

text: With Justin Hartley added as a series regular, Smallville would explore more of his backstory, including why he chose to become Green Arrow, how he accomplished it, and how he became good at archery. This season would also explore more of the friendship between Oliver Queen and Clark. Oliver would be broken down emotionally—questioning whether he made the right choice to sacrifice all for the sake of being Green Arrow—and that causes him to "butt heads" with Clark, who is beginning to embrace his destiny.[35] Allison Mack's character, Chloe Sullivan, would have more romantic interests this season. Not only would the character still have Jimmy Olsen, but there is still the question of her romantic interest in Clark, as well as a new interest in the character of Davis Bloome. Mack's character would also be picking up the Isis Foundation, a counseling center for people infected by kryptonite, that Lana founded before she left Smallville. Mack explained that Chloe would be forging her own destiny this season, and letting Clark learn to deal with problems on his own—previous seasons saw Clark relying heavily on Chloe to help solve the crime.[36]

text: Characters[edit]

text: Brian Wayne Peterson and Todd Slavkin revealed that they planned to introduce more DC Comics characters into Smallville this season. Among those appearing were Plastique and Maxima, the latter coming to Smallville to try to mate with Clark.[37] This version of Maxima had the ability to make herself irresistible to men, including Clark, whom she set her sights on; actress Charlotte Sullivan was cast as Maxima.[31] Smallville also introduced the futuristic heroes from the Legion of Super-Heroes. Comic book scribe Geoff Johns wrote the episode that featured the Legion of Super-Heroes, and suggested that people familiar with the Legion would recognize them when they appeared on the show, as they had some of the quintessential elements of their comic book counterparts.[38] Darren Swimmer stated that they would be using Saturn Girl, Cosmic Boy and Lightning Lad for this episode.[31] In the seventeenth episode, "Hex", Smallville puts its spin on the DC character Zatanna. Portrayed by Serinda Swan, Zatanna is a magician who comes to town and grants Chloe a birthday wish that results in Chloe's body transforming into Lois.[39] In an interview, writer Bryan Q. Miller explains that he read through archived comics featuring the Zatanna character, but was more influenced by Grant Morrison’s writing turn on Seven Soldiers, as well as the television episodes of Batman: The Animated Series and Justice League Unlimited that Zatanna made appearances on.[40] Swan won the role of Zatanna after "acing" her audition thanks to the actress recording Zatanna's spells into her iPod and studying them in reverse—to cast a spell Zatanna recites the words in reverse.[41]

text: There are two new characters added to the show as series regulars, Tess Mercer and Davis Bloome. The name "Tess Mercer" is a homage to two characters from Superman lore, Eve Teschmacher and Mercy Graves.[42] As Freeman describes her character, Tess Mercer is Lex's handpicked successor; she is "fierce", "fun" and intelligent. Tess Mercer's primary goal for this season was finding Lex, which drew her inquisitively to Clark, who she believed would be able to help her.[43] Darren Swimmer revealed that Tess would develop a romantic interest in Clark as well.[31] Davis Bloome would actually be Smallville's interpretation of Doomsday, the only character to have succeeded at killing Superman. In Smallville, Doomsday was represented by a "nice guy" paramedic, who grew up moving from foster home to foster home. His storyline was very dark in that the character would uncover horrible truths about himself. Witwer explained that over the course of the season, his character would come to resemble that of the comic book counterpart he is based on.[44] Brian Peterson explained that the new executive producers were looking for a villainous character that was "as great as Lex", with Michael Rosenbaum's departure, and Doomsday fit what they were looking for.[5]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Season eight finished 152 out of the 190 shows ranked in the Nielsen ratings, averaging 3.74 million viewers a week.[6] Smallville's eighth season received an Emmy Award nomination in the Sound Editing for a Series category.[7] In the 2009 Teen Choice Awards, Tom Welling received the award for Choice TV Actor – Action Adventure.[45]

