Nobody uses Teams in real life.Actually, some courts do use MS Teams for remote hearings. It sometimes works. Sometimes it does not. My experience has been generally unfavorable. Remember, MS Teams comes from the same people who brought you the MS Bing search enginge, and the MS Bob office productivity suite.
The ugliness more or less started with the Southern Strategy.Certainly that was a sharp turn downward, but remember that the ``Party of Lincoln'' has long followed the views of Lincoln. He said that while colored folks ought not be slaves, they also ought not be allowed to socialize with white folks, or marry white folks, or serve on juries. Nixon perhaps brought that into sharper focus in order to leech votes from segregationists, but it was not a new view for the party.
As long as they remember Musk is an immigrant.Well, you have to remember that Musk is an expressly white South African. Those are a special group, and there is now a special agency to assist them in matters of migration from there to the states. Things would be different if he were of darker complexion.
I have personally served someone process who had shown up for court, in the hallway outside the courtroom.I have personally had service on a client quashed on that same fact pattern.
But she can’t actively aid someone in evading arrest.Historically, we as a people have decided that we want people to show up for court, whether as witnesses, parties, or otherwise. As a result, we have frequently held that service of process cannot be effected against someone coming or going to court. What the judge did is, essentially, uphold a couple hundred years of tradition and common law whose justification is still sound today. Sane people may commend her, and magats will of course celebrate the arrest.
As for the judge using ‘Gulf of America’, letting the government slow things down with an argument between that and ‘Gulf of Mexico’ would slow the rest of the case down.There is another reason to do that. If the plane is identified as being above the ``Gulf of America'', then the court implicitly deems it to be above the U.S. portion of the Gulf. From that it follows that the government has especial control over it and the ability to return it to the States in order to avoid deporting a citizen.
From the cat-bird seat here in DeLand, I see two possible sets of facts.
have massive numbers of people force them into arbitration?Normally,the arbitration firms are expected to be sensitive to the needs and desires of the ``frequent flyers'', which is to say, the companies using mandatory arbitration provisions. Sometimes this can backfire. Doordash was faced with thousands of individual arbitrations and was not pleased. Turbo-tax likewise was not eager to pay ~40000 arbitrations at $3200 each. I am not sure Amazon would have wanted to defend ~75000 arbitrations or pay the arbitration fees for them. Google certainly did not want to deal with 69507 individual arbitrations, either. It takes a large firm and some support effort to do it, because of the challenge of managing thousands of very similar but not identical cases, but for some firms it is worthwhile. With some appropriate forms drafting, it may even be easier than doing a class action. The big business lobby (a/k/a US Chamber of Commerce) are squealing about this, though not always with full candor.
So, if you get hit by a forklift at work and die because you can’t afford the Healthcare as you bleed out slowly and internally- clearly you deserve to.In Florida, that is already pretty much the law. Inservices v. Augilera, 837 SO.2d 464 (3DCA 2002).
negative number of votes is actually impossibleI think they later wound up treating it as an unsigned short, giving a number far greater than the number of people in that part of the county. The negative ~16K was just the election night report, but I think it was included in the early totals and was enough to convince one of the candidates that he had lost.
I have found several inaccuracies in your article where you left out key information out of statementsYour report of inaccuracies would be far more useful if you actually identified some of the ``several inaccuraces'' you found.
You can only pardon the convictedAre you overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) on your own authority, or do you have a citation for us? And, for that matter, have you any good explanation for Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) consistent with your assertion?
judge finally jails members of the administration for contempt of court, the president will just pardon themFor the criminal contempt,sure. It would not be the first disgraceful pardon for criminal contempt. But this smells of civil contempt, with jail being only until compliance with the order is achieved. The civil contemnor ``carries the keys of his own prison in his own pocket'', United Mine Workers v. Bagwell. 512 U.S. 821 (1996).
Bush v Gore took significantly less time on a much more complex issue.Yes, but you should remember that, in their hurry, they got it wrong. They ruled that counting all the votes, including those from the precincts in Dade and Broward with darker-complected people, would violate the equal-protection rights of the lighter-complected people. Also I am not so sure the issue there was particularly complex. The question presented boiled down to whether the state should count all the votes according to established standards. That was probably an important question in a state where the machines in one precinct (DeLeon Springs) initially reported a negative nuber of votes. After sufficient delay to reach an artificial December deadline, the Court said that there was no longer enough time to count the votes. In short, Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) was not a shining example of the court working fast but carefully to achieve a proper result. As the court itself said, the ruling should be limited to ``present circumstances'' and not viewd as precedent. Id at 109.
The point of attending a rally is to offer public support. When a person goes to the rally, he is there to make a public show of support. The organizers expect or hope that the rally will make the news or at least be shown on social media. This lets them demonstrate public support for their cause. Of course being at such a thing, which is hoped to be newsworthy, means that you can reasonably expect to be seen and possibly photographed. It seems a bit dishonest for a cop who was attending a rally to show support for his preferred felon to suddenly not want to have been seen showing support.
The Declaration of Independence emphasizes that every individual is equal in possession of “certain unalienable rights” like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessWell, actually, it was expressly limited to men. Ladies were, after all, chattels. Implicit but well understood at the time was that "men" meant white, land-owning men. Obviously persons of color (which some signers owned) were not equal, and people who did not own property were unworthy of consideration.
There are worse examples of SCOTUS ignoring literal text, such as Gonzales v. Raich in which intra-state non-commerce was found to fall under the inter-state commerce clause.Hardly new or novel. In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the court held that growing wheat for one's own use could be regulated as interstate commerce, because if Mr. Filburn had not grown his own wheat, he might have purchased wheat from out of state.
[ sacking health officials who track disease ]It is said that the ostrich buries its head in the sand in order to hide from and thus evade danger. The reality, that it is actually searching for appropriately sized rocks for its gizzard, is somewhat more prosaic and less amusting.
Lawyers like a bunch of the rich and powerful are evil and vile people.Which ones? The ones who took the stand, or the ones who took the dive?
bad analogy