Sentences with phrase «think taking her to court»

However, I do think taking her to court was excessive.

Not exact matches

The Supreme Court's ruling over raisins means regulators need to think twice about taking private property.

«The Republican Senate refuses to hold hearings on [Supreme Court nominee] Judge Garland, refuses to fund the President's request for Zika aid and takes the most days off of any Senate since 1956, but thinks Facebook hearings are a matter of urgent national interest,» Jentleson said.

«If you think for a moment that I'm going to stay my hand because your guy is taking the Fifth Amendment, and not issue a preliminary injunction to shut down what happened here, you're wrong,» U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup said, according to the transcript.

L4H If that is what you think you need to have money and take it up with the court it has lost in a court of law period!!!

So for them to think a blogger who has allowed discussion on the issues surrounding Tony as a public figure who used his privilege to control — is going to take it down blog posts simply because those who support the NPD or the NPD himself claims the «court» says so, must think we all fell off the turnip truck.

The most serious impact is likely to be felt, he thinks, in the churches, where vicars and priests conducting religious marriage ceremonies could be taken to court for refusing to carry out a gay wedding.

I think we should move on with this story, these people were in it for money it seems like, because if they were serious they should have taken him to court, lets move on everyone, no one is perfect!

I stand corrected on the Susan B. Anthony part, but they're still liars when it comes this action, and they're still stupid to think no one could take them to court over their lies.

Depends on the jurisdiction, I think, but the Const.itution uses «oath or affirmation,» so I would think if it were taken to court, «so help me God» would not be required.

Yours: «Depends on the jurisdiction, I think, but the Const.itution uses «oath or affirmation,» so I would think if it were taken to court, «so help me God» would not be required.

«The Supreme Court's Catholic majority seems to think that, because many prayers before government meetings take on a ceremonial aspect, the actual content of the prayers doesn't really matter, Kagan continues.»

Well I think I can answer that when a few years ago the courts and schools started to take the 10 commandments off the buildings.

I'm an American and our country was founded on keeping religion separate from state and though I think its taken to extremes, I can understand not hanging crosses in schools or courts or government buildings here.

The answer, I think, would reveal itself readily, for it takes little imagination to see that a move of that kind would have put a heavier burden on Justice Blackmun to sustain his opinion for the Court and draw allies to his side.

Should I have the money, and a child in the public education system, I belive I could take the issue to court and win that educators must always preface any remark that deals with the theory of evolution with statements such as: «it is thought» or «there is reason to believe» or some or qualifying statement indicating that it is just a theory, not fact.

As the legal specialist at the Indianapolis meeting remarked, religion can not be taken out of public education simply by court rulings; it will disappear from the schools only if it ceases to live in the «thoughts and hearts of citizens.»

That democracy can be made to work, that by the scientific method we can gain mastery over the latent resources of the universe, that trial by jury is practicable, that torture is a foolish method of seeking evidence in the courts, that chattel slavery is a failure — such things we take for granted, not because we individually are wiser than our forebears, who disbelieved them all, but because we share in a social tradition which we did not even help to create, but which has shaped and conformed our thinking with irresistible power.

Maybe not stats with Ersan but the smart stuff (taking charges, passing and Dario type stuff) I think Holmes will be a highlight reel though and he's going to have the team on high alert simply by being emotional as he's shown through his Instagram and on the court through being engaged in the game with an intensity that few show.

I honestly think that with the home court dominance between these two teams that it would take your guys having a good night combined with our guys having a bad night for your team to win.

my initial take is that i think it's due to our wings and front court just not being quick enough on rotations.

I do not think he is corrupt (at the moment) but from my point of view it certainly looks like bias.Also I doubt he would want to take the point many people are making (that he cheated) into a court and open what would be a very public discussion.Irrespective of the result the ramifications of such a case would be far reaching indeed and would maybe result in a fair system where footballers and not referees affect the outcome of football matches.

1) i wish Metro could be taken to court for the players They link us to, ridiculuos 2) owen must be killed 3) BFG must be a sub, Kos and Gab to start 4) usmanov to take ova 5) walcot to stop whining about being the # 9, he is clearly a winger, a good one 6) think wenger is the best manager out there

«Frankly, I don't think there was ever any evidence that it was in the best interest of the child to be taken from his home» in the first place, Rietz said in court.

At present, those who sign up to tax avoidance schemes pay what they think they can get away with, and then it is up to HMRC to claw the full amount back through the courts — which can take years.