text: The season eight DVD box set was officially released on August 25, 2009,[46] and sold approximately 183,000 units in its first week; it generated an estimated $6.7 million. Comparatively, the DVD revenue decreased from the previous year, with the season seven box set having sold over 212,000 units and generating an estimated $8 million during its first week. Regardless, it was enough for Smallville to earn second place in most units sold during the ending week of August 30, 2009, just behind the season five boxset of House which sold approximately 223,000 units. Even though House sold more units, Smallville's $6.7 million in revenue was more than House's $6.0 million, making it the top money earner for the week.[47] In its second week, the eighth season only sold 55,000 units, and earning more than $2 million.[48] The third week of release saw another dip in sales, with the season eight boxset only selling 30,000 units. At the same time, the end of week three brought the season eight sales past the $10 million mark.[49]

text: Home media release[edit]

text: The complete eighth season of Smallville was released on August 25, 2009 in North America in both DVD and Blu-ray format.[50][51] The DVD and Blu-ray box set were also released in region 2 and region 4 on October 12, 2009 and March 31, 2010, respectively.[52][53][54][55] The box set included various special features, including episode commentary, a behind-the-scenes featurettes titled "Smallville's Doomsday: The Making of a Monster" and "In the Director’s Chair: Behind the Lens and Calling the Shots with Allison Mack".[56]


document_title: Midday Meal Scheme

question_text: who started first mid day meal in india

question_tokens: who started first mid day meal in india

root

text: Midday Meal Scheme

text: History[edit]

text: Pre-independence and post-independence initiatives[edit]

text: The roots of the programme can be traced back to the pre-independence era, when a mid day meal programme was introduced in 1925 in Madras Corporation by the British administration.[3] A mid day meal programme was introduced in the Union Territory of Puducherry by the French administration in 1930.[6]

tag: p

text: Initiatives by state governments to children began with their launch of a mid day meal programme in primary schools in the 1962–63 school year. Tamil Nadu is a pioneer in introducing mid day meal programmes in India to increase the number of kids coming to school; Thiru K. Kamaraj, then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, introduced it first in Chennai and later extended it to all districts of Tamil Nadu.[7]

text: During 1982, July 1 onwards, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Thiru. M. G. Ramachandran upgraded the existing Mid-day meal scheme in the state to 'Nutritious food scheme' keeping in the mind that 68 lakh children suffer malnutrition.[8]

text: Gujarat was the second state to introduce an MDM scheme in 1984, but it was later discontinued.[9]

text: A midday meal scheme was introduced in Kerala in 1984, and was gradually expanded to include more schools and grades.[10] By 1990–91, twelve states were funding the scheme to all or most of the students in their area: Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. Karnataka, Orissa, and West Bengal received international aid to help with implementation of the programme, and in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan the programme was funded entirely using foreign aid.[11]

text: In Karnataka, Children's LoveCastles Trust started to provide mid-day meals in 1997. A total of eight schools were adopted and a food bank programme and an Angganwasi milk Programme were started. The food-bank programme was replaced by the State Government midday meal scheme.[12]

text: Initiatives by the central government[edit]

text: The government of India initiated the National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (NP-NSPE) on 15 August 1995.[3] The objective of the scheme is to help improve the effectiveness of primary education by improving the nutritional status of primary school children. Initially, the scheme was implemented in 2,408 blocks of the country to provide food to students in classes one through five of government, government-aided and local body run schools. By 1997–98, the scheme had been implemented across the country. Under this programme, a cooked mid day meal with 300 calories and 12 grams of protein is provided to all children enrolled in classes one to five. In October 2007, the scheme included students in upper primary classes of six to eight in 3,479 educationally backward blocks,[13] and the name was changed from National Programme for Nutrition Support to Primary Education to National Programme of Mid Day Meals in Schools.[14]

text: Though cooked food was to be provided, most states (apart from those already providing cooked food) chose to provide "dry rations" to students. "Dry rations" refers to the provision of uncooked 3 kg of wheat or rice to children with 80% attendance.

