Sentences with phrase «arguing against justice»

Not exact matches

Others in the Department of Justice have argued that the knowledge produced would be useful in ensuring against voter fraud.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief in an appeals court case, arguing against workplace discrimination protection for employees who are gay.

The Department of Justice defended the rule when it filed papers in July in a Washington district court arguing against the case filed by the National Association for Fixed Annuities.

Depending on what it says, Trump could argue that it provides evidence of deep bias against him at the FBI and use it as a pretext to fire top Justice Department officials he perceives as insufficiently loyal, like Rosenstein.

Both are weighty issues that deal explicitly with «high cosmic justice,» so if he argues that a government overreaches its authority to execute justice by attempting to «balance the books of the universe» in repaying blood with blood, then does that mean there can never be any just criteria for one nation to retaliate against another after an unprovoked attack» an attack that in essence would repay blood with blood?

In Just War Against Terror Elshtain argues «that true international justice is defined as the equal claim of all persons in the world to having coercive force deployed in their behalf if they are victims of one of the many horrors attendant upon radical political instability....

If I were choosing recent books in this area which most deserve to be read outside the country, I would start with Oliver O'Donovan's political theology in The Desire of the Nations; John Milbank's critique of the social sciences in Theology and Social Theory; Timothy Gorringe's provocative political reading of Karl Barth in Karl Barth: Against Hegemony; Peter Sedgwick's The Market Economy and Christian Ethics; Michael Banner's Christian Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems; Duncan Forrester's Christian Justice and Public Policy; and Timothy Jenkins's Religion in Everyday Life: An Ethnographic Approach, which argues with a dense interweaving of theory and empirical study for a social anthropological approach to English religion which has learned much from theology.

The only thing preventing such a practice is long - standing tradition that weighs against participating in cases that were argued before a different set of justices.

U.S. courts should not play a role in reviewing or restraining targeted killings, argues the Justice Department lawyers, since it would effectively enable them to «supervise inherently predictive judgments» by the president and his national security advisers «as to when and how to use force against an enemy against which Congress has already authorized the use of force.»

Justice Holmes argued against the majority opinion by adding two adjectives to his test: «imminent» and «forthwith» as a better indicator of violation and called the leaflets «poor and puny anonymities,» and that any charge should be «the most nominal punishment» based on their radical views (Lewis 29).

Where Liberal Democrat ministers can argue for fairness and social justice directly against those who seek to curtail them.

This is a fascinating statement, in which the justice secretary appears to argue against his own position.

The U.S. Justice Department has filed court papers in a New York case arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

While most MPs would run a mile from such a group, Davies has given a speech at their conference arguing that the British justice system favoured women and discriminated against men.

The justice secretary, who has been arguing against eurosceptics for the duration of his 42 - year parliamentary career, hit out at those calling for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in the wake of the eurocrisis.

As New York moves to decriminalize low - level offenses, arguing enforcement is «rigged against communities of color,» other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department — now led by former head of the U.S. Attorney's office in Brooklyn, Loretta Lynch — to do the same thing.

Acting Solicitor General Neal Kumar Katyal argued in the government motion that the justices should reject a request by the Log Cabin Republicans to reinstate a federal judge's injunction against the «don't ask, don't tell» policy.

Justice Gabriel Kolawole fixed May 2 for judgment after lawyers to the respective parties argued for and against the suit on Friday.

The Deputy Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, who appeared for the Attorney - General and argued against my application, was and is an officer of the Court.

The amicus brief argues that the DOJ denying sanctuary cities the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, a prominent federal funding source for local enfacement agencies, is against federal law, seizes local control in public safety policy and «poses serious challenges for local governments.»

Mr. Cuomo, reacting to the mass protests against police brutality that have convulsed the country since grand juries failed to indict police officers in the deaths of black men in Staten Island and Ferguson, Mo., argued that «today, sadly, too many people are questioning if the blindfold is still intact or does the justice system now see black and white or black and blue or rich and poor.»

