Sentences with phrase «justice policies seem»

Not exact matches

It seems indifferent to the radical distinction between conventional religion — which throws the aura of sanctity on contemporary public policy, whether morally inferior or outrageously unjust — and radical religious protest — which subjects all historical reality (including economic, social and radical injustice) to the «word of the Lord,» i.e., absolute standards of justice.

It seems to me that the current call for «social justice» is not so much related to any specific leftist policy as much as an appeal for the basic values of democracy.

There's the ongoing special - counsel investigation into whether the Trump campaign aided a Russian campaign to aid Trump's candidacy and defeat his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton; there's the associated inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice when he fired former FBI Director James Comey, whom he had asked not to investigate his former national - security adviser; there are the president's hush - money payments to women with whom he allegedly had extramarital affairs, made through his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and facilitated by corporate cash paid to influence the White House; there is his ongoing effort to interfere with the Russia inquiry and politicize federal law enforcement; there are the foreign governments that seem to be utilizing the president's properties as vehicles for influencing administration policy; there's the emerging evidence that Trump campaign officials sought aid not only from Russia, but from other foreign countries, which may have affected Trump's foreign policy; there are the ongoing revelations of the president's Cabinet officials» misusing taxpayer funds; there is the accumulating evidence that administration decisions are made at the behest of private industry, in particular those in which Republican donors have significant interests.

Scientific management also seems to promise that the answer can be found without confronting difficult questions of distributive justice; we persist in the illusion that science combined with policy can fix our problems without requiring any difficult choices or tradeoffs.

Then, recently, a think tank called MAPS (Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios) published this policy paper, which gives their interpretation of the ERF, and we fell into a depression for it seemed our dreams of true climate justice were about to be dashed.

Second, and now as a matter of practical policy - making reality, at a time when governments seem unwilling to devote more attention or expenditure to public provision of legal services for people living on low income, exploring ways to harness private sector innovations may be the most realistic avenue for improving access to justice for that segment of the population.

Often a justice of the peace would be hearing a trial and a witness would refer to documents — employee policies, for example, or correspondence — that seemed to suggest that a due diligence defence might be available, but those documents wouldn't be introduced into evidence.

The fusion of the two roles has often been defended as ensuring that the Attorney General has a voice at the cabinet table in discussions of public policy but that seems to support the cabinet status of the Attorney General rather than its combination with another ministerial portfolio such as Justice.

This, however, not to mention that the instances may rarely occur when a State may have an opportunity of suing in the American Courts a foreign state, seems to lose sight of the policy which, no doubt, suggested this provision, viz., that no State in the Union should, by withholding justice, have it in its power to embroil the whole Confederacy in disputes of another nature.

When policies are driven by «look to deny» cost - cutting rather than legal principles, and «medicalized» decision - making blames age or pre-existing conditions rather than the impact of a work - related cause, our system seems increasingly to be run on the private insurance model — far from Meredith's call for «full justice, no half - measures».

David would seem to be arguing that there really is not a problem but if that were true then why was this matter of potential conflicts such a focus in the debates of the Committee for Justice Policy that led to the Access to Justice Act?.

Mr. Justice Hall decides that policy reasons favour following the UK / Commonwealth rule: ``... I do not consider that it would be appropriate for this Court to adopt the American rule over the rule that seems to be generally accepted throughout the Commonwealth; namely, that each publication of a libel gives a fresh cause of action.»

Given the policy analysis in Macdonald Estate, it seems to me that Justice Sopinka was intending to refer to solicitor client privileged information.

Funders seem to be willing to go to some lengths to assure courts that approval of funding is in the interests of access to justice and not contrary to public policy, at least in the class action context.