Sentences with phrase «argue over the rules»

Arguing over the rules of Monopoly when you are Alice in Wonderland is quite something else.

Arguing over the rules of Monopoly is one thing.

And Brooklyn's Democratic County Committee had a heated meeting last night, with reformers affiliated with the New Kings Democrats club and the party establishment arguing over rule changes.

The powerful film from director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi) and writer Guy Hibbert is a nail - biter as characters argue over the rules of engagement and the legality and morality of war in making a decision about a drone strike in Kenya that targets the Al - Shabaab militant group.

Not exact matches

Though Kashkari begins with a broad attack on monetary rules, it quickly devolves into a focused attack on the Taylor Rule which he argues «effectively turn [s] monetary policy over to a computer, rather than continue to let Fed policy makers use their best judgment to consider a wide range of data and economic trends.»

Meanwhile liberal economists argue over a tuning of the Phillips curve, Taylor Rule, and NAIRU, as if picking the right inflation target, unemployment level, and interest rates are all that's required.

A principal purpose of this paper is to argue that the appropriate regime will differ between countries and perhaps also over time — there are no simple rules and no easy solutions.

Nor can it be argued (for instance) that God, when cursing Eve after the fall and describing to her how it was now going to be («your husband... shall rule over you» [Gen. 3: i6]-RRB-, was thereby prescribing that thus it evermore ought to be, even in the realm of redemption.

Therefore again I would argue that the» he will rule over you» with Adam over Eve is not a precedent for patriarchy as some would say, but something that happened as a result of «the fall» and therefore one should look to how it was like before that and see what was «good» in order to have an appropriate application of the bible.

My guess is that it will be a difficult case to argue against the impact of the contraceptive coverage rule as anything but an «incidental effect» given it targets a market and there's no evidence that the rule is over or under inclusively fashioned as a pretext to target the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception.

Friendly Atheist: On Tuesday I wrote a post for Relevant Online about Christianity and evolution that generated a lively discussion, particularly over at Friendly Atheist, where Hemant Mehta argues that it's not enough to say that the evidence supports evolution; one must concede that the evidence rules God out completely.

Genesis 3:16 («Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you») is not natural law, as Luther argues, but a description of the lasting consequences of original sin.

Along with Kant's most conservative followers, Royce argued that the existence of mental categories shows that the material substance of the world must be ruled over by an Absolute Mind, which is fully as active and independent in its universal sphere as human minds are in theirs.

Austin Murphy argues for college football over the NFL in Saturday Rules; Stewart Mandel takes stock of the college game in Bowls, Polls and Tattered Souls.

The Prime Minister argued that he is «the only party leader who is prepared to say to the people of England, «you should have... the same rights over legislation that are being given to Scotland and Wales»»; and it is true that this commitment was set out in the Party's 2010 manifesto, which promised to introduce «new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales» so that it «can not be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries.»

The counsels to both sides had argued strongly over the bail application till when it was evening, such that ruling on the application was not possible for the judge, who, as an interim measure, granted them an interim bail on that day, (March 28).

As the editors write in this month's Scientific American, the ruling failed to define what «unreasonable» discrimination of Internet content is, leaving too much up for debate — «the only certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing over the meaning of «unreasonable» in federal court.»

The Obama administration had received immense public pressure from industry and Republicans over the rule, which they argued would trample an already weak economy.

What they came away with is a set of rules you might want to follow knowing over a half million real world examples is hard to argue with.

I argued the angst over the new «5/24 rule» (meaning Chase only approving new UR cards for folks with no more than 5 credit card applications in the last 24 months) was misplaced because Ultimate Rewards no longer have the same cachet they used to, so there's not as much reason to care about churning Ultimate Rewards cards nowadays.

The consortium has long argued that the state rules interfere with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) jurisdiction over wholesale electric rates and unlawfully interfere with interstate commerce.

Especially given the case was argued before the appeals court on February 28 and 29, 2012 — over a year after the Timing Rule went into effect.

Gayer argued that it is inappropriate for domestic rules to be justified by accounting that emphasizes global damages over domestic damages.

