In my small world of Colorado College, questions and impacts and causes of privilege permeate most conversations.
The difficult thing is that they all entwine and intermix. I don’t think that privilege in of itself is a bad thing, but you have to recognize that it’s arbitrary.
But, once again, they did not act on , the justices agreed to weigh in on just one of the three questions presented by the petition: What standard of review should courts use to determine whether someone is an “insider” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code – de novo or “clearly erroneous”?
And as a heteronormative male he’s also in a dominant sub group.This morning the justices issued orders from last week’s private conference.They added two new cases to their merits docket for next term and asked the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a third case.In April 2010, Lester Packingham’s traffic ticket was dismissed, prompting him to take to Facebook to celebrate. How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? Based on his Facebook post, Packingham was charged with violating a North Carolina law that makes it a crime for a registered sex offender to “access” a “commercial social networking Web site” when he “knows” that it allows minors. He found the post by Packingham, who had been indicted in 2002 on two counts of statutory rape of a 13-year-old and eventually convicted of taking “indecent liberties of a minor.” Packingham had been sentenced to 10 to 12 months in prison, which the judge suspended, and ordered to register as a sex offender.Leidos, which was the defendant in the lower court, argues that Section 10(b) and its accompanying regulation, Rule 10b-5, do not establish an affirmative duty to disclose all material information, but instead only require the disclosure of information necessary to ensure that statements are not misleading. There is no deadline for the federal government to file its brief, although it is likely to do so by fall.