Sentences with phrase «arguments in the case as»

Not exact matches

The suits are part of a group of at least four other cases with similar arguments in various courts around the country, and they make legal experts wary, particularly as the differences in opinion seem to indicate their destiny to go before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could derail the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as Obamacare, and potentially increase the cost of insurance for millions across the U.S.. It's a big deal, and it has insurance companies, medical providers and everyday workers holding their breath.

With their large populations and rapid growth, these countries, so the argument goes, will soon become some of the largest economies in the world — and, in the case of China, the largest of all by as early as 2020.

Using Pakistan as a case study, this article analyzes the ongoing debate and concludes that while there is merit to arguments on both sides, prudent policy recommendations for the governance of the United States» covert drone program fall somewhere in between.

In Lucia v. SEC, the argument centered on the question of whether administrative judges are wielding the power to settle cases decisively and issue orders, even though they are not appointed and confirmed as judges according to the form prescribed under Article III of the Constitution.

The benefit of this arrangement is particularly evident in the Lochner exchange: Arkes brilliantly defends this misunderstood case, but for all the skill of his revisionist argument, he is, as Donald Drakeman convincingly contends, unable to distinguish the interpretive approach of Lochner» using the due process clause to invalidate a statute because of disagreement with its substance» from Roe, which Arkes has rejected elsewhere.

Instead, I will assume that the case for neoclassical metaphysics can otherwise be made and attempt programmatically to show that the comprehensive purpose it formulates grounds justice as compound, grounds a substantive principle of justice that consistently implies the formative human rights of communicative respect.7 Toward the conclusion of this argument, I will also seek to identify an inclusive human right that is substantive in character.

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).

The former set, as well as many arguments made by Jerry and Jacob and others, are used in order to AVOID actual discussion or, in Jacob's case, try to make the person asking the questions (or offering counter-evidence) the bad guy.

Julie in Austin, (I actual used to go to school at the Jewish temple in downtown Austin) «In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach»in Austin, (I actual used to go to school at the Jewish temple in downtown Austin) «In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach»in downtown Austin) «In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach»In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach».

It appears to me to be in any case gratuitous to read, as Gunkel does (in an argument against the historicity of the event), «dass Elias die 450 Propheten Baals mit eigener Hand geschlachtet habe» (Hermann Gunkel, Elias, Jahwe und Baal, Tubingen: 1906, p. 36).

In other cases, it assumes (as often do the arguments of Atheists) the very conclusion it is trying to reach.

That is, if one's interlocutor is being threatened with violence, torture, or death at the same time as he is being confronted with a polemical argument, and if the outcome of the latter determines whether he is killed, tortured, forcibly converted, or whatever (this was, of course, the case for many Jews in medieval Europe), then it is exceedingly doubtful that the polemic is morally proper.

He makes a similar argument to yours that it is ok to slaughter even infants and children, if that is what your god wants in cases where he doesn't want do do the terrible deeds himself, as he did when he supposedly wiped out almost all of humanity with a flood or sent a plague to kill 70,000 Israelites (2 Samuel 24:1 - 15), because David conducted a census, Yahweh caused him to conduct.

In the case of Islam and Mormonism, these arguments center upon the character of the inspired text in question, as something dictated directly by God (through angelic mediation) and itself miraculous or as encompassed by miracleIn the case of Islam and Mormonism, these arguments center upon the character of the inspired text in question, as something dictated directly by God (through angelic mediation) and itself miraculous or as encompassed by miraclein question, as something dictated directly by God (through angelic mediation) and itself miraculous or as encompassed by miracles.

’26 The weakness in this argument is that the women are not being appealed to as witnesses to the resurrection in any case.

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

I mean you can make an argument, as of course, [was done in] The Case for Faith... that there is a logical argument for the truth of Christianity.

Further than this we can not see and our argument must cease — except, as I have now to show, in the case of the Christian, who, drawing upon an added source of knowledge, may advance yet another step.

If you exclude the additional items above, as seems to be the case in many arguments on this blog, then science is incomplete in defining the Universe / God, and their absence is the difference.

Concerning the meaning of «order» in my cosmological argument, all that my view requires is that the order be nonstrict in such a fashion and degree as to allow for a real distinction between causally possible and causally necessary, or between the totality of necessary conditions and a strictly «sufficient» condition, and that this be true in every concrete case.

Because of this incompleteness God's subjective immediacy does not end, despite God's always having a specific satisfaction, and that is why there is, only in God's case, no perishing, With respect to all these points my argumentation rests on the reversal of poles in God (by which an aim is possible for God which is formally independent of any concrete actual world, while Christian does not use God's reversed polar structure but uses God's everlastingness as his main argument.

Robinson, in his address as outgoing president of the Society of Biblical Literature in December 1981, presented a detailed case for the argument that the earliest resurrection traditions were luminous appearances of Jesus, while stories of physical resurrection were secondary.

The where is God question in this case is used as an argument against God: if he is who you say he is, why would this happen?

For Leclerc, however, the loss of immediacy (which is always present in the case of a normal serial society) forms the main argument for conceiving God as a society, because Leclerc considers «perishing» to be metaphysically required for every prehensibility, including God's (Review of William Christian, An Interpretation of Whitehead's Meta physics, Journal of Philosophy 57 [1960], 138 - 143; henceforth cited as RWC).

