Sentences with phrase «arguments in a case about»

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about the collection of DNA evidence, and whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from obtaining DNA samples before conviction without a warrant.

Not exact matches

The eight justices, who open their 2016 - 17 term on Monday, will hear arguments on Wednesday in the case of an Illinois man, Bassam Salman, who prosecutors said made nearly $ 1.2 million trading on inside information about mergers involving clients of Citigroup Inc, where his brother - in - law worked.

«Lewis wrote in a time when, among the educated British public if not among their professional philosophers, there was considerably more agreement than there is now about what constitutes a valid and rational argument for a given case.»

In that case, a second argument would need to be mounted to show that the exegesis really supports the generalizations made about what the text says.

It is the problematic character of this step which makes the ontological argument unsatisfactory as a proof of God's existence although in the case of Hartshorne himself it was perhaps taken, implicitly if not explicitly, when, as he tells us, «about the age of seventeen, after reading Emerson's Essays, I made up my mind (doubtless with a somewhat hazy notion of what I was doing) to trust reason to the end» (LP viii).

Jeremy i am surprised you never countered my argument Up till now the above view has been my understanding however things change when the holy spirit speaks.He amazes me because its always new never old and it reveals why we often misunderstand scripture in the case of the woman caught in adultery.We see how she was condemned to die and by the grace of God Jesus came to her rescue that seems familar to all of us then when they were alone he said to her Go and sin no more.This is the point we misunderstand prior to there meeting it was all about her death when she encountered Jesus something incredible happened he turned a death situation into life situation so from our background as sinners we still in our thinking and understanding dwell in the darkness our minds are closed to the truth.In effect what Jesus was saying to her and us is chose life and do nt look back that is what he meant and that is the walk we need to live for him.That to me was a revelation it was always there but hidden.Does it change that we need discipline in the church that we need rules and guidelines for our actions no we still need those things.But does it change how we view non believers and even ourselves definitely its not about sin but its all about choosing life and living.He also revealed some other interesting things on salvation so i might mention those on the once saved always saved discussion.Jeremy just want to say i really appreciate your website because i have not really discussed issues like this and it really is making me press in to the Lord for answers to some of those really difficult questions.regards brentnz

Either an argument is cogent enough in itself to bring about this decision, or else it is not cogent at all, and if this is the case, no number of good additional reasons can ever justify such a decision.

What about the disparate - outcomes argument in ideological cases, then?

Nope, in case you're still having trouble, its basically a video about the timeline of Jesus» supposed life, however the important part of this particular one in the series is that it contains a Monty Python sketch that makes fun of you, or rather, religious people's habit of continually mutating their argument for any absurd possibility.

This, then, is a case in which arguments about world order can at most enhance our interpretation of more proximate effects.

Now, however, we learn that this is not the case — that, for example, when he suggests that a God who would be «Calvinistic in power but Whiteheadian in goodness» would be preferable to a God who permits his creatures genuine freedom, «no conclusions about my [Griffin's] own position can be drawn from this internal argument within an alien framework.»

In case that compelling argument doesn't convince you, I've assembled an FAQ about the function (or lack thereof) for these necklaces.

Instead, realize that just because they are upset about a particular issue, and that does not mean that you are a «bad parent,» and — in many cases — having an... MORE argument about it will not bring them any closer to seeing your point of view.

Permits the Irish courts to hear arguments about the European Convention on Human Rights in cases before them

I've posted for a reason, discovered that it was in fact unnecessary, gotten some good info in the process, and pretty much have no reason to continue a ridiculous argument about what seems to you to be the case.

By contrast, I have heard of cases pertaining to some newer member states where the state in question would not even send a representative or written arguments to the court (here again I think it was about prejudicial questions, not infringement proceedings but it shows how specific countries approach EU litigation in general).

Specific arguments about the risks of acting and not acting in this case are legitimate and important; but I wanted to argue specifically that complaints about not intervening in North Korea are weak or tangential.

Labour's argument was rejected - or failed to get across (partly because it all seemed about # 6 billion this year)- but against opponents who said cutting waste was important, but in David Cameron's case that he would reject any ministerial plan to cut public services.

As when we spoke before about tuition fees, you're creating a suspect class (in this case «red» unions and their puppets) where you ought to be making an argument.

As to the latter, to take an extreme case, if a new type of government comes to power, and in the course of it two drunks in a bar have an argument about whether the new government is better than the old and they throw a couple of punches, and that is the only violence, would you say that that means it failed the «no violence» test?

Sunder: In the interests of intellectual strictness I have qualified the comment about the lack of intellectual and moral case against PR to refer specifically to the two lines of argument featured in the posIn the interests of intellectual strictness I have qualified the comment about the lack of intellectual and moral case against PR to refer specifically to the two lines of argument featured in the posin the post.

Stevens supported his argument by citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., [39] where the Court held that $ 3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge's impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender.

So many people made really good arguments about insulin release: So, many proteins have really strong insulin responses and you still have fat loss in those cases.

What I don't know in your case is what your argument was about, but if it turned him off, chances are he pulled back.

Most of our frustrations and resentments with our partners stem from something other than what the actual argument is about - in the case of the study - weight.

Best - case scenario: The movie inspires heated arguments about which of its two stars shines brighter, which rage on until someone sensibly points out that it doesn't really matter, since they're both fantastic, and Carol is much more than the sum of its performances in any case.

