Search for: "Does, A-H"
Results 5281 - 5300
of 16,610
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2014, 10:51 am
People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:30 pm
As Reuters reports, the decision does not appear to have had any effect on the contraception makers’ stock prices. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 10:29 am
The study is also further evidence that the intentions behind a given policy tell us little about its likely effects, and that just because a policy measure is intended to help people does not mean it will, particularly when compared to potential alternatives. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 1:16 pm
The Constitution does not give judges the power to "read into" the text of the Constitution "substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 8:33 pm
—9/6/18 BREAKING: District Court Judge in Texas Holds ACA Is Unlawful—12/14/18 What the Lawless Obamacare Ruling Means (w/ Abbe Gluck), New York Times, 12/15/18 Understanding Why Judge O'Connor Was Wrong to Conclude Plaintiffs Had Standing to Challenge the Penalty-Less Individual Mandate—12/21/18 Court Stays Ruling Invalidating the Affordable Care Act Pending Appeal—12/31/18 Justice Department Revises Its Position in Texas ACA Case—3/25/19 Does… [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 8:10 pm
If allowing exclusive representatives to speak for all employees at "meet and confer" sessions does not violate the First Amendment, we see no basis for concluding that the result should be different where the union engages in more traditional collective bargaining activities. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 2:41 pm
Here the district court acknowledges the substantial reliance interests of DACA recipients and enjoins DACA prospectively, but does not invalidate DACA as applied to current recipients. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 1:42 pm
In some other cases, such as the hardship exemption for the individual mandate, it appears the law does allow the administration to do what it’s done. [read post]
3 Jan 2023, 5:44 am
Civic pluralists understand that ideas move the world more than power does, which is why pluralists value debate and persuasion. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 8:32 pm
The lack of a relationship between doctrinal formulation and outcomes suggests we will only know whether a revolution is afoot based on what the Court actually does over a series of cases, not in what it says it is going to do. [read post]
8 Feb 2020, 4:11 pm
While Article III courts may not be able to hear suits alleging Emoulments Clause violations (at least in the absence of a statute creating a cause of action and providing a more concrete basis for standing), that does not mean there are not serious substantive concerns. [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 5:09 pm
Whether this sort of agreement is adopted or not, I think that Senate Democrats will find that 50+1 does not create the sort of stable majority for which they had hoped, particularly when there are some Senators (e.g. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 3:35 pm
What does this have to do with how most humans read? [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 9:45 am
Although Koppelman clearly prefers Hayek to the likes of Rothbard, he does not offer Hayek unqualified praise. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 3:37 pm
This does not mean, however, that students should be able to dictate the curriculum. [read post]
6 Oct 2023, 9:46 am
Fortunately, it does not appear we will have to resolve this question any time soon. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 7:46 am
California, in which the Court unanimously concluded that a police officer's pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not categorically justify a warrantless entry into a home. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 10:37 am
Just because the employer mandate is illegal does not mean there is much anyone can do about it. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 3:42 pm
If courts rule against Texas in those cases–and I suspect they might–and Texas does not stand down, then it will be appropriate to call out the Lone Star state for defying the Supreme Court. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 10:00 am
In dissent, Chief Justice William H. [read post]
