Search for: "Comfort v. Comfort"
Results 121 - 140
of 5,281
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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, 9:36 am
But they knew, too, that he would be to blame for giving aid and comfort to the assassin who would. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 5:50 am
” So, members drafted a provision that declared that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States,… [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
In Trump v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:19 am
We note that in the Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:35 am
Link: Listen to Live Arguments at the Court The case, Trump v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
Lash quotes the "Minority Report" as follows: [Section Three] disfranchises all of that class of persons therein named, who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," but denounces no penalties against those who may hereafter commit the same act. . . . [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:59 am
Trump v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 5:05 am
" Trump's brief on the merits in the Supreme Court in Trump v. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 6:29 pm
” 395 U.S. at 447; see also Counterman v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:59 pm
Graham v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
” Some amici, such as Professor Kurt Lash, have filed briefs arguing that the presidency is not a “disqualified” office covered by the Positions Clause—in other words, that Section 3 permits someone to serve as President (or Vice-President) even if they are a covered person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States (indeed, even if they’ve “given aid or comfort” to foreign… [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:51 am
Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 5:45 pm
(Tannen Maury/UPI/Newscom)Today, I filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 10:20 am
MICHAEL’S HOT SAUCE 7235126 DAPPER JACKSON 7236817 GRABR 7256237 WAX BARISTA 7239266 GOOD VEGAN BAD VEGAN 7250890 GRIEF STINKS 7254451 THE BADGE SHACK 7255976 RIDGELINE 7250743 OPTAVISE NOW 7247488 AFTERSCHOOL HQ YOUR HOME FOR AFTERSCHOOL EXPERIENCES 7250981 7250982 7243879 LECATOU 7246613 OLD NATIONAL BANCORP 7243094 GUARDIANVIEW 360 7233702 I WANT TO GET OLD 7243404 THE DANGEROUS BUTTERFLY 7234171 LAMBDA CAR CLUB 7240132 POWER JACK 7256228 ENGAME 7252794 MALOMO 7250479 I WANNA SEX YOU UP… [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 3:00 am
In Johannessen v. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1] This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
So one might think, but in the 2015 case of Glossip v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 6:19 pm
Enter B.C. v. [read post]
