Search for: "MATTER OF RULES ON DISQUALIFICATION"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,128
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2024, 9:54 am
On iii) “I am satisfied that the matters to which Mr Hall had regard were those to which rule (d) entitled him to have regard and which were encompassed by the rule’s requirement that the decision-maker consider whether the relevant behaviour would have entitled the Defendant to a possession order. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 3:53 am
Does intent to deceive matter? [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
Moreover, Willis may have succeeded in giving McAfee enough to express condemnation with her conduct but to reject her disqualification. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
The proposal revises multiple sections of code dealing with the rules about 300,000 elected officials and state and local government employees, and sometimes their family members, must obey. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 3:05 pm
Thornton, because two-thirds of both Houses of Congress might still vote to remove the Section 3 disqualification for Trump if he’s elected. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
Maybe, just maybe, Justice Jackson will be an exception to that rule. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm
Even if the Justices may not agree that Griffin's Case was right as a matter of first principles, all of the Justices seem to see the wisdom in Chase's opinion. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
Mitchell was petrified of the Emoluments Clause and the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 4:05 am
Trump’s eligibility and the one on his claim of absolute immunity may as a practical matter be linked. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 1:47 pm
Such a ruling would be a serious mistake.] [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
Our answer is that the facts matter. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
Quite the reverse: Where Congress is given exclusive political power and discretion in such matters – the power to remove disqualifications that arise in consequence of Section Three's first sentence – the text says so. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 4:42 pm
But not about the attempted disqualification of Donald Trump for running for President. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
Colorado is not taking any steps to "enforce" Section 3's disqualification rule. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 2:54 pm
" Cunha further stated that the disqualification ruling "is a joke, and it is pathetic, and you should be ashamed of yourself for subjecting myself to that type of rhetoric. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
Where the rule specified in the text applies, it applies. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 4:54 am
One of the propositions of our article, The Sweep and Force of Section Three, is that Section Three is self-executing in the sense that its legal rule does not require congressional legislation in order to have legal effect. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 7:31 am
” Here’s my contribution to this roundtable: No matter how the Supreme Court rules in the Trump disqualification case some people are going to be… Continue reading The post “Supreme Court Shocker? [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
It is wrong as a matter of the text, history, and structure of Section Three. [read post]