Eliason, who wrote a blog post arguing that the Supreme Court should not take McDonnell's case, said although it is true that «people provide monetary support to politicians all the time, and politicians do things that their supporters favor all the time,» he thought McDonnell's case was different in that prosecutors had demonstrated a corrupt agreement.

«If you don't believe this election is important, if you think you can sit it out, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump would nominate and what that would mean to civil liberties, equal rights and the future of our country,» Sanders said.

The answer, I think, is both, though Cahill took a beating in the court of public opinion and figures to be Hein's whipping boy for as long as both are in office.

Rare as these deaths are, more often than not police brutality is blamed and officers are taken to court, but researchers now think that such events are the result of a rare disorder called «excited delirium».

Timothy Stephens, an environmental lawyer at the University of Sydney, doesn't think the Australian government will take the case back to court.

Why do you think they were motivated to take their case to court?

I just think a movie like this should be taken to court for negligence.

On January 11, while oral argument for Friedrichs v. CTA took place inside the Supreme Court, Rebecca's supporters gathered on the steps to show solidarity and help explain why they think a strong First Amendment is at the heart of a strong education system.

Do you think those too afraid to take this to court for years have oodles of evidence?

I think its great women are speaking up BUT I do not feel a mans career should be ruined if the incident is too old to even prove or take to court.

Think about it, no more telephone calls threatening to take you to courts.

Some lawyers may not take your case unless you agree to pay their fee — win or lose — or add to the court - awarded amount if they think it's too low.

While it is impossible to provide all of the options here, it is hoped that this discussion has at least started those of you who haven't made a plan - or have, like me, been thinking about it, decide to be prepared because, unlike minor children, there will be no court - appointed guardian to take care of your beloved pets should provisions not be made now.

Two things which I think could improve is I think it is a bit much to pay $ 7 to use the outside BBQ, and we booked a studio room so we could do a bit of cooking but we were to scared to do anything as we were told that even a toaster could set off the fire alarm and then we would have to pay approx $ 700 when the fire brigrade came, especially when the fire detector is between the small hotplates and the fan, Because of these two things, I don't know if I would stay there again, but everything else was good Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Guest Review Response from Cairns Queens Court Holiday Accommodation Hi Lynne Thank you for taking the time to write a review of your stay with us at Queens Court.

Hopefully people will think twice if they risk being taken to court.»

I think it will probably take a few more years for this to play out, but, at this point, it appears as if this decision by the Supreme Court will end up having the effect of declaring CO2 to be an «air pollutant.»

By taking a unified stand and claiming the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the Republican Party, conservative think tanks, right - wing media and Republican activists helped create a climate of controversy about the legislation, which then pressured the mainstream media to report on the controversy, which then created a cloud of doubt among the public, which ultimately created an environment in which the right - leaning members of the Supreme Court could make a judgement that may have looked radical or outrageous if not for the contextual cover provide by permission structure.

Also Antony I think you got a case of blatant misrepresentation / passing off as you / copyright breach at the following site and should take them to court very quick http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/ REPLY: Oh I'm familiar with Dr. Russell Seitz and his parodies, but he's not worth pursuing (much less paying attention to) for two reasons.

(As a completely side matter: I've long thought the way to deal with the all - or - nothing parent is simply to take the carriage of the case away and give it to an inquisitorial court; no «patience» should be wasted on the sort of entrenched rigidity some angry parents can get into.)

There is a range of European constitutional courts asking the CJEU to take at least their thoughts into account when judging about fundamental national issues.

«It looks like Congress has taken what I think is the unprecedented and rather bizarre step of expanding the jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow a particular District Court to take jurisdiction over a single case, that of Terri Schiavo.

It requires a group of lawyers to sit in a room with a team from IT, and to think through every step that a lawyer can take in the litigation process; everything that they do to prepare a case to make sure that the case is compliant with court orders; to make sure that the customer service is exceptional, that clients are updated and that the case is moving on schedule.

And then I think in the courts where they have the ban on the smartphones, it's probably going to take another year or two before those courts realize that you can get the information you would have got off the smartphone off your watch, so maybe it'll be another year or two where the watches get banned.

What I think will end up happening is that the Supreme Court will vacate and remand in Gall and Kimbrough, make clear that district judges have lots of authority to move up and down, and then eventually the Supreme Court will take on of Scalia's hypotheticals (there are undoubtedly cases in the pipeline that fit Scalia's hypotheticals).

«I think the Supreme Court will be enthusiastic... and take a friendlier perspective than Quebec did» to implementing a co-operative regulatory system, Ryder says.