Search for: "Matter of Adler"
Results 661 - 680
of 1,079
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2014, 1:34 pm
Weiner continues: Adler attacks my suggestion that almost everyone earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level gets a subsidy, because some people get Medicaid and Medicare or other benefits. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 7:52 am
The underlying policy questions and the outcome of this case are undoubtedly matters of exceptional importance. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 6:46 am
Nonetheless, barring legislative revision to the IPAB provisions, it would seem to be only a matter of time before IPAB acts, and only a matter of time before IPAB gets its day in court. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 7:03 pm
Over at Popehat, Ken White has a helpful post explaining the ways in which this alleged robbery does and does not matter legally (mostly not), and why it likely does (but shouldn’t) matter practically. [read post]
16 Aug 2014, 12:15 pm
Initially, Adler and Cannon characterized the ostensibly defective provision as a “glitch” or “legal mistake. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 4:22 pm
NYT columnist Paul Krugman cheered Mann’s decision to file suit this week, though it appears his opinion on the matter is based on the uncritical acceptance of Mann’s characterization of events. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 1:42 pm
” The point here, as in my post chiding some of the president’s defenders, is that the legal details matter. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 3:00 am
As a matter of probability and logic, 6 judges are less likely to go off the deep end than 2. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 8:00 pm
Whether or not the death penalty is just, as an abstract matter, there are serious problems with the way it is administered in much of the country. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 7:27 am
Such a radical liberalization of the role of unelected judges in matters previously entrusted to the elected branches of government should be rejected. . . . the central inquiry is whether the Speaker or the House has suffered a personal injury in fact, and the absence of political means for the House to address that disagreement cannot somehow create that injury. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 9:05 am
Within constitutional limits, Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted through the formal legislative process. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 5:22 am
All federal laws, no matter their value or purpose, must be enacted pursuant to the federal government’s enumerated powers and may not transgress other constitutional constraints. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 7:29 am
That would seem to settle the matter. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 7:10 pm
There’s no scientific evidence for transubstantiation, but that would hardly matter to a RFRA claim that imposed a substantial burden on those who wish to partake in communion. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 9:24 am
I am sure, however, that unless the administration comes up with a new accommodation, this matter will be resolved in the courts, and may even return to One First Street. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:30 pm
Making oral contraception available OTC might not help the 3-4 percent of women who use IUDs, but it would nonetheless expand access to contraception as a practical matter, particularly for the working poor. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:48 am
Indeed, no matter how divided the Court’s last two decisions are, the Court will have been unanimous in the judgment in approximately two-thirds of its decisions. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:29 pm
In late 2011 an intra-sect feud within an Amish community in eastern Ohio became violent as followers of Samuel Mullet Sr. assaulted several of their co-religionists because they were “Amish hypocrites. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:47 pm
The court, as a general matter, is very reluctant to overturn its own prior statutory interpretations because, unlike with constitutional interpretations, Congress can have the last word by revising statutes if it disagrees with the court. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 7:58 am
This means the Court will have been unanimous in a clear majority of cases decided this term no matter what happens next week. [read post]
