Worse, the vaporware they are talking about doesn't even have anything new - it's just talking about design elements and style - that a company MIGHT return to.
Hey, can I write an article about a theoretically possible new car that has an expresso machine built into the engine, using it for heat?
How about my pipe dream of a house where all the furniture is built into the walls?
Or maybe I'm simply the first one to ever think of it. Man I'm smart!
If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.
Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?
FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.
There are several competing concepts of law. The three judges in question are a believer in strict literal meaning of the words, rather than the intent.
This is not the WORST that America has ever had, it is a fairly common point of view exposed by conservatives. It is wrong, but not the worst.
The worst are the people that don't care about intent or literal meaning - those that just try to compromise and/or shift the law to what they want it to be.
>Prime examples of this include the horrendous Dred Scott decision that said blacks, free or slave were not citizens of the US and that Congress did not have the power to make them free or citizens. He based this on pretty much nothing.
I am totally in favor of Obamacare and am happy SCOTUS ruled this way, but I do believe this was one of the stronger anti-obamacare arguments.
P Basically, this is a clear victory for 'the intent of the law', as opposed to the 'strict meaning of the law' legal theory
But that is not sufficient reason to stop selling it to civilians. This is a country founded on the idea of Free Speech.
We believe that the best way to fight evil is to let evil speak so we can hear who is evil. Much better than outlawing their vile ideas and having to guess who secretly harbors them.
In other words, I want to be able to see what shmucks wear/use the flag so I know whom to avoid.
/ end joke
Not being British, I am not familiar with the higher law the court referenced.
Can someone please explain which law guarantees the companies in question immunity from financial harm?
Because there is no such law in the US - if Congress passed a law saying it was legal to rip CD's, they would have to argue that said law violates one of the amendments of the Constitution. They could also claim they were entitled to compensation via certain treaties, but that would not invalidate the original law, just declare that they are owed compensation.
It is NOT a science - it is a language. (Note String theory has the same issue.)
As such it can be sued to descr4ibe things - both true things and false things. I can easily write 1+1=3, and I can even describe a universe where that is an axiomatic principle. It is not THIS universe, but it is a theoretical one. Another, easier to understand rule like this is setting the the sum of the angles of a triangle = 190 degrees. This does not work in flat space, but if space is curved by gravity, say near a black hole...
Setting x/0 = 0 is a legitimate choice for some issues, but it may cause major problems in others.
I would not advise making this kind of change.
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman