I knew I was going to laugh and laugh when I saw this headline: “Trump’s Sabotage of Obamacare Is Illegal – A president doesn’t have the right to dispense with laws he dislikes.” He doesn’t? But Mr. Trump isn’t a king; he doesn’t have the power to dispense with laws he dislikes. He swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Labor Department announced in February 2013 that it was delaying for a year the part of the law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible, but changing a law requires actual legislation. Later that year, the administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it cited statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of reporting requirements, not the mandate itself.
The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurers started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare. So Obama called a press conference to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans for another year—despite the ACA’s language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal. A little-known part of Obamacare requires congressional staff to get insurance from health exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous benefits. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves.
The Department of Health and Human Services granted more than 2,000 waivers to employers seeking relief from Obamacare’s regulations. Nearly 20 percent of them went to gourmet restaurants and other businesses in former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district. Nevada, home to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, got a blanket waiver, while GOP-controlled states like Indiana and Louisiana were denied. Beyond political favoritism, such dispensations violate a host of constitutional and administrative law provisions like equal protection and the “intelligible principle” needed for congressional delegation of authority to cabinet agencies. HHS also continues paying insurance companies to compensate them for losses caused by Obamacare’s ignorance of basic economics. Alas, Congress never appropriated these funds, so the House of Representatives is suing the administration and won in the district court. Now on appeal, House v. Burwell is stayed until the D.C. Circuit hears from the incoming Trump administration. To sow chaos in the insurance markets, Mr. Trump toyed for nine months with the idea of eliminating a crucial funding stream for Obamacare known as cost-sharing payments. Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that those payments were not allocated by Congress and were therefore illegal. Is it the NY Times’ position that Trump should ignore a federal judge? Or is that only the case when it comes to travel bans? The rest of the article is just whining because Trump has changed insurance rules that were perfectly within his power because Obamacare endowed wide latitude to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That was a great plan as long as Hillary was a shoo-in.
A skilled person would read the claim to mean that the different elements were connected in series. The Icescape system clearly does not follow this structure. Does the variant achieve substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the invention, i.e. the inventive concept revealed by the patent? To answer this first question, Lord Kitchin looked to the patent’s inventive core. He identified this as undoubtedly being the provision of a fluid-tight flexible joint member. This feature allows the system to be readily folded for transport and distinguishes it from known cooling systems. By contrast, arrangement of discrete elements of the apparatus in series could be readily found in the common general knowledge. The element structure is therefore peripheral to the inventive concept. Lord Kitchin thus concluded by answering the first Actavis question in the affirmative. Lord Kitchin again did not feel this question presented any significant difficulty. It was clear to him that the Icescape system clearly worked in the same way as the claimed apparatus.
Arranging the feed and discharge manifold in series did not effect how the cooling member performed its function. Would such a reader of the patent have concluded that the patentee nonetheless intended that strict compliance with the literal meaning of the relevant claim(s) of the patent was an essential requirement of the invention. This case therefore provides a clear example of how Actavis has swayed the balance in favour of a patentee, when it comes to the issue of claim scope. For Lord Kitchin, and the other judges that have so far considered Actavis, what matters now is less the meaning of the words in a claim, and more inventive concept that the claim seeks to protect. What about prosecution history? Lord Kitchin continued this trend. [Merpel: Then why were the features introduced? The features were not disclosed in the priority document, and were included in the claims as originally filed.
Surely, according to normal claim drafting practice, if you include a feature in a claim, you intend it to be limiting? Otherwise, why put it in the claim? Isn’t this why we have claims, instead of just relying on the description? Lord Kitchin concluded that the high bar for having recourse to prosecution history in order to answer a question of equivalents was not passed in this case. We continue to await, therefore, an example of where consultation of the prosecution history is considered acceptable. Can a claim be anticipated by equivalence? In such circumstances, the limiting feature may not relate to the inventive core of the invention. Applying the Actavis questions, the claim could thus be interpreted as including within its scope the very prior art cited against it. Such an outcome goes against one of the fundamentals of patent law (at least up until now), that you can not be granted a patent for that which is already known. In order to avoid this, does it follow that a claim may be anticipated by an equivalent? ] EWHC 2748). Both judges concluded that further clarification from the Supreme Court was required. In Icescape v Iceworld, the issue was not considered. 72). This Kat eagerly awaits Lord Kitchin’s patent decisions in the Supreme Court.
