Search for: "People v. Powers"
Results 8141 - 8160
of 15,377
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2016, 4:04 pm
But worse, it cuts right to the core of fundamental computing freedom questions and cues up the next legislative battle to address what software people are allowed to run on their devices. [read post]
22 Aug 2018, 10:19 am
I regret the Turkish people with this idiot, you do not deserve better. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:52 am
Elsewhere there's a post with a link to a lengthy and powerful piece by Keith Mallinson, this being yet another highly persuasive account of the benefits attached to standard-essential patents (SEPs) and an equally convincing attempt to defuse theories that SEPs are harmful. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 7:32 am
Senatorial brinksmanship is symptomatic of a problem that began long before Kavanaugh, Garland, Clarence Thomas or Bork: the courts’ aiding and abetting the expansion of federal power, and then shifting that power away from the people’s representatives and toward the executive branch. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 6:30 am
In Van Orden v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 5:31 am
But if Maine v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 7:41 pm
Our work to ensure the people's wellbeing was fraught with weak links. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 7:17 pm
As with the market fundamentalism in Lochner v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 7:17 pm
As with the market fundamentalism in Lochner v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:44 am
The Stolen Valor case, United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2025, 9:01 pm
Even before Trump v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 12:07 pm
Baird], and Carey [v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 3:00 am
The Court disagreed, saying the comments were seen by few people and not actively investigated by the school. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 5:07 am
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the dissent: “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. [read post]
25 Mar 2018, 9:01 pm
Seemingly, as funds continue to dwindle, so does the power to regulate. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 8:33 am
Justice Burke argued that the Court had said in Rios v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 1:02 pm
It guarantees that, when disputes arise between the people and the powerful, it is a jury of your peers which decides the issues. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 12:32 am
Chung highlights Justice Field's dissent in Juilliard v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 11:39 am
Standing up from the weeds, is the Commerce Clause really a bar to a state that wants to protect its land and people from climate change by reducing GHG emissions caused by its people? [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:35 am
It places judges in trial courts with the knowledge that they have this power because the General Assembly has not stripped this power from judges through a general law. [read post]
