Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The New Atlantis

2015-08-11T01:05:27Z

Testnewaccount22: dewikify

[[Francis Bacon]]'s [[utopian]] novel '''''The New Atlantis''''', written in 1626, depicts a mythical land, Bensalem, to which he sailed. He recounts the description by one of its wise men, of its system of experimentation, and of its method of recognition for inventions and inventors. In Bensalem, marriage and family are the basis of society and family ties are celebrated in state-sponsored holidays.

The best and brightest of Bensalem's citizens attend a college called Salomon's House, in which scientific experiments are conducted in Baconian method in order to understand and conquest nature, and to apply the collected knowledge to the betterment of society.

[[Category:Books]]

Game theory primary

2015-08-11T00:57:46Z

Testnewaccount22: Iowa Republican primaries are less likely to support Trump, so he may not have much impact in that crucial first State.

[[Game theory]] becomes an important considering in a crowded primary, such as the Republican nominating process for the [[2016 presidential election]]. A total of 17 candidates (as of August 2015) vie for support, which requires considerations of game theory before criticizing rivals.

Only four of the 17 candidates have been initially willing to criticize [[Donald Trump]], lest they lost potential support among supporters of Trump. Those four candidates are [[Rand Paul]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Carly Fiorina]], and [[Lindsey Graham]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-trades-barbs-with-carly-fiorina/</ref> The first two perhaps hope to take support away from Donald Trump as a rival; the latter two perhaps hope to gain support from those who dislike Trump.

== Whom does [[Donald Trump]] help? ==

One theory, advanced at the Powerline blog, is that the candidacy by Donald Trump helps [[Jeb Bush]].<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/trump-bushs-stalking-horse.php</ref> But if Trump prevents Jeb Bush from winning in New Hampshire, which seems plausible, then Jeb Bush probably cannot win the nomination. Jeb Bush will fare poorly in Iowa and thus New Hampshire is a must-win state for him, but Trump seems poised to win New Hampshire.

==== Impact on Iowa ====

Iowa Republican primaries are less likely to support Trump, so he may not have much impact in that crucial first State.

== NH primary ==

In the [[NH primary]], mavericks running in one party, such as the Democratic Party, can weaken the support for a maverick running in the other party, such as the Republican Party, because Independent voters are allowed to vote in the primary of either party.
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:2016 presidential election]]

Game theory primary

2015-08-11T00:17:05Z

Testnewaccount22: Jeb Bush will fare poorly in Iowa and thus New Hampshire is a must-win state for him, but Trump seems poised to win New Hampshire.

[[Game theory]] becomes an important considering in a crowded primary, such as the Republican nominating process for the [[2016 presidential election]]. A total of 17 candidates (as of August 2015) vie for support, which requires considerations of game theory before criticizing rivals.

Only four of the 17 candidates have been initially willing to criticize [[Donald Trump]], lest they lost potential support among supporters of Trump. Those four candidates are [[Rand Paul]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Carly Fiorina]], and [[Lindsey Graham]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-trades-barbs-with-carly-fiorina/</ref> The first two perhaps hope to take support away from Donald Trump as a rival; the latter two perhaps hope to gain support from those who dislike Trump.

== Whom does [[Donald Trump]] help? ==

One theory, advanced at the Powerline blog, is that the candidacy by Donald Trump helps [[Jeb Bush]].<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/trump-bushs-stalking-horse.php</ref> But if Trump prevents Jeb Bush from winning in New Hampshire, which seems plausible, then Jeb Bush probably cannot win the nomination. Jeb Bush will fare poorly in Iowa and thus New Hampshire is a must-win state for him, but Trump seems poised to win New Hampshire.

== NH primary ==

In the [[NH primary]], mavericks running in one party, such as the Democratic Party, can weaken the support for a maverick running in the other party, such as the Republican Party, because Independent voters are allowed to vote in the primary of either party.
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:2016 presidential election]]

Game theory primary

2015-08-11T00:13:21Z

Testnewaccount22: But if Trump prevents Jeb Bush from winning in New Hampshire, which seems plausible, then Jeb Bush probably cannot win the nomination.

[[Game theory]] becomes an important considering in a crowded primary, such as the Republican nominating process for the [[2016 presidential election]]. A total of 17 candidates (as of August 2015) vie for support, which requires considerations of game theory before criticizing rivals.

Only four of the 17 candidates have been initially willing to criticize [[Donald Trump]], lest they lost potential support among supporters of Trump. Those four candidates are [[Rand Paul]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Carly Fiorina]], and [[Lindsey Graham]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-trades-barbs-with-carly-fiorina/</ref> The first two perhaps hope to take support away from Donald Trump as a rival; the latter two perhaps hope to gain support from those who dislike Trump.

== Whom does [[Donald Trump]] help? ==

One theory, advanced at the Powerline blog, is that the candidacy by Donald Trump helps [[Jeb Bush]].<ref>http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/trump-bushs-stalking-horse.php</ref> But if Trump prevents Jeb Bush from winning in New Hampshire, which seems plausible, then Jeb Bush probably cannot win the nomination.

