Not exact matches
The reality is 65 million people voted for Trump... and while a lot of those votes came from people who were legitimately frustrated with both political parties and wanted someone to shake
up the system, and a lot of votes cam from traditional doctrinaire Republican voters who
held their nose and voted for the guy
because they wanted a tax cut, and other voters were pseudo-moralistic Evangelical hypocrites who wanted to reward McConnell for STEALING Merrick Garland's Supreme
Court seat, there were a whole lot of Trump voters — including a lot of voters from Pennsylvania's «T» — who voted for Trump
because they are racist, white supremicist xenophobes who saw
in Trump someone who spoke their language and would «make america great again» (read «make america WHITE again»).
And for that,
because the laws
in all these areas are so different and
because they change all the time, I really do think that if you want to have a contract then you need to go to a lawyer who is a family lawyer, who is also really familiar with lesbian and gay and bisexual and transgender law, who will understand what the issues are and what you might need to put into this agreement, and who can also tell you when you may or may not
hold up in court and what the risks and the benefits are.
While it didn't
hold up in the supreme
court, people have argued that the income tax is unconstitutional
because it's not specifically mentioned (legally that's a questionable argument), but there is a feeling that the constitution defends the libertarian against an overreaching government (sorry - that's too general).
The
court was to hear the case on Monday but had to adjourn
because the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI) officials who are
holding him did not turn
up in court with the suspect.
«If a cloture vote is
held on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme
Court, I am prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a filibuster
because,
in my view, this nominee deserves an
up or down vote
in the Senate.»
The Family
Court issues another order that says that Sally has to either refinance the house or sell it in 90 days, and if she doesn't (or can't, because she is unable to conjure up a buyer out of thin air) the court will hold her in contempt of court, and may jail her as a re
Court issues another order that says that Sally has to either refinance the house or sell it
in 90 days, and if she doesn't (or can't,
because she is unable to conjure
up a buyer out of thin air) the
court will hold her in contempt of court, and may jail her as a re
court will
hold her
in contempt of
court, and may jail her as a re
court, and may jail her as a result.
So, no, while such embargoes wouldn't
hold up in court most outlets would never break them anyway
because it would be like shooting yourself
in the foot.
In court papers, the gallery says its gold shipment shouldn't be
held up, Reuters reported,
because it was a straightforward «purchase of a tangible commodity» having nothing to do with the allegedly fraudulent investment scheme that Stanford is accused of orchestrating.
Even
in the case of the Succoth hut on the condominium's balcony, where the SCC said that religious belief had only to be sincere to qualify for Charter protection (Linus van Pelt
in Peanuts expressed that decades ago: it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere), the religious person got to set
up his hut contrary to the condo's by - laws
because the
court held it was no big deal for the condo.
It won't be long before law societies — or the
courts — include technology
in their definitions of competence
in practice, by
holding negligent the lawyers who have messed
up because of their weak grasp of it.
Your will is the ideal time to write all of this down,
because just telling your kids, «Oh yeah, Kyle gets the TV,» doesn't
hold up in court.
So one of the fundamental principles that the Democrats base their support for this disallowance motion on is the fact that the State regimes are based on legislation which, at the end of the day, will not
hold up», Senator Woodley as reported
in Senate 2000, Debates, No. 16, p19520 The speaker from the Greens party said «I will be voting for this disallowance
because the regulations brought forward from Western Australian legislation do not uphold the spirit of the legislation that has gone through this parliament
in the last decade of the High
Court rulings that Indigenous people should have a real say
in what is happening on their land», Senator Brown as reported
in Senate 2000, Debates, No. 16, p19524
Although this isn't a mortgage according to the standard use of the term,
courts often treat it as one
because the parties appear to have set
up an agreement
in which payments are made over time and the creditor
holds an interest
in the property as security.