text: Supreme court order[edit]

text: In April 2001, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) initiated the public interest litigation (Civil) No. 196/2001, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Others[15] – popularly known as the "right to food" case. The PUCL argued that article 21 – "right to life" of the Indian constitution when read together with articles 39(a) and 47, makes the right to food a derived fundamental right which is enforceable by virtue of the constitutional remedy provided under article 32 of the constitution. The PUCL argued that excess food stocks with the Food Corporation of India should be fed to hungry citizens. This included providing mid day meals in primary schools. The scheme came into force with the supreme court order dated 28 November 2001,[16] which requires all government and government-assisted primary schools to provide cooked midday meals.[17]

text: Interim orders[edit]

text: The supreme court occasionally issues interim orders regarding midday meals.[18] Some examples are:[17]

text:
Order regarding
Exact text
Order dated

Basic entitlement
"Every child in every Government and Government assisted Primary Schools with a prepared mid day meal with a minimum content of 300 calories and 8–12 grams of protein each day of school for a minimum of 200 days"
28 November 2001[19]

Charges on conversion cost
"The conversion costs for a cooked meal, under no circumstances, shall be recovered from the children or their parents"
20 April 2004[20]

Central assistance
"The Central Government... shall also allocate funds to meet with the conversion costs of food-grains into cooked midday meals"
20 April 2004[20]

Kitchen sheds
"The Central Government shall make provisions for construction of kitchen sheds"
20 April 2004[20]

Priority to Dalit cooks
"In appointment of cooks and helpers, preference shall be given to Dalits, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes"
20 April 2004[20]

Quality safeguards
"Attempts shall be made for better infrastructure, improved facilities (safe drinking water etc.), closer monitoring (regular inspection etc.) and other quality safeguards as also the improvement of the contents of the meal so as to provide nutritious meal to the children of the primary schools"
20 April 2004[20]

Drought areas
"In drought affected areas, midday meals shall be supplied even during summer vacations"
20 April 2004[20]

tag: table

text: Entitlements[edit]

text: The nutritional guidelines for the minimum amount of food and calorie content per child per day are:[2]

text:
Entitlement norm per child per day under MDM

Item
Primary (class one to five)
Upper primary (class six to eight)

Calories
450
700

Protein (in grams )
12
20

Rice / wheat (in grams )
100
150

Dal (in grams )
20
30

Vegetables (in grams )
50
75

Oil and fat (in grams )
5
7.5

text: In the case of micronutrients (vitamin A, iron, and folate) tablets and de-worming medicines, the student is entitled to receive the amount provided for in the school health programme of the National Rural Health Mission.[21]

text: Finances[edit]

text: The central and state governments share the cost of the Midday Meal Scheme, with the centre providing 60 percent and the states 40 percent.[22] The central government provides grains and financing for other food. Costs for facilities, transportation, and labour is shared by the federal and state governments.[23] The participating states contribute different amounts of money.[17] While the eleventh five-year plan allocated ₹384.9 billion (US$6.0 billion) for the scheme, the twelfth five-year plan has allocated ₹901.55 billion (US$14 billion), a 134 percent rise.[24] The public expenditure for the Mid Day Meal Programme has gone up from ₹73.24 billion (US$1.1 billion) in 2007–08 to ₹132.15 billion (US$2.1 billion) in 2013–14.[25] The per day cooking cost per child at the primary level has been fixed to ₹4.13 (6.4¢ US) while at the upper primary level is ₹6.18 (9.6¢ US).[26]

text: Implementation models[edit]

text: Decentralised model[edit]

text: This is the most widespread practice. In the decentralised model, meals are cooked on-site by local cooks and helpers or self-help groups. This system has the advantage of being able to serve local cuisine, providing jobs in the area, and minimising waste. It also allows for better monitoring (e.g., by parents and teachers).

