Not exact matches
They
suggested three ways in which RFRA might conceivably be interpreted (misinterpreted, really) to create bad
consequences: (1) to give a church's opponents
legal «standing» (a technical term meaning the right to sue) to challenge the church's tax - exempt status; (2) to allow taxpayers to claim their free exercise rights would be violated if a religiously affiliated organization receives government assistance under a secular program; and, most importantly, (3) to allow pro-abortion plaintiffs to claim a free exercise right to abortion if Roe v. Wade is overruled and states enact anti-abortion laws.
Professor White
suggests that it does matter how opinions are written because they have important
consequences for the parties in a particular case and for the future.29 He further argues that a crucial part of
legal activity is the criticism of opinions on rational, political, and moral grounds because that is how relevant arguments are made in support of changing or retaining current rules of law.30 For him, the bigger question «is whether law will move in the direction of trivializing human experience, and itself, or in the direction of dignifying itself and that experience.»
13 The defence
suggests that the police should provide an informational basis as to the
legal advantages or even
consequences of not consulting with counsel or should force an accused to speak with a lawyer; and, conversely, that when they provide
legal advice, the police must be held accountable if there is any error; that the police must provide
legal advice as part of the informational basis, but are at risk if they provide erroneous advice.
At a minimum, it
suggests the need for
legal advice as to the
consequences and necessity of a plea, even if representation isn't possible or is refused.
Fortunately, his past report has some general principles —
suggesting, for example, that government ensure that it have
legal authority for decisions with particularly important
consequences for human health and the environment.
The Australian report
suggests that it is not necessary to warn someone of the
legal consequences of lying when the person «has just promised to tell the truth».
This post discusses the reasoning in Thompson and
suggests some significant
legal and practical
consequences that could flow from a shift towards a more child - centered interpretation of the Hague Convention by Canadian courts.
Lord Neuberger
suggested it would be «a little surprising» if the Act had no
legal consequence.
If it is indeed ODD, rather than CD, that predicts later depression, then this might
suggest an amended failure model that emphasizes the social and emotional
consequences of irritability and interpersonal difficultness rather than the
legal and social sequelae of delinquency and overt aggression.
While research shows that sexting isn't as prevalent as the media narrative might
suggest, it is an issue with substantial social and
legal consequences for teenagers.