Sentences with phrase «political argument in court»

Not exact matches

But, in the courts and other public forums, the ACLU now has impressive competition, while the political sea change of November 1994 has created a circumstance much more sympathetic to the public expression of arguments informed by religious tradition.

«The Illinois Constitution does not require a single store to provide a forum for the exercise of political expression, «contended Donald Mizerk and Renee Goldfarb, top aides to State «s Atty. Jack O`Malley, in written arguments filed with the state high court.

Another free - speech challenge is pending before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this month on corporate spending limits in U.S. political campaigns.

In a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianIn a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicians.

In a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianIn a case that could upend New York's political landscape, a state Supreme Court justice heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin a lawsuit seeking to eliminate the so - called «LLC loophole» in state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicianin state election law, which has given developers and other deep - pocketed donors the ability give essentially unlimited campaign donations to state politicians.

At the end of the oral arguments, Fisher asked the plaintiffs to submit further written arguments concerning whether they have standing in the case, and on the «political question» — presumably, whether or not this is a matter to be decided by the courts or political system.

The High Court Tuesday started hearing arguments in a case out of Wisconsin involving gerrymandering, the much - criticized practice of drawing up legislative boundaries to benefit one political party.

On February 9, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Libertarian Political Association v Galvin, sj 2011 - 0348.

It's a fine, if simple, argument that James Solomon's screenplay makes, envisioning an entire military court proceeding as political theater — to show those in the North that they mean business about unity and to scare those in the South who might have similar bloody thoughts.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard arguments in a case that is the latest challenge to one of the ways teachers» unions amass their political war chests.

What the Supreme Court says in Zelman could have a marked effect in structuring the terms of the political debate - not just in determining who wins the legal argument, but in explaining its broader implications in a way that only the Supreme Court can.

Josh Dunn, an associate professor of political science at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, joins EdNext Editor - in - chief Marty West to discuss the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, February 26, in Janus v. AFSCME.

This has expanded both the constituency and the intellectual and moral arguments for vouchers, put the unions and their allies (including the Democrats) in the awkward position of opposing the poor in fierce political battles - and led to major voucher victories in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida (not to mention the Supreme Court).

Josh Dunn, an associate professor of political science at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, joins EdNext Editor - in - chief Marty West to discuss the Supreme Court's oral arguments on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

According to a May 15, 2018 report by Max Mitchell of The Legal Intelligencer, in argument before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court the Philadelphia School District (PSD) contended that it is entitled to immunity under the state's Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PS

The fundamental argument from the oil companies is that climate change is a global problem that needs a political solution, and you can't solve a political problem in court and you certainly can't blame the oil companies for selling a product that everyone wants to buy.

For example, a casual perusal of the online legal research service Westlaw reveals that «mumbo jumbo» appears at least 251 times in judicial opinions.8 «Jibber - jabber» shows up just seven times (although surprisingly used by parties, rather than in statements from the court), while the more prosaic «gobbledygook» has 126 hits in the legal database.9 Believed to have been coined in 1944 by U.S. Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas, «gobbledygook» has been used by everyone from political figures referring to bureaucratic doublespeak (for example, President Ronald Reagan's stinging 1985 indictment of tax law revisions as «cluttered with gobbledygook and loopholes designed for those with the power and influence to have high - priced legal and tax advisers») to judges decrying the indecipherable arguments and pleadings of the lawyers practicing before them.