Let's see: We have a law that on its face and in its clear intent is unconstitutional, at least in the way the Court has interpreted the Constitution for nearly half a century. The law is blatantly designed to prevent courts from ruling on its constitutionality. So we have blatant defiance of the Constitution and the Court, shielded by a transparent legislative scam.
Would Giuliani's continued ability to practice law in New York for even a short time have "immediately threaten[ed] the public interest?" That's a satisfying conclusion for some of us to see drawn. But really? After all, he can keep lying in public all he wants. He just can't do it as a lawyer representing a client.
Resolutions over the water in the Klamath Basin keep running into two tough problems. There isn't enough water to go around, and the environmental groups are split.
State lawmakers hoped that faced with the proposed new tax on capital gains, the state supreme court would change its nearly-90-year-old definition of what the state constitution allowed. We'll see, though the odds are not good. for a legal green light.
That first Starbucks store had just unlocked its doors. Only the proprietors were inside. We joined them in a deep room with high ceilings and glass-fronted cases to our right. I bought a pound of Sumatra beans. I was the first customer.
Seattle Police Chief Adrian Diaz has said, "If any SPD officers were directly involved in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, I will immediately terminate them.”
“Trump has provoked a debate among legal scholars over whether the once-sacrosanct constitutional protection of free speech has itself become a threat to democracy by enabling the widespread and instantaneous transmission of lies in the service of political gain.”