Girls may make a case about Tatum being pleasing eye candy (God knows Twilight fans use the argument of «hot boys» in the defense of those putrid films), yet the star has all the acting talent of a fire hydrant.

In many cases, I did read some persuasive arguments about the rewards of pursing career and technical education (CTE) skills leading to... Read more»

In this case, the argument is that value - added estimates can and should be used to make decisions about where to position high value - added teachers so that they might have greater effects, as well as greater potentials to «add» more «value» to student learning and achievement over time.

With the final arguments now completed in the school funding case of CCJEF v. Rell, the judge has five months» worth of testimony to use when making the critically important decision about whether Connecticut's school funding formula is unconstitutional.

Brown v. New York parent plaintiffs continue to fight for their day in court; supporters rally with them in support of fair funding Rochester court heard arguments about why the charter funding case should not be dismissed, as the state continues to try to have it thrown out; parents and supporters rallied before hearing

ADVISORY: September 7 - Critical Development in the Brown v. New York Lawsuit Rochester court will hear arguments about why the charter funding case should not be dismissed, as the state continues to try to have it thrown out; parents and supporters to gather for rally before court hearing

There's a lot of reading comprehension fail (for example, in this particular case, the illogical inference that noting a problem with Amazon's position a priori means one is on the «side» of Hachette, especially when I've taken pains to note both companies work for their interest, not mine), and it's not my job to wander about the field, gently teaching people how to parse arguments.

I will need to double - check that the interest is not taxed, and the penalty does in fact only apply when you come to withdraw - in which case your point about the advantages of tax deferral would be a good argument for overflowing despite the penalty.

Although the arguments about micro-transactions aren't going way anytime soon and the concept of having free - to - play elements within a full price title are at their core a little distasteful (optional or not), it doesn't tarnish the experience in this case.

While a lot has been said about who has the best super move in Injustice 2, Raiden makes a great case for his inclusion in that argument.

In the second, about games and «The Need for Rockstars», Callaghan says that «The business case is easily made, and has been made repeatedly in the past, but to really capture the eye of government and balance the arguments of established cultural crusaders, we need more than the business case — we need rockstars of our own.&raquIn the second, about games and «The Need for Rockstars», Callaghan says that «The business case is easily made, and has been made repeatedly in the past, but to really capture the eye of government and balance the arguments of established cultural crusaders, we need more than the business case — we need rockstars of our own.&raquin the past, but to really capture the eye of government and balance the arguments of established cultural crusaders, we need more than the business case — we need rockstars of our own.»

In the case of realism and abstraction it has taken the form of arguments about how art best represents experience.

Tobis has a good post about Lindzen's latest irrational rant on arxiv, in case anyone thinks it is a cogent argument.

In this case, science does tell us what to do (reduce CO2 emissions: we can argue about the amount and rate but this argument should be along the lines: «do we reduce by 70 % or 90 % over current levels by 2050?).

A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human - driven global warming that's based on short - term trends (a decade or so).

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

In any case, in reading these arguments, I find it hard to believe that anyone who cares about GLOBAL greenhouse gas emissions / concentrations could cheer the law, and — if so — I'd have to ask whIn any case, in reading these arguments, I find it hard to believe that anyone who cares about GLOBAL greenhouse gas emissions / concentrations could cheer the law, and — if so — I'd have to ask whin reading these arguments, I find it hard to believe that anyone who cares about GLOBAL greenhouse gas emissions / concentrations could cheer the law, and — if so — I'd have to ask why?

In any case, the whole argument about work - hours seems rather feeble.

Where you can get an argument is on what is known about the example in which case the Jeffries prior might be looked at as a decider or a variety of priors that incorporate more / less of prior knowledge..

They do not understand the case for AGW, they believe any piece of non-science, such as Miskicolzci, they rant on about lunatic conspiracy theories, they construct elaborate straw man arguments, misrepresent the case put by the IPCC and indulge in frantic arm waving.

In my case I'm more interested in understanding the variety of arguments for and against various propositions about climatIn my case I'm more interested in understanding the variety of arguments for and against various propositions about climatin understanding the variety of arguments for and against various propositions about climate.

I realize it's kind of late for making suggestions, but here goes anyway: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.It looks like you have addressed T&G's main arguments (eg, about the 2nd law), but I wonder if it might be appropriate to put in a brief description of what it means to «falsify» something in the scientific sense — ie, essentially what T&G must show (and failed to show) to make their case that there is no greenhouse effect: namely, 1) experimental evidence that shows the opposite of what an atmospheric greenhouse effect would necessarily produce and / or 2) evidence that the greenhouse effect would actually violate some physical law (eg, 2nd law of thermo) The pot on the stove example is obviously an attempt to show that you get a colder temp with the water than without, but I think it's worthwhile explicitly stating that «because T&G failed to demonstrate that the pot on the stove example is a valid analogy for the earth, they failed to falsify the atmospheric greenhouse effect» And you could also add a sentence stating that «because T&G failed to show that the greenhouse effect would require a violation of the 2nd law [because their arguments were incorrect], they also failed to falsify»

Of course you could acknowledge the connection between Global Warming and sea level rise, in which case the only argument would be about what is causing the warming.

Unlike Kiehl and Trenberth who base much of their argument on published supposition and make the horrible error of not leaving any energy in their balance to create fossil fuels, Miskolczi rigorously sets about working from the actual spectral effects from atmospheric gases and provides a properly justified but theoretical scientific case for demonstrating the errors of Kiehl and Trenberth.