In any case, it is clear that the aim of Paul's argument in Romans is not to exclude those who perform homosexual acts from the sphere of God's grace but rather to use the example of homosexual activity as an expression of the great need which all human beings have for the grace of God which justifies the «ungodly.&raquIn any case, it is clear that the aim of Paul's argument in Romans is not to exclude those who perform homosexual acts from the sphere of God's grace but rather to use the example of homosexual activity as an expression of the great need which all human beings have for the grace of God which justifies the «ungodly.&raquin Romans is not to exclude those who perform homosexual acts from the sphere of God's grace but rather to use the example of homosexual activity as an expression of the great need which all human beings have for the grace of God which justifies the «ungodly.»

Many of the objections put forward by pro-life agencies in Britain against recent euthanasia Bills gave precedence to the «thin end of the wedge» type of argument, often pointing to Holland as a worst case example.

Judge Wilken also dismissed some of the NCAA's arguments as duplicative to those considered — and rejected — in the O'Bannon case.

As Hatch notes, the cohabiting couples she interviewed look and act a lot like married couples, with the same concerns and arguments, shared responsibilities (including in some cases children) and yes, even commitment.

Here is what you wrote — «Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.»

Despite the fact that a Fall 2012 Cochrane Library Review (considered the gold standard of independent inquiry and scientific objectivity) reports that home birth is as safe or in many cases actually safer than hospital birth, the American obstetrical community continues to publicly oppose homebirth, citing safety concerns as their main argument.

Apart from the argument that we have a moral duty to help those who wish to come to this country (which you may or may not accept), there is an economic case in favour of immigration in that the economy benefits from the availability of cheap labour, and there is a case against in that growth in population especially in the crowded South - East creates a lot of pressure on infrastructure such as housing, transport, hospitals, and schools (and the growth in population is largely due to immigration).

donpaskini: many thanks - that helps, I think I get what he is arguing now (insofar as there is an argument in this case).

Throughout all the twists and turns of the badger cull debate, a key argument the government has used to justify the case for culling has been the apparent success in reducing TB in cattle as a result of killing badgers in the Republic of Ireland.

«It is the case in Oxford and Cambridge Union debating contests that the competitors are given one side of the argument to debate blind, and so may have to argue a case they oppose, as I remember from my own first year efforts at Oxford» What a curious remark to make!

However, even if you believed you'd found a brilliant and unassailable argument as to why failure to prosecute in this case constituted one of the rare exceptions to the general presumption that a prosecutor is acting permissibly when exercising prosecutorial discretion, you would still run into the problem of standing.

Explicitly egalitarian arguments are seldom made, even when the party has a story to tell that includes a redistributive tax policy, as was the case in the 2010 manifesto.

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.

If you only analyse things as a one - off, on the other hand, then there's certainly an argument that in the individual case that in a society where weapons are routinely carried he might not have managed to shoot 37 people without one of them shooting back.

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?

The argument for doing this is that any assessment of audience reaction should take the audience as it is — in this case, accepting that UKIP supporters were much more likely to watch or listen to the debate than supporters of other parties.

Even if they find a way around the arguments for a legal obligation, there is a strong ethical case which they would be advised not to spurn - particularly as the cameraman hired, Danny Dewsbury, is a student in substantial debt.

At 10 a.m., a Long Island man seeking exoneration after he pleaded guilty as an 18 - year - old in 1988 to sexually abusing boys and served 13 years in prison, Jesse Friedman, attends oral arguments in a state appeals court hearing seeking Nassau County DA and police files in the case; 45 Monroe Pl., Brooklyn.

The former senator, who, according to an aide, served in Congress with Kasich, called his chosen candidate «a proven political winner in a very tough state for Republicans» — ironically, the very same argument Pataki is making as he makes his case for his long - shot bid for the presidency.

Public labor members rallied Monday in Albany as the Supreme Court heard the opening arguments of Janus v. AFSCME, a case that challenges automatic union dues paid by public - sector workers.

We'll produce assiduous research showing how free education would be implemented, in defence of universalism, myth - busting some of the most outrageous arguments of the Labour right («free education is bad for access», «Scotland has free education and that means robbing the poor to pay the rich»), and begin to make the case in Labour Students, the Labour Party and NUS for free, public and democratic education, not as a privilege, but as a right.

Bouchey's attorneys filed a copy of the transcript in Albany County Court recently to buttress their argument that top NXIVM officials have used litigation, as well as the criminal case, to attack her and other perceived adversaries.

Alternately, the Republicans also could reiterate the SAFE Act argument, which essentially was: Gun control is inevitable, because it's being pushed by an enormously popular and powerful governor, so we should work to temper it as much as possible (in this case, by adding stiffer penalties) giving enough of our members a reason to vote «yes» and help the measure pass.

Caproni said if the schedule held, it was possible that closing arguments in the case could be delivered as soon as the end of next week.

Without indicating what action he might take in the Ivy case, Soares insisted he was working to prevent a defense attorney from raising a potentially disastrous legal argument against any district attorney who might bring charges in a case that falls into what Soares characterized as the executive order's ample ambiguities.