text: In the absence of adequate infrastructure (such as kitchen sheds, utensils etc.), it can lead to accidents and maintaining hygiene can be difficult.[27] In 2004, 87 children died when the thatched roof of a classroom was ignited by sparks from a cooking fire,.[28] In 2011, a child died after succumbing to burn injuries she sustained after accidentally falling into a cooking vessel.[29]

text: Centralised model[edit]

text: In the centralised model, an external organisation cooks and delivers the meal to schools, mostly through public-private partnerships. Centralised kitchens are seen more in urban areas, where density of schools is high so that transporting food is a financially viable option. Advantages of centralised kitchens include ensuring better hygienic as large scale cooking is done through largely automated processes. Various NGOs such as the Akshaya Patra Foundation, Ekta Shakti Foundation, Naandi Foundation, and Jay Gee Humanitarian Society provide mid-day meals.[22]

text: A study of centralised kitchens in Delhi in 2007 found that even with centralised kitchens, the quality of food needed to be improved.[30] The study also found that when the food arrives and is of inadequate quality, even teachers feel helpless and do not know whom to complain to.

text: The Ministry of Human Resource Development reported that 95% of tested meal samples prepared by NGOs in Delhi did not meet nutritional standards in 2010–12. In response, the ministry withheld 50% of the payment for the deficient meals.[31]

text: International assistance[edit]

text: International voluntary and charity organisations have assisted. Church World Service has provided milk powder to Delhi and Madras Municipal Corporation; CARE has provided corn soya meal, Bulgar wheat, and vegetable oils; and UNICEF has provided high proteins foods and educational support.[32] In 1982, 'Food for Learning' was launched with assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Initially the programme was aimed at scheduled caste and scheduled tribe girls.[32] In 1983, the federal Department of Education prepared a scheme under the auspices of the World Food Programme to supply meals to 13.6 million scheduled caste girls and 10.09 million scheduled tribe girls in classes one to five in 15 states and three union territories. The value of the food itself was $163.27 million per year.[32] Labour, facilities, and transportation costs were to be paid by the state governments. The reaction among the states and union territories was mixed. Many states were interested, but some were concerned about their ability to afford it if the FAO support were to be withdrawn.[1]

text: Monitoring and evaluation[edit]

text: Monitoring mechanism[edit]

text:
Committees to monitor the MDM Programme[23]

Level
Committee
Frequency of meeting

National
The national level steering / monitoring committee
Program Approval Board (PAB)
Quarterly

State
The state level steering / monitoring committee
Quarterly

District
The district level committee
Monthly

Municipal
The municipal committee
Monthly

Block
The Mandal level committee
Fortnightly

Village
Panchayat level sub-committee
Day-to-day functioning of the implementing of the scheme

School
School management and development committee
or Parent Teacher Association.
Monthly and as when it is
required

text: The government of India Review Missions on Mid Day Meal Scheme, comprising members from the central government, state governments, UNICEF, and the office of the supreme court commissioner was created in 2010 to review the programme and offer suggestions for improvement.[33] The scheme is independently monitored twice a year.[34]

text: Evaluation of the scheme[edit]

text: The MDM scheme has many potential benefits: attracting children from disadvantaged sections (especially girls, Dalits and Adivasis) to school, improving regularity, nutritional benefits, socialisation benefits and benefits to women are some that have been highlighted.[35][36]

text: Studies by economists show that some of these benefits have indeed been realised. The positive effect on enrollment of disadvantaged children (Dreze and Kingdon), on attendance (by Chakraborty, Jayaraman, Pande),[37] on learning effort (by Booruah, Afridi and Somanathan), on improving nutritional inputs (Afridi), on improving nutritional outcomes (by Singh, Dercon and Parker), and so on.

