Sentences with phrase «cases views on this issue»

While many believe that global climate change poses a very serious threat, in many cases views on this issue have not changed over the past five years.

Not exact matches

All the nonsense about marrying one's pets is an absurd diversionary tactic that I can only assume you engage in because you can not win an honest discussion on the ethics of the issue and / or the scriptural case for your view.

And the book also offers a deliberately wide array of approaches to trinitarian issues, including not only historical and systematic theologians, but biblical scholars and analytic philosophers of religion, writing from a variety of theological and communal points of view» Roman Catholic, Protestant, and, in one case, Jewish (the New Testament scholar Alan Segal, who contributes an instructive if somewhat technical chapter on the role of conflicts between Jews and Christians in the emergence of early trinitarian teaching).

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

The Commons lags behind public debate on most issues, but in the case of the drug debate it can barely be seen in the rear - view mirror.

In this case, Malliotakis is avoiding expressing a view on an issue that has been at the center of political discussion for months, with two months elapsing since the House bill was publicly available, and that may profoundly affect the City she hopes to lead in six months.

We would warmly welcome your views on the issues raised in this letter, both in regards to the specific cases and generic issues.

Perhaps this view will become the new received wisdom — it's quoted in today's NYTimes column by economist Paul Krugman, «Grains Gone Wild,» who cites «the rise of demon ethanol and other biofuels,» and points out, «Oh, and in case you're wondering: all the remaining presidential candidates are terrible on this issue.»

I didn't yet watch the entire session, but I'm wondering if anyone made a case regarding the lack of any long term worsening trend in climate change related issues (sea level rise, glacier melt, tropical systems, floods, extreme drought, tornadoes, etc) comparing pre 1950 (the consensus view of the birth of any potentially observable human footprint on GW) to post 1950?

Case in point, if one only took the press portrayal of Judith Curry's views, one might find her a bit of an ideologue on this issue.

The case's procedural history is very complex (the Advocate General referred to it as either Kafkaesque or tilting windmills like Don Quixote, depending on your point of view), so after only a brief factual discussion I will focus on the two major constitutional issues that the Court had to deal with:

In relation to Scottish Speculative Agreements it is clear again from Lord Gill's Review that there is a significant issue relating to Access to Justice; this is discussed on pages 98 and 99 and para 107 «as far as Access to Justice is concerned, speculative fee arrangements were said to have been responsible for a reduction in the number of firms taking on personal injury litigation, resulting in less choice for consumers but a concentration of expertise in those firms dealing with such cases... Another respondent was of the view that speculative fee arrangements were being entered into where there was little risk».

But on the constitutional issue of balancing the allegedly competing considerations of religious liberty and equality rights, the Court gets it quite right when it concludes that «[t] his case demonstrates that a well - intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in itself intolerant and illiberal.»

According to Grace, the existing case law on the issue shows «courts have taken a dim view of impeding in any way the progress of a civil suit, and will do so only in the rarest of circumstances.»

On the issue of the ideal of modern separation between Church and State, in my view, some of his examples of where this is not entirely the case are a little too forgiving.

And if all of this is not enough to make the case significant, it also may reveal the justices» views on presidential power and immigration that could be relevant to other issues pending in the lower courts, such as President Trump's repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the challenges to President Trump's threatening to withhold federal funds from cities and states that do not cooperate with immigration officials.

26 The Report of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions (the Martin Committee Report)(1993), at p. 369 (in a passage approved in R. v. Rajaeefard (1996), 27 O.R. (3d) 323 (C.A.) at 330 - 1), observed: Consequently, in the interest of encouraging the parties to fully explore their case at a pre-hearing conference without prejudice to their right to subsequently litigate fully all unresolved issues in open court, it is the Committee's view that the parties should, where either one thinks it appropriate, be able to insist on a trial before a different judge.

As Justice McIsaac quoted, the Committee's rationale for this recommendation insists... in the interests of encouraging the parties to fully explore their case at a pre-hearing conference without prejudice to their right to subsequently litigate fully all unresolved issues in open court, it is the Committee's view that the parties should, where either one thinks it appropriate, be able to insist on a trial before a different judge.

A labour arbitrator said that it was, but the Court (unanimous on this point) easily rejected that view, again without addressing either the question of the standard of review or the administrative decision - maker's reasoning (though the majority did discuss it at length on the other issue in the case, which concerned the interpretation of a collective agreement).

Harding told the panel he has a strong view that lawyers should not be put in a position where they're expected to debate legal issues with non-lawyer staff on the opposite side of a case.

In the case of Toronto specifically, my view is that the city should eliminate the 30 metre proximity restriction to restaurants, lift the cap on operating hours and remove the limit on the number of food truck permits that can be issued.

In this case, where a father seeks the return of his son to his country of habitual residence (Bulgaria), the main issues for determination under Article 13 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 are whether a return of the child (L) to Bulgaria would expose him to a grave risk of psychological or physical harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation and whether L objects to returning to Bulgaria, and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which his views should be taken into account.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the «announce» clause, a provision of Minnesota's Code of Judicial Conduct that prohibits a candidate for judicial office from discussing his or her views on a political issue violates the First Amendment.

We are commenting on the leave issue in this case because in our view by missing the opportunity to clarify the scope of Tsilhqot» in and Keewatin the Court has left outstanding uncertainty as to the scope of these decisions that it could usefully have resolved.

But then there were a couple of other decisions which didn't follow it - Walters v. PPL, in January 2012: «In my view, it is unnecessary to decide the issue of jurisdiction in this case», because, on the facts, the termination had nothing to do with any complaint of harassment.

Andrew Norris and Amanda Michaels are excellent, reasonably priced barristers who are a joy to deal with; they are great at quickly honing in on the key issues in a case and they take a commercial view.»

If the OCL does elect to become involved, they will either provide a clinical investigator to conduct a family assessment or a lawyer to represent the views of the children, depending on the ages of the children and the issues of the case.

The court gave guidance on the issue — essentially they will have to make the best of it and can not withdraw if the court refuses what in its view is a proper adjournment period in which to prepare the case.

Most recently, on May 20, the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Lahore High Court Bar Association issued a joint statement: «Both bar associations are of the view that in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Panama Papers case (that questioned the moral authority of the premier to rule), PM Nawaz Sharif should no longer hold his office and should therefore resign.»

Indeed, it is my view that judges are supposed to decide appeals based on the merits of the issues being raised, the facts of the case and the applicable law, rather than based on the quality of the briefs and the oral arguments.

[2] Given the directions made by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of proportionality in summary judgment motions in its recent decision in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), 2014 SCC 7, in my view when a request is made in an action on the Toronto Region Commercial List for a summary judgment motion date, one judge should case manage the proceeding.

[103] For instance, the public may view a judge that is involved with fundraising efforts for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada as having a pre-disposition on the issue of impaired driving, an issue which may come before the judge in a variety of cases.

The opinion had already been publicly issued by the Second Circuit on October 18, 2007, posted to the internet, viewed by hundreds if not thousands of individuals, and was in circulation via email among those interested in the case.

View the PIPEDA case summary relating to the investigations of the banksView the Commissioner's June 2006 news release and August 2006 news release on this issue.

While a hearing should take as long as necessary to allow each side the full opportunity to be heard, a party should not, in our view, be permitted to put issues «on the table» that require a response from another party, and then leave the hearing, without having established that the issue is, in fact, germane to the case.

At the very least, in view of the need for clarification of the requirements for an effective public assumption of a private law duty of care, I consider that this is a case in which it should be held that the particular issue on which proximity turns is not fully settled in the jurisprudence within the meaning of the decisions cited in paragraph 47 above.

When the senior costs judge, Master Hurst, considered the issue of ring - fencing in Re Claims Direct Test Cases [2002] EWHC 9002 (Costs), he concluded: «In my view, since the cover purchased for # 245 plus Insurance Premium Tax was a discrete add on to the existing insurance for which the claimant paid separately, and since the cover provided does not fall within the strict limits of Section 29, no part of the # 245 plus IPT is recoverable.

Sir Anthony May held that the issue was academic on the facts of that case and therefore declined to express a view.

Issues surrounding alimony or spousal support are viewed solely on a case - by - case basis in New Hampshire.

«The experts testifying on behalf of each of the parties noted, on the other hand, that the new wife had never harmed the children, and that the young man's weight loss stemmed either from a severe case of parental alienation (in the view of one expert), or from «anxiety related issues» (in the view of the other).»