Sentences with phrase «argued against the legislation»

The only contentious moment of the evening was when one of the panelists, a successful bar and restaurant owner named Michael Sinensky, argued against the legislation by painting himself, rather than his employees — some of whom make minimum wage — as a victim of the tough economy.

Not exact matches

In saying this, he set himself against biblical legislation that clearly argued otherwise.

@Chad «I never argued that — all the ACLU does is litigate against religion — all anti-religion litigation is by the ACLU however MOST of the anti-religion legislation is from the ACLU.»

In papers submitted by the UK Government last year in the case and seen by the BHA, the Government attempted to argue that there is no breach of EU law because «if a teacher brought a claim against a school (on the basis that the school, as an employer, had discriminated against them in their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider context.

Some argued that State Senator Jeff Klein had brought the bill to a vote too soon, while others focused on the Republican Senators who persisted in voting against the legislation.

On a session day, we would be meeting with relevant legislators at the capitol to argue either for or against one or more pieces of legislation that are important to the client.

The Department of Transportation also testified against the legislation at a hearing Wednesday, arguing that enforcing the permits would be costly and divide residents.

Cat Smith, the Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement and Youth Affairs, who was also reported to have strongly argued against the imposition of a whip, confirmed on Twitter today that she will back the legislation.

It also argues for legislation against «charlatans and quacks,» an issue that apparently arose long before the advent of infomercials.

In this video, Chris Hipkins, a member of New Zealand Parliament, argues passionately against legislation to create national standards.

Critics have argued that some tactics employed by animal advocates, including protests, risk turning public opinion against the animal advocacy movement.178 While these activities make up a small proportion of L214's work, they do organize and participate in protests and demonstrations.179 Investigations make up a larger part of L214's work and have sometimes led to a slightly different type of backlash in which industry and government respond by attempting to pass laws that target advocates, such as ag - gag legislation in the United States.180 While L214 tries to maintain good relationships with media and the government, and France does not have ag - gag laws, they have sometimes been the target of lawsuits by industry because their footage is taken without permission.181 L214 has sometimes suffered negative consequences as a result of these lawsuits, such as fines or the requirement to take footage down from their website.182, 183

Peabody, which operates three coal mines in the Powder River Basin, has argued against climate change legislation at the national and international level, pushing instead for coal gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, under the name clean coal.

Following some Twitter discussion (must get Storify working properly for things like this) Chris Berg pointed to a piece he'd written arguing against such a use of secondary boycott legislation (and against such legislation in general).

Prof. Brian Slattery argues that the Court is actually the third line of defence against Charter violations: the drafters have an obligation to work within the framework of the Constitution and parliamentarians, in both Houses, have a duty to pass only legislation that is plausibly constitutional.

UNISON applied for a judicial review of the Fees Order and argued that it was not a lawful exercise of the Lord Chancellor's statutory powers because the fees interfered unjustifiably with the right of access to justice under the common law and EU law, frustrated the operation of legislation granting employment rights, and discriminated unlawfully against women and other protected groups.

The court agreed in a landmark ruling that «made it impossible for employers to successfully argue that discrimination against pregnant employees was not discrimination under human rights legislation,» according to employment lawyers at Rubin Thomlinson LLP.

Notable mandates: Counsel for the successful appellant at the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v. Nikolaisen; counsel for Potash Corp. in matters relating to the expansion of its Rocanville mine; ongoing work in the restructuring of the pork industry, including CCAA proceedings and receiverships; acted for Northland Power in the development and construction of two gas - powered generating plants; represented Great Western Diamonds in its recent acquisition of the Brazilian operations of Santa Elina Mines; appointed as counsel by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to argue on a reference against the constitutionality of proposed legislation permitting marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Indeed, I have argued that his arguments against judicial review of legislation and Justice Scalia's in favour of limiting judicial review to the enforcement of the original meaning of the constitution are very similar, and that, if anything, «Justice Scalia and his fellow originalists are guilty of failing to follow the logical implications of their own views about the nature of the questions that arise in judicial review.

The peak professional group for Australia's media questions the government's «free speech» motivations for the RDA inquiry, arguing that it occurred against a backdrop of much graver threats (many directly due to government legislation), including:

(Indianapolis, Ind.)-- Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) today filed suit against the Indiana State Department of Health in U.S. District Court, arguing that Senate Enrolled Act 371 (SEA 371), legislation that singles out one health center in Lafayette for unnecessary new restrictions, is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The demands on GADS to research, argue, and defend not only the Realtor ® position but also sometimes those of lenders, homebuilders, homeowners, and others against misguided regulation and legislation can be exhausting.