Difference between revisions of "User:GregG"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(add a new subpage)
(+another page to start)
Line 31: Line 31:
*[[User:GregG/Evidence that User:Conservative replaced MPR with a link to a blog]]
*[[User:GregG/Evidence that User:Conservative replaced MPR with a link to a blog]]
*[[User:GregG/Early voting and voter ID]]
*[[User:GregG/Early voting and voter ID]]
*[[User:GregG/Archive of User:Conservative FYI]]

Revision as of 20:59, 24 November 2012

Hello, this is my user page.

I guess I can post more details about myself, but that will have to wait.

Court cases I'm following

Applewhite v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, before Pa. Supreme Court
ACLU-led challenge to Pennsylvania's Voter ID law. Judge Simpson denied the Petitioners' motion for an injunction barring the enforcement of the law, given that Pennsylvania's Department of State is scheduled to roll out a special ID that does not require a birth certificate or a Social Security card, and given that there is a post-election opportunity to challenge the exclusion of a ballot due to enforcement of the Voter ID law.
On September 18, the Supreme Court remanded to Commonwealth Court for Judge Simpson to make another determination as to whether all eligible Pennsylvania voters will be able to obtain voter ID before the November elections.
On October 2, Judge Simpson issued a preliminary injunction for the 2012 election in November. In that election, poll workers will request ID, but those not providing ID will cast regular ballots and will not have to take further steps that would otherwise be required (such as later providing an ID).
Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., before Cal. Supreme Court
After SCOTUS's AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion decision holding state rules requiring class actions to be available as preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to grant Valencia's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the contractual provision for an appeal in certain circumstances and the carve-out for relief Valencia would be likely to seek was substantively unconscionable. Valencia petitioned for certiorari, and the California Supreme Court granted it; the Supreme Court will determine whether the Court of Appeals' refusal to enforce the arbitration provision on the grounds of the one-sidedness of the appeals clause and the carve-out for relief likely to be sought by Valencia is also preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.


Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
--of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
--of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
--of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

—CCC 2477

Unsorted links storyboard

I find these links to particular articles insightful. Feel free to use them as you see fit.

User subpages