Lawyer Addo argues that the portion of the statement that states that «the suspension follows the establishment of a prima facie case against the four Justices, by the Committee set up by the Chief Justice» is a clear indication that due diligence was not done by the Director of Communications before the statement was released.

The related idea that the justices who voted in Brown, or the lawyers who argued against segregation, would have had objections to voluntary efforts to integrate seems equally implausible.

Fourth and fifth - grade students argued the case for or against term limits for members of Congress and Supreme Court justices at the finals of the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Education's Citizenship Challenge.

Likewise, in an interview with RedefinED, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice argued that the First and Fourteenth Amendments forbid discriminating against religious schools.

They argue that this amounts to a crude «statistical fix» which was unfair and against «natural justice».

When the lawyer for the state of Illinois tried to argue that the state had an interest in working with «a stable, responsible, independent counterpart that's well - resourced enough that it can partner in the process of not only contract negotiation,» Justice Kennedy broke in and devastatingly finished his thought by saying, «It can partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.»

This topic is enormously practically important because nations and others who argue against proposed climate change policies usually rely on various economic arguments which often completely ignore the ethical and justice limitations of these arguments (In the case of the United States, see Brown, 2012.)

Justice Wagner: «The appellant argues that the broad exclusion clause in the accident insurance contract to the effect that the insurer will pay no benefits if an accident occurred while the insured was participating in an indictable offence may be set up against the heirs of the insured.

For instance, former Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist used to recuse himself whenever a case was argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, because Brosnahan was among those who testified against Justice Rehnquist during Rehnquist's Senate confirmation hearings.

A while back, two of my colleagues were arguing about which is a bigger problem in the criminal justice system: bias against defendants of color or bias against poor defendants.

Also in the last couple of years, Justice Mosley, in NOV Downhole Eurasia Limited v. TLL Oil Field Consulting, 2014 FC 889, considered whether a pleading ought to be struck that referred to the file history to defend against infringement arguing that a feature added during prosecution and appearing in each of the claims did not exist in their device.

Lord Justice Jackson is, in my view, utterly right to argue against the removal of legal aid in clinical negligence work.

In Laverick v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2018 ABQB 57 (CanLII), Justice W. P. Sullivan acknowledged that a third - party applicant may argue for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against charges under section 88.1 of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T - 6 [TSA], the administrative license suspension («ALS») regime.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Justice Scalia make this point in the context of arguing against substantive reasonableness review?

Notable mandates: Represented physicians involved in providing care to Ashley Smith during the 2013 coroner's inquest; acted for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in a defamation action against Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader Tim Hudak and energy critic Lisa MacLeod; in Wise v. Iran, acted for a Canadian victim of a suicide bombing (executed by individuals who received material support from Iran) who sought leave to intervene in ongoing proceedings commenced by United States plaintiffs in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert rJustice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert rjustice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert reports.

But as Pam Smith of Legal Press writes here, that's the scenario in Maughan v. Google, where Justice Miriam Vogel argued that the lower court judge erred in cutting Google's request for attorney fees after prevailing on an anti-SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) motion.

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.

Others still championed LSPs as important for meeting the access to justice gap, but argued against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts to exercise their «protectionist instincts» (see this response, this response and this response).

[98] Some respondents championed LSPs as important for meeting the access to justice gap, but argued against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts to exercise their «protectionist instincts.»

They filed, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a motion seeking an order dismissing or staying the third party claim initiated against them, arguing Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.

No one would argue against increased access to justice for claimants.

There are some who argue that ADR could be used as a tool to delay procedures and, therefore, diminish access to justice, i.e. going against the very goal set by the legislator in deciding to incorporate section 1 into the Code.

It could be argued that in this role, defence lawyers are the most ethical lawyers because they uphold the administration of justice even when societal beliefs are against them.

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.