Search for: "James C. Strong" Results 1 - 20 of 714
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2024, 9:38 am by centerforartlaw
Working within the bounds of unconventional artistic and photographic practices, Serrano aims to seek strong emotional responses from the viewers of his pieces. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 11:27 am by admin
Another multi-district litigation (MDL) has hit a jarring speed bump. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
That conception included a republican reading of legal history (based on a controversial but exciting reading of the works of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson), and a deliberative conception of democracy (like the one advanced by Jurgen Habermas or Jon Elster). [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 3:15 am by Ryan Whitacre, Partner, Bridge Partners
The post <strong>2023’s Biggest Takeaways for DEI Leaders in HR</strong> appeared first on HR Daily Advisor. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Sunstein begins this evaluative endeavor by scrutinizing two enormously influential interpretative theories, which are, in principle, in tension with each other: a conservative theory, namely originalism, which invites us to "look back" (to the origins of the law) when interpreting the Constitution; and an alternative one, which suggests a principle of substantial (democratic) deference from judges to legislators -what we will call, for now, "Thayerism" (the deferential… [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 12:45 pm by Sasha Volokh
How does my view above relate to the strong separation-of-powers antiprivatization view? [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 7:27 am by Sasha Volokh
Harper, suggests that these state legislative powers would be nondelegable, though the Supreme Court has rejected a strong version of this theory. [read post]
20 Nov 2023, 3:30 am by David Nagode
James Hacker in the 1980s British sitcom Yes, Minister to describe a sausage, when complaining about EU regulations on food labelling. [read post]
8 Nov 2023, 1:26 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
 The Court’s conclusion that a defendant’s use as a trademark obviates the need for any further consideration of the First Amendment makes sense, if at all, only as a strong form of the rule that commercial speech receives significantly less protection that other forms of speech, combined with an incredibly expansive definition of commercial speech. [read post]