Search for: "Matter of Jonathan H."
Results 341 - 360
of 860
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2019, 1:49 pm
President Trump stated the matter bluntly: "If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we'll have a plan that is far better than Obamacare. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 7:05 am
Meyers, Jonathan A. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 10:15 am
Why Nuclear Disarmament Matters. [read post]
17 Mar 2019, 11:27 am
That is to say, we do not provide a constitutionalized protection except insofar as matters of process, as opposed to substantive economic rights, are concerned. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 10:43 am
What ultimately matters is to attain a state of consciousness where everything ceases to matter, so that one can rest in peace. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 8:13 am
Key Findings Personal saving and investment are necessary for long-term economic growth. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 6:00 am
Goodman, Tetsuro Fukunaga and Jonathan E. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
Jonathan Macey & David Swensen. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 11:36 am
Jonathan H. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 9:37 am
Judge O'Connor later writes: The Intervenor Defendants argue the Individual Plaintiffs cannot plead a constitutional injury (or any justiciable injury, for that matter) because the Individual Mandate no longer compels compliance. . . . [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 9:22 am
H. [read post]
14 Dec 2018, 6:40 pm
What matters is what Congress did -- and what Congress did is create a law that regulates health insurance markets and lacks an enforceable mandate to purchase insurance. [read post]
14 Dec 2018, 11:19 am
Trump of course would have the ability to show at any trial that he did not have the willfulness required for this to become a criminal matter, but it looks like there is plenty of evidence there to give the issue to a jury. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 11:52 am
Spaulding, and Judge William H. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 3:09 pm
The choice matters because judgments on some issues, such as standing, could effect the viability of future climate-based claims in the future. [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 4:03 pm
The matter of d [read post]
11 Nov 2018, 7:18 am
Marcia H. [read post]
25 Oct 2018, 4:29 am
” At the Harvard Law Review Blog, Jonathan Peters argues that “a law originally enacted in 1949 [that] says, effectively, the freedoms of speech and assembly do not apply [on the Supreme Court grounds] as robustly as they would in, say, a public park” “deserves renewed scrutiny. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 8:31 am
Exhibit A for this argument was H. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 6:00 am
Exhibit A for this argument was H. [read post]
