In view of this deficit, Clarke LJ
heard arguments as to whether non-party costs orders should be made against the funders pursuant to Section 51 (3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, and concluded that they should all be jointly and severally liable to pay the defendants» costs on the indemnity basis (subject to the «Arkin cap» as further discussed below).
For the first time in our nation's history, a federal court
heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human.
I find it interesting that in assessing similarities and differences, the court
hears argument as to particular features and puts itself in the position of the «informed user» to make the judgment, much, I suppose, as it would when the standard is the «reasonable person.»
Not exact matches
She tells The New York Times that
as she prepared to deliver her closing
argument, she went back and made additional notes to her original statement after
hearing Bliss speak.
But
as law professor Eugene Volokh notes, the First Amendment
argument is a strong one, and the Supreme Court would likely
hear the case since it involves striking down a federal statute.
It's an
argument heard as frequently on the shop floor
as at city hall.
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.
Then there's what I see
as a major conceptual flaw in the opposing
arguments I
heard today: Fed policy is presented
as all costs, no benefits.
As the Judge would summarize the case and after he listened to all the witnesses and
heard arguments from the lawyers, I would think, he is going to find this guy guilty, and then the Judge starts talking another way and then I think ooohh he is going to find this guy not guilty...... then the Judge keeps talking and then I think, I have no idea what his finding is going to be....
The most common
argument you
hear from the pass - through lobby (which includes, notably, lobbying firms themselves, who organize
as partnerships) is that pass - throughs face a higher rate than C corporations.
We are not saying that the individual retail investor's vote does not matter, but when most of the proxy materials are cast into the garbage or just voted
as suggested, it becomes more difficult to defend the
argument that having each individual investors voice
heard is of the utmost importance.
I have
heard many
arguments about how a downtown arena could revitalize the area, but I have not been convinced that our current arena, Rexall Place, is
as bad
as its detractors would characterize it.
As for the
argument that we should look to our churches... the BILLIONS spent by organized religion to build exorbitant places of worship (Jesus preached in open fields and I'm confident that God
hears MY prayers in the privacy of my home) and the building of health clinics in third world countries would help a lot — but they are not inclined to help those in need HERE!
I have yet to
hear a convincing
argument validating contraceptives
as «good medicine.»
I have never, ever, once
heard anyone set forth any salient
argument as to how this country is somehow founded in christian principles.
«The truth will win out, the best
arguments will win and we should
hear them and listen to them, work out what's wrong with them, if there is something wrong and refute them
as they need to be refuted and that's the way a free society works.»
While I would hesitate to engage in a full - out debate of theism vs. atheism on this forum for reasons that I have already stated, I would be interested in
hearing your response to the traditional ontological and moral
arguments in favor of the existence of God
as well
as the
argument from contingency.
- «God» became angry at the world - «God» created Jesus (either
as his son or
as himself)- «God» has Jesus tortured and killed (and I've
heard the
argument that that wasn't the intention, but if a god is omnipotent and omniscient then, nothing is an accident.
I remember
as a child
hearing adults have very animated discussions over various points of theology, then sit down and eat together once the
argument was over.
It may also become increasingly difficult for any
argument against any research on early embryos to command a
hearing (including
arguments against «therapeutic» cloning)
as other procedures that involve embryo selection and disposal become more common.
These
arguments are
as good
as much of the reasoning one
hears in favor of the sexual theory.
Even the earthly judge may
hear your case, but consequences are there whether lenient
as one would call it based on your mitigation and last
arguments for leniency.
Joy itself is evangelical, and people are more easily shocked by a happy, chaste Christian than they are by
hearing about statistical studies of homosexuality or even philosophical
arguments, such
as sexual acts having intrinsic meaning and being open to new life.
Well if you have an
argument that I haven't
heard before and has not been rufeted, then I'd like to
hear it (TAG and Kalam have been thoroughly torn apart for years
as a heads up).