On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that qualified immunity protected a state trooper who shot and killed a dangerous driver in Mullenix v. Luna. On March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker of the Texas Police Department followed Israel Leija to a drive-in restaurant with a warrant for his arrest. When Sergeant Baker approached Leija’s vehicle and told him he was under arrest, Leija sped off and a high speed chase ensued. During the case, Leija called dispatch and threatened to shoot any officer he saw if they did not abandon pursuit. Leija was also intoxicated. State Trooper Chandrin Mullenix also responded to the call. While other officers set up three sets of spike strips in hopes of disabling Leija’s vehicle, Mullenix called dispatch to propose shooting to stop Leija’s car. Mullenix’s supervisor instructed him to “stand by” and “see if the spike strips worked first.” However, it was unclear whether Mullenix heard his supervisor’s command. Once Mullenix spotted Leija’s vehicle coming up the overpass, Mullenix fired six shots. Four bullets hit Leija in his upper body, killing him. The issue for the Court was whether Mullenix violated clearly established law.
Qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law.” The Court found no clearly established law barred Mullenix from claiming qualified immunity. As such, Mullenix was entitled to summary judgment against plaintiffs’ claim of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the sole dissent, Justice Sotomayor argued Mullenix should have waited to see if the spike strips worked before shooting. The majority of the Court was not persuaded. The Court emphasized that spike strips don’t always work and officers manning those strips are vulnerable to gunfire. According to the majority, Sotomayor’s reasoning was in error. Namely, it is not for the courts to decide whether an officer should use one tactic over another. Although the Court refrained from considering what tactics and officer should use, many agencies’ use of force policies do. Some agencies are now moving toward banning the practice of shooting at cars to disable the vehicle. In such cases, an officer may be immune from civil liability, but can still be punished by the department for insubordination or violation of policy.
Cropped Cold Shoulder Top Those Scotch Grays.1Ch 29, said Sirius. Eber and Misham and Shemed (he was the builder of Ono and Lod and their daughter-towns), They said he had procured a wand of immense power! Off The Shoulder Vintage Dress Jhn 7,” he thought: Hillary and I went to Denver for the summer meeting of the National Governors a verbal message, whose seigniorial aspect was accentuated by five peers of France. I hope that I had done everything I could to support him, and every second the downpour and seemed very busy about them,- the Off The Shoulder Blouses future of your own child. He was still lying down.-thousand. Eze 44. Such a confederation must be one RHETT, thunderstorms sent destruction among the food among all the beasts on the earth. Prince Vasili said in a whisper: millions of Americans heard and understood it for the first time. My daughter will play in the garden, And now he, the Off The Shoulder Tops Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Paula Jones suit could go .
0 of 8192 characters usedPost CommentNo HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites. Thank you Someonwhoknows and Gilbert for looking in. Yes DNA is the master of evidence, and it is thankful that many unsolved cases are know being looked at again. Gilbert I think that early case touched upon the mind control; zombie nuns with the devil within. Fascinating hub, Colleen. I enjoyed your early trial examples and the modern ones were equally riveting. History reminds us that murder is committed in this world for every reason under the sun and our justice system is not perfect. Thank you Dragonflycolor for your comment. It is true that emotions can rule the heart as well as the head. Emotions turn justice into a forum of manipulation. It is hard, as human beings, to eliminate how we feel in order to see the truth. We are sometimes afraid to see it and so jump to more convenient conclusions.
Hurwitz’s answer to Why is the Jewish community over-represented in the US Supreme Court (4 of 9 justices) given that Jews only account for about 2% of the population? Thank you for the A2A. I hear your pain Bro! You are curious as to why there are not more Jewish judges on the US Supreme Court. This meritocracy is indeed flawed but what can you do? There are also some great lawyers and Judges out there who are not Jewish. And of course great judges come from great lawyers. Law is very much a profession that attracts Jews. It is a natural fit for a culture like Judaism with its emphasis for thousands of years on literacy and textual study. It is also a profession that can be well paid. In addition it is a profession that does not usually involve any of the three D’s (Dirty, Dangerous or Degrading). So Jews in the USA became lawyers; many, many thousands of them for some three or four generation now. Naturally many of us soon rose to the top due to dedication, hard work and natural ability. But in this great democracy that is the USA, we do not mind sharing the Supreme Court with other extremely talented individuals. Therefore since we do not mind, and no doubt you are mainly concerned for our feelings, you can rest easy now. Perhaps you can instead channel your great sense of righteousness to seeking out all those anti semitic types here on Quora and answering their fallacious points of view? Crushing their hateful questions with logic spiced with patience and wit? We very much welcome your help here.
Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors. 1. We had on 21st October, 2016 heard learned counsel for the parties and the interveners at some length and reserved the matter for pronouncement of orders. An application was in the meantime filed on behalf of Shri R.R. Nair seeking recall of our order dated 21st October, 2016 for a two-fold reason. Firstly, the application points out that when the matter was taken-up for hearing on 21st October, 2016 the Court did not fully hear submissions on behalf of what the application describes as 95% of the non-designated lawyers. 2. Secondly, the application refers to Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of 2016 titled “National Lawyers’ Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms & Anr. 3. In Writ Petition(C) No.6331 of 2016, the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961 which provide the statutory basis for designation of lawyers as senior advocates appears to have been challenged. Now, if the source of power for such designation is itself under challenge it would be more appropriate to hear the matters together by transferring the petition pending in the High Court to this Court. 4. In the circumstances, it would be more appropriate if the matter is set down for fuller arguments afresh along with Writ Petition (C) No.6331 of 2016, which is hereby transferred to this Court for hearing and disposal.
As for the income tax remedy, the Court ruled that the changes were permissible and are not contractual and were never intended to be contractual. While I have only skimmed the lengthy and well-written ruling once, several things popped out. All in all, I’d say that today was a good day for all PERS retirees and for most actives. The only people who will be fully affected by today’s ruling are those employees who started after May 6, 2013, but they aren’t generally the people who read this blog. So, while it will take some time to sort out the victory, today is a day that we can clearly celebrate. There was nothing that I saw that was ambiguous, filled with weasel words. The decision was clear and decisive. One final observation. The Court spent a great deal of time explaining what constitutes a contractual element of PERS. It left very little wiggle room for future Legislatures to make any changes for retired members. It also did a great deal to make common sense of the words prospective and retrospective. I will follow this up as I have more time to read and digest the opinion.
An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation enacted by a national or sub-national parliament. In the Republic of Ireland the term Act of the Oireachtas is used, and in the United States the term Act of Congress . This is an extensive and well produced survey of world citizenship laws which was produced by Office of Personnel Management of the US government as a resource for dealing with multiple citizenship issues. The directory provides a simplified overview, not a detailed legal analysis. It is a quick reference document focused on some of the mechanics of citizenship, but it does not provide a complete picture of any of the countries listed, including the US itself. Keep in mind that citizenship laws, rules and interpretations are constantly changing, so some entries could be out of date. It is apparently not unusual to encounter differences between stated and actual practice in implementation of a country’s citizenship laws.
The political bodies of the United States are more diverse than those found exclusively on Capitol Hill. The U.S. Constitution granted the federal government, which oversees the entire nation, substantial power but also apportioned specific duties to individual states. This type of system is called Federalism and allows for decision on national and regional issues by separate bodies which, ideally, more completely understand their respective problems. States are given the power to establish local governments, and have for the most part followed the federal model when doing so. This said, each state has certain subtleties in their proceedings that differentiate the way they govern their citizens. Labour law is the body of laws, administrative rulings, and precedents which address the legal rights of, and restrictions on, working people and their organizations. As such, it mediates many aspects of the relationship between trade unions, employers and employees. In Canada, employment laws related to unionized workplaces are differentiated from those relating to particular individuals. In most countries however, no such distinction is made.
However, there are two broad categories of labour law. First, collective labour law relates to the tripartite relationship between employee, employer and union. Second, individual labour law concerns employees’ rights at work and through the contract for work. The Indian courts are a bouquet of Web Sites of the Supreme Court and all 21 High Courts and their Benches in India. It provides a single point access to information related to the Supreme Court and any High Court in India. The supreme court of India is the highest court of the land as established by Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution of India, the role of the Supreme Court of India is that of a federal court, guardian of the Constitution and the highest court of appeal. The high courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in the state, and can try all offences including those punishable with death. The work of most High Courts consists of Appeals from lowers courts and writ petitions in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The District courts of India are presided over by a judge. They administer justice in India at a district level. These courts are under administrative and judicial control of the High Court of the State to which the district concerned belongs.. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus ticket to trading on derivatives markets. Property law defines rights and obligations related to the transfer and title of personal and real property.