Duke long argued that the state's PURPA rules were too favorable for clean energy, and two years ago began slowing to a trickle connections of large solar arrays to its grid, leaving developers over a barrel.

The brief argues that the EPAs Rule «unlawfully attempts to radically transform the electric sector and usurp states» traditional authority over the electric grid.»

Where does anyone nowadays look to find pure objective truth — i.e., truth according to the time - honored and duty - worn universally agreed upon rules of logic that have been argued by humanity's greatest minds during hard times over the ages?

Now there were two papers put out by a Swiss team (you should know who) on consideration of European warming where they argued that natural effects could be ruled out; the first paper argued for strong water vapour feedback causing the 1980 to 1998 temperature rise and the later paper, using exactly the same data, argued for a reduction in aerosols causing a recovery in temperatures over the same period.

In a nutshell, the Court argued that if a court or tribunal potentially rules on a matter «covered by EU law» (para. 55), and if that court or tribunal is situated outside the EU judicial system, the autonomy of EU law is under threat, even if EU law is only occasionally relevant to the disputes over which arbitral tribunals exercise jurisdiction.

First, the member state could argue that its obligations under EU law take priority over its BIT obligations, in which case the priority of one obligation over the other can only be established by applying conflict rules, but such arguments have not been raised in intra-EU arbitrations (apart from conflict arguments challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunals which is a different matter).

In this post on The Volokh Conspiracy, Somin argues that the Blue Book, which he describes as a «a massive tome, over 400 pages long, with rules for every conceivable situation and some that probably are not conceivable,» should be abolished and replaced «with a simple citation system such as that used in virtually every other academic field.»

, published exclusively on the NLJ website this week, Nicholas Bevan argues that the DfT's arrangements for victims of uninsured and untraced drivers over the last 70 years conflict with several basic tenets of the rule of law.

The BSA and the four professors argue that Judge Posner's ruling is perfectly consistent with eBay and explain why injunctions over FRAND - pledged standard - essential patents (SEPs) in most cases must be denied as such requests fail to satisfy the eBay criteria.

I do not believe that anyone would seriously argue that when drafting Model Rules, it would be appropriate for the ABA to wear its «trade group» hat and promote the interests of its member lawyers over the interests of clients, the courts, or the public.

One would think that the defendant's lawyers would be excited about the decision (though apparently they did not argue the appeal)-- but instead, Gordon's partner Henslee expressed concerns over the court's ruling.

The above arguments are based upon the constitutional law doctrine of «structural argumentation» (see: Robin M. Elliott, «References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution» (2000), 80 Canadian Bar Review 67, and decisions such as the, Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, [1985] S.C.J. No. 36, the, Reference Re Secession of Québec, [1999] S.C.J. No. 4, [1998] 2 SCR 217, and the, Reference re Remuneration of Judges, [1997] S.C.J. No. 75, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, to argue that the need for access to the rule of law, and to constitutional rights and freedoms, dictate that law societies in Canada can not enforce a monopoly over the provision of legal services that enables their members to charge fees of whatever size they see fit.

In the software patent case, and the two cases argued on Wednesday, the court could issue rulings on attorneys» fees which could reduce the amount of litigation over software patents and make it easier for judges to make losing parties pay legal fees.

In his ruling, Campbell described Gratl's lack of response to various attempts made to reach her by letter, email, online dropboxes and courier service by her former client, the child's mother, over the mother's efforts to argue she'd received ineffective or incompetent counsel on appeal.

Third, I argue that the best way to resolve this problem for both states and investors, ex ante, is generally to privilege their contractual arrangements over background treaty rules.

You call Posner's decision remarkable, but completely fail to realize that he oversteps his bounds as a trial court judge in tossing the case out improperly and goes off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the claims and issues over which the parties were arguing in making his ruling.

Others are expected to argue that international law is sufficient to address concerns expressed over fully autonomous weapons and no new rules are needed.

This is a child or teen who, over a six month period or longer, repeatedly refuses to follow rules, argues with adults, and is easily angered.