It's true that a few people have said things along the lines of «That would
never hold up in a court of law.»
Not that it matters, by definition forcing someone to sign something to have their property returned to them is coercion and would
never hold up in a court of law.
(I should be clear that I'd never, ever suggest signing a contract on the grounds that you think a provision you don't like is unenforceable, even if the entire Supreme Court, Scalia and Thomas included, told you before hand that yeah, that would
never hold up in court.
When nobody can put anything on them beyond some vague guilt - by - association charge that could
never hold up in a court of law, it then becomes obvious why this global warming crisis begins to look like it may fall apart.
Not exact matches
Religion, on the other hand, brings us priests who r - pe little kids and
never face a day
in court, psychos crashing airplanes into buildings, freaks
holding up pictures of dead fetuses, and Sarah Palin.
The issue of whether the comptroller could
hold up the entire budget by refusing to certify it has been debated for years, but has
never been tested
in the
courts.
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 a Commons speech on the day of the vote, Labour MP Diane Abbott said a compensation package offered by the government to suspects
held for over 28 days and then subsequently released «will not survive scrutiny by the
courts» and that MPs should not vote with the government based «on a shoddy compensation package that will not stand
up and will
never come into being».