Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
For another example near and dear to conservatives' hearts, consider the Second Amendment. The Roberts court has ruled (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008) that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to carry arms, despite the fact the amendment only mentions carrying arms in the context of a militia.
With the current case, the intent of the law was clear (and most of the drafters are still around to ask), so that's what SCOTUS used. Judges aren't just implementations of parsing algorithms that spit out yes or no results based on the text of the laws.
Isn't this incredibly risky for Disney? the government could cut down on the numbers of h1b's any year and then they would be boned.
No, it's not risky. First, any reduction in H1-Bs would only affect future years. It's very unlikely that Congress would throw out existing visa holders. Second, Disney wouldn't care even if they do throw out existing visa holders. This is because the newly-trained Infosys employees are probably already back in India, where their wages are much, much lower than comparable wages in America. If these workers stayed in America, they would be entitled to pay comparable to those of the recently laid off workers, so there would be no savings to Disney.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
See the Wikipedia article on the Speech and Debate Clause or read it for yourself in the Constitution. So he can talk all about the program during a speech on the floor of the Senate, and nothing can be done to him.
The data's only "untrustworthy" if you're a fucking dipshit anti-science luddite like mister Maynard here.
This is the kind of guy who puts "some college" on job applications because he once worked at one.
NJ isn't losing much, if any, tax revenue, because the existing showrooms are converting to "galleries" where you can do everything but negotiate a price or place an order.
"I would guess" you're making shit up. You're willing to throw out anonymity and privacy because some people might be circumventing copyright somehow? You're pathetic. (Or you're a government astroturfer. But I repeat myself.)
Now making about 50 percent more in Australia. Went from high five figures to low six. Living the American Dream(TM) in the southern hemisphere.
You're out of your fucking mind if you think a Romney presidency wouldn't be worse than what we've got right now.
It would be an utter and complete horrorshow.
Has this ever, in the history of the United States, actually worked?
I'll spare you the research: no, it hasn't.
My theory is that the US Government was using the RIAA/MPAA as a proxy to get this rammed through.
Wow... are you being deliberately retarded or can you not help it?
I missed the part where Kim Dotcom was uploading his own personal BluRay rips to MU.
I *remember* the part where his users did.
I don't give a shit how he made his money or whether or not you consider it "ill-gotten" simply because MU hosted some copyrighted material uploaded by users. It's an absurd contortion of logic and reason to say that he deserves none of his money because some of his users misbehaved.
$100m is the equivalent of one mid-tier movie budget. If you think Hollywood actually felt that tiny financial "hit", you're the one who's hopelessly naive.