text: Caste based discrimination continues to occur in the serving of food, though the government seems unwilling to acknowledge this.[38] Sukhdeo Thorat and Joel Lee found in their 2005 study that caste discrimination was occurring in conjunction with the Mid Day Meals programme.[39]

text: Media reports also document the positive effect of the programme for women, especially working women[40] and its popularity among parents, children and teachers alike. Media reports have also highlighted several implementation issues, including irregularity, corruption, hygiene, caste discrimination, etc. A few such incidents are listed below:

text: - In December 2005, Delhi police seized eight trucks laden with 2,760 sacks of rice meant for primary school children. The rice was being transported from Food Corporation of India godowns Bulandshahr district to North Delhi. The police stopped the trucks and investigators later discovered that the rice was being stolen by an NGO.[41]

text: - In November 2006, the residents of Pembong village (30 km from Darjeeling) accused a group of teachers of embezzling midday meals. In a written complaint, the residents claimed that students at the primary school had not received their midday meal for the past year and a half.[42]

text: - In December 2006, The Times of India reported that school staff were inflating attendance in order to obtain food grains.[43]

text: - Twenty-three children died in Dharma Sati village in Saran District on 16 July 2013 after eating pesticide-contaminated mid day meals.[25] On 31 July 2013, 55 students at a government middle school fell ill at Kalyuga village in Jamui district after their midday meal provided by an NGO. On the same day, 95 students at Chamandi primary school in Arwal district were ill after their meal.[44]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Despite the success of the program, child hunger as a problem persists in India. According to current statistics, 42.5% of the children under 5 are underweight. Some simple health measures such as using iodised salt and getting vaccinations are uncommon in India.[45] "India is home to the world's largest food insecure population, with more than 500 million people who are hungry", India State Hunger Index (ISHI) said. Many children don't get enough to eat, which has far-reaching implications for the performance of the country as a whole. "Its rates of child malnutrition is higher than most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa," it noted.[46] The 2009 Global Hunger Index ranked India at 65 out of 84 countries. More than 200 million went hungry in India that year, more than any other country in the world. The report states that "improving child nutrition is of utmost urgency in most Indian states".[47]


document_title: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

question_text: a supreme court justice who does not agree with the majority decision can submit

text: Terms and sittings[edit]

text: A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

text: The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]

text: Appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:

text:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.

tag: ul

text: Original jurisdiction[edit]

text: Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.

text: The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.

text: Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[1] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[2]

text: Selection of cases[edit]

text:
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction has been discretionary.[3] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[4][5]

text: The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court's Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson's first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[6]

text: In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[7][8][9]

text: During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[10]

text: The votes of four Justices at Conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.

text: The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.

text: Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.

text: Hearing cases[edit]

text: Filing briefs[edit]

text: Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:

text: Oral arguments[edit]

text: Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.

text: To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[12]

text: The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[13] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.

text: In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it is "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he has already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it is "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney can make the difference for him.[14]

text: Forming opinions[edit]

text: The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]

text: At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[15] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.

text: Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[16] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[17] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.

text: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]

text: The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[18] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.

text: Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.

text: The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[19] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[20] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[21] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[22] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

text: A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.

text: After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[23]

text: Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.

text: Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]

text:
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."
Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case.
The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.

text: A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[24]

text: Announcement of opinions[edit]

text: Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[25]

text: The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.

text: Reporting and citation of cases[edit]

text: Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[26]

text: The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.

text: Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.


document_title: Safety razor

question_text: when was the double edged safety razor invented

text: Safety razor

text: History[edit]

text: Early designs[edit]

text: The basic form of a razor, "the cutting blade of which is at right angles with the handle, and resembles somewhat the form of a common hoe", was first described in a patent application in 1847 by William S. Henson. This also covered a "comb tooth guard or protector" which could be attached both to the hoe form and to a conventional straight razor.

text: The first attested use of the term "safety razor" is in a patent application for "new and useful improvements in Safety-Razors", filed in May 1880 by Fredrik and Otto Kampfe of Brooklyn, New York, and issued the following month. This differed from the Henson design in distancing the blade from the handle by interposing, "a hollow metallic blade-holder having a preferably removable handle and a flat plate in front, to which the blade is attached by clips and a pivoted catch, said plate having bars or teeth at its lower edge, and the lower plate having an opening, for the purpose set forth", which is, to "insure a smooth bearing for the plate upon the skin, while the teeth or bars will yield sufficiently to allow the razor to sever the hair without danger of cutting the skin."[2] The Kampfe Brothers produced razors under their own name following the 1880 patent and improved the design in a series of subsequent patents. These models were manufactured under the "Star Safety Razor" brand.

text: A third pivotal innovation was a safety razor using a disposable double-edge blade that King Camp Gillette submitted a patent application for in 1901 and was granted in 1904.[3] The success of Gillette's invention was largely a result of his having been awarded a contract to supply the American troops in World War I with double-edge safety razors as part of their standard field kits (delivering a total of 3.5 million razors and 32 million blades for them). The returning soldiers were permitted to keep that part of their equipment and therefore easily retained their new shaving habits. The subsequent consumer demand for replacement blades put the shaving industry on course toward its present form with Gillette as a dominant force.[4] Prior to the introduction of the disposable blade, users of safety razors still needed to strop and hone the edges of their blades. These are not trivial skills (honing frequently being left to a professional) and remained a barrier to the ubiquitous adopting of the be your own barber ideal.[5]

text: Single-edge razors[edit]

text: The first safety razors used a single-edge blade that was essentially a 4 cm long segment of a straight razor. A flat blade that could be used alternately with this "wedge" was first illustrated in a patent issued in 1878, serving as a close prototype for the single-edge blade in its present form. New single-edge razors were developed and used side-by-side with double-edge razors for decades. The largest manufacturers were the American Safety Razor Company with its "Ever-Ready" series, and the Gem Cutlery Company with its "Gem" models. Although single-edge razors are no longer in production they are readily available. Blades for them are still being manufactured both for shaving and technical purposes.

text: A second popular single-edge design is the "Injector" razor developed and placed on the market by Schick Razors in the 1920s. This uses narrow blades stored in an injector device with which they are inserted directly into the razor.[6] The injector blade was the first to depart from the rectangular dimensions shared by the wedge, standard single-edge, and double-edge blades. The injector, itself, was also the first device intended to reduce the risk of injury from handling blades. The Gillette blade dispenser released in 1947 had the same purpose.[7] The narrow injector blade, as well as the form of the injector razor, also strongly influenced the corresponding details of the subsequently developed cartridge razors.

text: Until the 1960s, razor blades were made of carbon steel. These were prone to rusting unless carefully dried and often left users to change blades frequently. In 1965, the British company Wilkinson Sword began to sell blades made of stainless steel, which did not rust and could be used until blunt. Wilkinson quickly captured U.S., British and European markets. As a result, American Safety Razor, Gillette and Schick were driven to produce stainless steel blades to compete. Today, almost all razor blades are stainless steel although carbon steel blades remain in limited production for lower income markets. Because Gillette held a patent on stainless blades but had not acted on it, the company was accused of exploiting customers by forcing them to buy the rust-prone blade.[8]

text: The risk of injury from handling razor blades was further reduced in 1970 when Wilkinson released its "Bonded Shaving System", which embedded a single blade in a disposable polymer plastic cartridge. A flurry of competing models soon followed with everything from one to six blades, with many cartridge blade razors also having disposable handles. Cartridge blade razors are sometimes considered to be a generic category of their own and not a variety of safety razor.[9][10] The similarities between single-edge cartridge blade razors and the classic injector razor do, however, provide equal justification for treating both categories contiguously.

text: In 1974 Bic introduced the disposable razor. Instead of being a razor with a disposable blade, the entire razor was manufactured to be disposable. Gillette's response was the Good News disposable razor which was launched on the US market in 1976 before the Bic disposable was made available on that market.[11] Shortly thereafter, Gillette modified the Good News construction to add an aloe strip above the razor, resulting in the Good News Plus. The purported benefit of the aloe strip is to ease any discomfort felt on the face while shaving.

