Search for: "IN RE A W-M" Results 2041 - 2060 of 4,156
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jul 2014, 11:33 am by Marty Lederman
  If so, then the only remaining question would be whether such a denial of exemptions is the “least restrictive manner” of furthering those compelling interests.For purpose of my hypo, remember, we’re assuming that the government has tried and failed to develop any purely regulatory solution that both satisfies the employer’s religious objection and at the same time furthers the government’s compelling interests. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 10:35 am by Kali Borkoski
 I’m going to need to convince some Republicans to vote with me. [read post]
13 Jul 2014, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
-> RT @ShipstonDesigns: After sitting through this info session re: anti-spam legislation one thing is clear. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 9:40 pm by Alfred Brophy
If you're interested in hearing more about W&L's history with slavery (and anti-slavery), here's a talk I gave there back in 2010. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 12:14 pm
True, there’s some language in the caselaw questioning whether Congress could authorize warrants to be executed abroad, but they’re unexplained and strike me as unpersuasive, as apparently they struck the relevant legal actors in amending Rule 41 to allow extraterritorial warrants. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 6:05 am
As one agent testified, `[W]e would not routinely go into DVDs to delete data, as we're altering the original data that was seized. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 8:58 am by Andrew Delaney
In re Hirsch, 2014 VT 28By Andrew DelaneyThis case is about how not to get admitted to the Vermont bar. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 6:52 am by Martin Steiger
Im Übrigen wäre wünschenswert, dass das Schweizer Fernsehen als SRG-Unternehmen ohne Gewinnstreben und im Dienst der Allgemeinheit auf Gewinnspiele verzichten würde. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm by Schachtman
ITERATIVE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM Basic propositional logic teaches that the disjunctive syllogism (modus tollendo ponens) is a valid argument, in which one of its premises is a disjunction (P v Q), and the other premise is the negation of one of the disjuncts: P v Q ~P­­­_____ ∴ Q See Irving Copi & Carl Cohen Introduction to Logic at 362 (2005). [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 6:15 am by Gustavo Arballo
----(Ah listo, se cree re sutil Alexy usando itálicas en la frase final para hacerse el sarcástico)Respuesta en video del Dr. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 4:20 pm by azatty
Miller, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two; Susan M. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 9:50 am by Rebecca Tushnet
   (I guess we’re about to conduct a natural experiment on this w/software in the EU.)We’ve already moved to a licensing based system of digital distribution. [read post]