Hard to say if it is legal in the state of destination. I would think the commerce clause may apply. Definitely a thing to consider for the Courts.
No problem. It's good to hear something positive for a change. I am definitely going to use this advice for my current situation.
Good on you. Glad it worked out.
Started life with KIA around August 2014 as a lurker. Around that time I worked as a Paralegal in a civil rights and employment law specialized, litigation focused firm. Used to be a lot more wishy-washy in my beliefs at the start of this mess, but time and bullshit have solidified my positions on many things.
Supreme Court strongly indicated in the opinion that the mandate exceeded OSHA's authority to issue. This is essentially a quiet order to the 6th Circuit that it is going to get smacked down if they push it.
Link for Business Mandate: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Link for Healthcare Mandate: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
No prob. Here is some introductory reading to help try to clarify things: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S4_C1_1_1_1_1/
Some, but usually only so far as to guarantee constitutional rights (ie, citizens have the right to vote). Beyond that, the Federal Government is limited in what it can assert as the voting process due to the 10th. Checks n' balances and all that. As most matters of law go for the particulars, the truth is complicated and nuanced.
This has nothing to do with the process of voting. Only the civil rights of those involved. States can conduct elections as they see fit within their purview under the 10th amendment.
Stellaris, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and a dash of 7 Days to Die.
Very good advice.
Amazing show. It's what got me interested in Japanese culture and history.
Nothing other than speculation. We are on legal time now (aka "slow as fuck").
The release was definitely a Trainwreck. Despite the glaring flaws, I had fun with it.
Same here for the most part.
Hopefully they succeed in getting the puppers out.
Former paralegal here. This is how most lawsuits are done at this phase. When you draft these suits, you are literally throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. As the Judge winnows away the crap in the suit, Trumps attorneys will refine and amend the complaint until they get to the core valid issues of the matter. The real work begins there. That being said, most Plaintiff suits (even seemingly good ones) fail. Unless Trump has concrete proof that cannot be dismissed as opinion or biased (not likely, given our current political atmosphere), his case will likely not win. Even assuming Trump wins (and I hope he does), I believe this suit is a civil suit. That means unless it is published at an appellate level or higher, the only thing that is likely to happen is that there are monetary damages awarded and nothing concrete comes of it. The only way this really affects the law is if the case is published at a level that makes it precedent. Even then, unless it happens at SCOTUS, the reach of the precedent is limited to the jurisdiction of the publishing court.
It sure the hell is (framing is everything; former paralegal here).
This right here is the way.
Yep. Fucked either way tbh.
About the only potential bright side is the appeal is a lot less likely to have the attention that this trial did. Mobs have short attention spans and will move on to the next "outrage" in short order. I hope it will be enough, but I am not optimistic. Appeals Courts can be really lazy, and if the judges on the panel are unsympathetic going in it won't go anywhere.
Amen to that. It's exactly why I quit the field.
Both points are absolutely true. You can mitigate the first to some degree by refusing a jury and allowing the judge to be both the trier of law and fact. Not much can be done against the second.
Won't be contempt. As stated above, he is guaranteed a appeal at this point. More likely that they just give it a skim and rubber stamp it rather than do the right thing. Hopefully it is not the case, but I think they want him to be their scapegoat and he is going to be screwed.
Yep. This is pretty blatant judicial activism rather than a proper ruling.