text: In direct response to Wilkinson's Bonded cartridge, during the following year Gillette introduced the twin-blade Trac II. They claimed that research showed the tandem action of the two blades to give a closer shave than a single blade, because of a hysteresis effect. In addition to the cutting action of the first blade, it also pulls the hair out of the follicle into which it does not fully retract before the second blade cuts it further. The extent to which this is of practical consequence has, however, been questioned.[12]

text: Recent changes[edit]

text: Gillette introduced the first triple-blade cartridge razor, the Mach3, in 1998, and later upgraded the Sensor cartridge to the Sensor3 by adding a third blade. Schick/Wilkinson responded to the Mach3 with the Quattro, the first four-blade cartridge razor. These innovations are marketed with the message that they help consumers achieve the best shave as easily as possible. Another impetus for the sale of multiple-blade cartridges is that they have high profit margins.[13] With manufacturers frequently updating their shaving systems, consumers can become locked into buying their proprietary cartridges, for as long as the manufacturer continues to make them. Subsequent to introducing the higher-priced Mach3 in 1998, Gillette's blade sales realized a 50% increase, and profits increased in an otherwise mature market.[13]

text: The marketing of increasing numbers of blades in a cartridge has been parodied since the 1970s. The debut episode of Saturday Night Live in 1975 included a parody advertisement for the Triple Trac Razor, shortly after the first two-blade cartridge for men's razors was advertised. Mad magazine announced the "Trac 76", arranged as a chain of cartridges with a handle on each end.[14] In the early 1990s, the (Australian) Late Show skitted a "Gillette 3000" with 16 blades and 75 lubricating strips as arrived at by working in conjunction with the help of NASA scientists - "The first blade distracts the hair...". In 2004, a satirical article in The Onion entitled "Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades" predicted the release of five-blade cartridges,[15] two years before their commercial introduction.[16] South Korean manufacturer Dorco released their own six-blade cartridge in 2012.[17]

text: Gillette has also produced powered variants of the Mach3 (M3Power, M3Power Nitro) and Fusion (Fusion Power and Fusion Power Phantom) razors. These razors accept a single AAA battery which is used to produce vibration in the razor; this action was purported to raise hair up and away from the skin prior to being cut. These claims were ruled in an American court as "unsubstantiated and inaccurate".[18]

text: Previously considered old fashioned, double edge razors have regained popularity in recent years due to long term cost savings, and for some, less irritating shaves. Specialty store chain The Art of Shaving has stated sales of safety (DE) razors have increased 1,000 percent from 2009 to 2014.[19]

text: Design[edit]

text: Safety razors originally had an edge protected by a comb patterned on various types of protective guards that had been affixed to open-blade straight razors during the preceding decades.[20]

text: Sharpening[edit]

text: Disposable safety razors can be sharpened using various methods. There are commercial devices intended for this duty (Razormate, RazorPit, Blade Buddy, etc.). Additionally, there is the method of stropping your razor blades using an old piece of jeans.[21] A pseudoscientific claim that sharpening a disposable razor by a pyramid is possible can also be seen.[22]

text: Variants[edit]

text: Double-edged razors[edit]

text: Double-edge (DE) safety razors remain a popular alternative to proprietary cartridge razors, and usually offer significantly lower total cost of ownership since they are not marketed under the "razor and blades business model". DE razors are still designed and produced in many countries. Better known manufacturers include Edwin Jagger, Feather, iKon, Lord, Merkur, Mühle, Parker, Rockwell, ShaveCraft, Van der Hagen, Weishi and Wilkinson Sword, with several of them producing razors that are marketed under other brands. Often different models of razors within a brand share the same razor-head designs, differing primarily in the color, length, texture, material(s), and weight of the handles.[citation needed] Three-piece razors generally have interchangeable handles, and some companies specialize in manufacturing custom or high-end replacement handles. Variations in razor head designs include straight safety bar (SB), open comb (OC)(toothed) bar, adjustable razors, and slant bar razors. The slant bar was a common design in Germany in which the blade is slightly angled and curved along its length to make for a slicing action and a more rigid cutting edge.[citation needed]

text: A primary functional difference between double-edge razors and modern cartridge razors is that DE razor heads come in a wide array of aggression levels (where aggression is commonly defined as being less protection from the blade).[citation needed]