== NH primary ==

In the [[NH primary]], mavericks running in one party, such as the Democratic Party, can weaken the support for a maverick running in the other party, such as the Republican Party, because Independent voters are allowed to vote in the primary of either party.
== References ==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[category:2016 presidential election]]

Improvidently granted

2015-08-11T00:01:07Z

Testnewaccount22: add a new section

'''Improvidently granted''', or "dismissed as improvidently granted" ("DIG"), refers to an order issued by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] or a state supreme court which declines to decide a case after agreeing to hear it.

For roughly a half-century, between 1954 and 2005, a dismissal of a writ of [[certiorari]] for having been improvidently granted was fairly common, occurring at a rate of approximately three per year.<ref>http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf</ref> More recently, this has occurred less often. Starting in the October 2013 term, the Supreme Court began relisting cases at least once before granting ''certiorari'', with the intended effect of reducing the number of cases it must dismiss as improvidently granted.

Sometimes one of the questions presented can be dismissed as improvidently granted, without dismissing the entire case. This happened in ''City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan'', 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014), where one of the questions was to consider the question whether Title II of the ADA applies "to an officer's on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents ... prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life," 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1773 (2015). The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] dismissed this question presented as improvidently granted because the parties and the United States as amicus curiae all agreed as to the answer to the question of whether 42 U.S.C. § 12132 applies to arrests. ''Id''. at 1774. The Court then decided the second question presented, by holding "that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." 135 S. Ct. at 1769.

== Prominent Examples ==

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Improvidently granted

2015-08-10T23:55:35Z

Testnewaccount22: copy edit a bit

'''Improvidently granted''', or "dismissed as improvidently granted" ("DIG"), refers to an order issued by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] or a state supreme court which declines to decide a case after agreeing to hear it.

For roughly a half-century, between 1954 and 2005, a dismissal of a writ of [[certiorari]] for having been improvidently granted was fairly common, occurring at a rate of approximately three per year.<ref>http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf</ref> More recently, this has occurred less often. Starting in the October 2013 term, the Supreme Court began relisting cases at least once before granting ''certiorari'', with the intended effect of reducing the number of cases it must dismiss as improvidently granted.

Sometimes one of the questions presented can be dismissed as improvidently granted, without dismissing the entire case. This happened in ''City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan'', 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014), where one of the questions was to consider the question whether Title II of the ADA applies "to an officer's on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents ... prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life," 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1773 (2015). The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] dismissed this question presented as improvidently granted because the parties and the United States as amicus curiae all agreed as to the answer to the question of whether 42 U.S.C. § 12132 applies to arrests. ''Id''. at 1774. The Court then decided the second question presented, by holding "that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." 135 S. Ct. at 1769.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Improvidently granted

2015-08-10T23:52:01Z

Testnewaccount22: italicize further

'''Improvidently granted''', or "dismissed as improvidently granted" ("DIG"), refers to an order issued by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] or a state supreme court which declines to decide a case after agreeing to hear it.

For roughly a half-century, between 1954 and 2005, a dismissal of a writ of [[certiorari]] for having been improvidently granted was fairly common, occurring at a rate of approximately three per year.<ref>http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf</ref> More recently, this has occurred less often. Starting in the October 2013 term, the Supreme Court began relisting cases at least once before granting ''certiorari'', with the intended effect of reducing the number of cases it must dismiss as improvidently granted.

Sometimes one of the questions presented can be dismissed as improvidently granted, without dismissing the entire case. This happened in ''City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan'', 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014), where one of the questions was to consider the question whether Title II of the ADA applies "to an officer's on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents ... prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life," 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1773 (2015). The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] dismissed this question presented as improvidently granted because the parties and the United States as amicus curiae all agreed as to the answer to the question: that 42 U.S.C. § 12132 applies to arrests. ''Id''. at 1774. The Court then decided the second question presented, by holding "that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." 135 S. Ct. at 1769.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Improvidently granted

2015-08-10T23:47:47Z

Testnewaccount22: italicize

'''Improvidently granted''', or "dismissed as improvidently granted" ("DIG"), refers to an order issued by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] or a state supreme court which declines to decide a case after agreeing to hear it.

For roughly a half-century, between 1954 and 2005, a dismissal of a writ of [[certiorari]] for having been improvidently granted was fairly common, occurring at a rate of approximately three per year.<ref>http://www.swlaw.com/assets/pdf/news/2013/01/31/AndAfterAllThatWorkTheDreadedUSSupremeCourtDIG_Sungaila.pdf</ref> More recently, this has occurred less often.

Sometimes one of the questions presented can be dismissed as improvidently granted, without dismissing the entire case. This happened in ''City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal. v. Sheehan'', 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014), where one of the questions was to consider the question whether Title II of the ADA applies "to an officer's on-the-street responses to reported disturbances or other similar incidents ... prior to the officer's securing the scene and ensuring that there is no threat to human life," 135 S. Ct. 1765, 1773 (2015). The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] dismissed this question presented as improvidently granted because the parties and the United States as amicus curiae all agreed as to the answer to the question: that 42 U.S.C. § 12132 applies to arrests. Id. at 1774. The Court then decided the second question presented, by holding "that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." 135 S. Ct. at 1769.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]