As far as evidence of damage from Reparative Therapy, please study the arguments presented in the State of California, or contact those that claim to have been damaged by Reparative Therapy... hear their voices, Jerem
As far
as evidence of damage from Reparative Therapy, please study the arguments presented in the State of California, or contact those that claim to have been damaged by Reparative Therapy... hear their voices, Jerem
as evidence of damage from Reparative Therapy, please study the
arguments presented in the State of California, or contact those that claim to have been damaged by Reparative Therapy...
hear their voices, Jeremy.
Unlikely
as it may be for the Court to go beyond the
arguments presented by the parties themselves to rule RFRA unconstitutional, the phrase «extreme religious liberty rights» is one defenders of religious liberty ought to prepare to
hear a lot of in the coming years.
I've
heard the
arguments of some preachers too: that some debt is a sin but other sources of debt are not, or,
as you say, «too much» debt is a sin.
In order to evangelize for our positions — whether at press conferences, in boardrooms, in sermons, at legislative
hearings, on the job, at the coffeehouse, or across the fence — we must learn to present our
arguments so that those who
hear them have the choice to see them
as compelling.
They need to
hear this, not
as a snark, not
as an
argument, but
as a statement of fact about what many of their fellows, even their normally mild - mannered ones, really believe.
Honestly,
as a «former» mega-church attender, I
heard the grape juice
argument too many times to count.
I have
heard others make the
argument that homosexuallity
as a norm
as always accompanied the downfall of many societies.
I hope we don't
hear (
as we did initially in the reports of arsenic in fruit juice) any more pathetic
arguments regarding the toxicological merits of organic vs. inorganic arsenic.
Makes for nonsensical, contrived
arguments — especially for the shouters who are quite happy to accept whatever they
hear as fact.
My thoughts —
as always — open to
hearing arguments against.
3 — How often are we going to have to
hear how well he did for Wales in the 10 role at this most recent Euros,
as an
argument for why he should do that with Arsenal?
One
argument I've
heard is that we're no longer making 53 - man roster decisions based on ST play
as we did under Smith.
I don't really get it, and I'm not really in the mood to
hear the «he doesn't have 90 minutes in his legs»
argument seeing
as he went the full 90 in his last start.
you often resort to the
argument that i've
heard a million times throughout my pregnancy when people find out i'm planning a home birth: that your birth experience doesn't matter
as long
as the outcome is a healthy baby.
As a student midwife in AZ, I have
heard the same
argument about not being educated from the medical camp too.
The language may have been more colourful, but the core
argument was the same
as what we
heard at the Tory party conference a few weeks ago.
Yet another courtroom battle promises to pull the White House into the legal spotlight today
as crucial
arguments are
heard in New York in a sweeping lawsuit that is challenging the administration's marijuana policy by seeking to legalize pot under federal law.
Pistorius sat in a dark suit
as original trial judge Thokozile Masipa started
hearing pre-sentencing
arguments at Pretoria High Court.
At 10:15 a.m., leaders from New York's organized labor movement will hold a news conference
as the U.S. Supreme Court
hears oral
arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, the latest in a series of attacks by the wealthy and corporate interests against ordinary working people, outside the Senate lounge, 3rd Floor, state Capitol, Albany.
I tried to indicate the vacuousness of Alan Johnson's Labour in For Britain
as a way of saying «This is not serious, we need to
hear the
arguments for and against in a way that helps us think for ourselves».
Zemsky told the Assembly members that it's too early to judge Start - Up NY, and he continued that
argument outside the
hearing, saying, «take a deep breath,» and give the program «some more time»
as he spoke with reporters.
I quite understand that,
as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, he can not be involved, but I hope he
hears my
argument and acts on it.
«You didn't
hear any evidence that he held himself out to Mr. Aiello or to Mr. Gerardi
as a guy who would be going back into government where he could sell his office to them for the money that he was earning
as a consultant during the summer of 2014,» Bohrer told jurors in his closing
arguments.
As more people
hear his
arguments, we aim to build on his early support with new policies and ideas for a fairer and more prosperous country.»
First, fiscal discipline is fundamental to Labour's thinking and policy development, underpinning every proposal we make, every
argument we advance — not only because our wider message will not be
heard if people see us only
as spenders, and not also
as reformers — but also because we simply will not be able to deliver the changes we want to make in government if we do not have strong public finances.
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.