There are two different problems. One is easier to solve.
There are two different problems. One is easier to solve.
Your counterexample, “purchase a subscription”, actually undercuts the point you’re trying to make. The goal is honesty here. If you are renting or subscribing, you want to know that up front, in big text, using the simplest possible word. That word is “RENT”.
The issue about the lease business model being bad for society and consumers is also important, but it’s complicated and different from basic truth in advertising.
Yeah, except that they did double check. That’s fairly clear if you go back and read what happened when. You can argue that they should have triple checked or checked with different people, if you want to.
I feel like she isn’t on the ballot in a large number of states. I feel like basic research would reveal this fact. I feel like she isn’t going to siphon many votes away from Harris. I know for sure that people want to be able to blame her if Harris loses.
Yes, that latter point does describe how well you have summarized other people’s arguments. Good luck to you on that one.
To them, hypocrisy is a virtue. This is all about power and has nothing to do with integrity.
In that case, you should be talking about which state did the execution, because the death penalty is state-specific. It’s not the country that did it, it’s the state. So target those people.
Also, you’re saying that the government represents its citizens because it’s a democracy. Of course that’s not true. Elected officials might represent the majority of voters, or they might pass legislation that is supported by a majority of voters on a given issue. But then what about the minority? They still exist. Please don’t forget about them. Please don’t pretend that the government is representing them.
(And sometimes that’s a good thing. There are people who have fringe views, and depending on those views I’m happy that they don’t have political power.)
I understand the feeling, but try not to pigeonhole. There are 300 million Americans, and I haven’t done a survey, but a substantial percent of the population thinks that the death penalty sucks. That’s one reason many states don’t use it at all.
It’s not just that ballot stuffing would be easier, but also that any kind of complications can lead to delays and court cases which might go to the supreme court, which has a history of deciding who the president will be. In other words, there are multiple advantages to the shady f*** heads.
There’s no need for any new case law here. It’s already established that the cops can’t go into a fenced off yard unless they have a warrant or accident circumstances, which they didn’t. No precedents are going to be set, because they already were, long ago.
I believe that the victim filed a civil rights lawsuit with multiple claims, and this one claim was so obvious that the judge ruled there’s no need for a jury to rule on it, but that the other claims would have to go before a jury.
This means the city is going to lose on at least one aspect of the case, and they could choose to fight the other aspects of it in court, or they could settle, as you suggested.
Just in case anyone lives under a rock, this is another great example of how the cops are not there to protect you. They will hurt you, intentionally or accidentally, and they will never apologize or try to make amends for what they’ve done. They will always blame somebody else.
And if you don’t believe me, ask yourself this. When people on the New York subway see someone with a knife next week or next month, will they be happy if the police arrive? Or, will they run away, because the police are there. I think we all know the answer to that question.
I’m not sure what the law is on this. But from a practical standpoint, I would like to see adverse inferences drawn against him because he failed to show. That would form the basis for massive fines, so assess those fines, and take away a ton of his money.
It doesn’t seem like there’s any need to put him behind bars when this is a question about doing shady things with money that can be handled by taking away a lot of his cash.
My understanding is that the temporary nature is supposed to be because the plaintiffs need time to advance their case, which they got. The extension is now incredibly damaging to all of the people who would have had their student debts reduced. Every day that goes by is an extra burden on them, but the judge doesn’t care.
You want certainty, but I think the many high-profile cases this year have shown that there is corruption in prosecutors and police and judges, and that often overlaps. How do you possibly think you could create a justice system that would prevent it from ever occurring?
I understand you’re speaking casually, but in fact many of us do not say that. It’s always a risky proposition when you conflate an organization with individuals in it.
The DOC will be responding to it in future lawsuits. At least one of those 1300 people definitely didn’t do anything to justify their reaction, they certainly have the time to file pro se, and discovery will tell us what we need to know. Sadly, that will happen years from now.
No doubt various TLAs have compiled dossiers on various very important people. It would be irresponsible of them not to. People who have so much power and access are intrinsic security threats, and that’s no secret to the spy agencies.
Of course they might frame it differently. They might say that they compile information so that they can make sure that the powerful person doesn’t get blackmailed, for example. It’s easy to try to phrase things in a way that suggests you’re protecting them, when the actual theoretical goal is protecting us from what they could do if things went sideways.
Will the courts shut this down? If so, which ones might do so?
The Reuters authors are far too generous to corporate leadership. No, the bosses weren’t blindsided. No, the bosses weren’t surprised. All of the demands and expectations are ones you would predict.
This kind of situation is exactly when strikes happen, and if anyone in management wasn’t prepared for it, they’re unqualified for their job. Or they’re liars. Or both.
Are there books in libraries? Yes, and the publishers don’t have to do a thing. And it is good for society. Similarly, can you fix an old car, even if the manufacturer went bankrupt? Of course you can.
We have precedent, my friend.