Are the the two sources of resumes really treated the same?
If I'm contacted by a recruiter and encouraged to apply for a position, I would expect to at least get a phone screening if not a full interview. Are you really reaching out to minority candidates individually only to sometimes send back a message that you have decided not to proceed with them a few days later? I think that would leave a bad taste in my mouth and make me less inclined to apply or encourage anyone else to apply with your company.
Yes, I rejected a number of CVs/screening calls that didn’t fit the criteria. In practice, this was a small number because our recruiter tried to pre-screen before reaching out. She was good at her job and she didn’t want to waste mine or the candidate’s time on a poor fit that could be seen quickly.
Briefs are submitted to the court by parties involved in the litigation before the court even hears oral arguments on the case. They are one-sided arguments, not holdings of the court.
That brief is written by the Biden administration. The Biden administration argued that a plain text reading of the HEROES act gave the president this power. The majority ruling by SCOTUS did not agree.
From Justice Kagan’s dissent: “Wielding its judicially manufactured heightened-specificity requirement, the Court refuses to acknowledge the plain words of the HEROES Act.” (p. 28)
So Justice Kagan would agree that a plain text reading would give the administration the power to forgive outstanding loan balances. However, the majority’s ruling was that the “text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the Secretary’s loan forgiveness program.” (p. 3)
I don’t understand. The two policies were begun by different administrations. The pause did exist without the forgiveness policy; it was done first.
The pause will continue until September (it was not effected at all by this ruling) so it once again exists without the forgiveness policy.
Why do you think one cannot exist without the other? The pause is fine with or without the forgiveness, and the pause existing didn’t save the forgiveness.
The pause can also no longer be extended due to Congressional action:
> Congress recently passed a law preventing further extensions of the payment pause. Student loan interest will resume starting on Sept. 1, 2023, and payments will be due starting in October. We will notify borrowers well before payments restart.
It does help. This is the first sentence of the Introduction (p. 21):
> Social distancing works.
The paper concedes this point, but wants to argue that government mandates are not worth it. The Introduction continues:
> If you keep distance from others, your risk of
being infected with a communicable disease is reduced. However, the fact that social distancing works does not imply that compulsory non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), commonly known as ‘lockdowns’ – policies that restrict internal movement, close schools and businesses, ban international travel and/or other activities – work.
They actually find that many of these activities do work. They just argue that compulsory government intervention saved many fewer lives than the actions were anticipated to save at the time and had other negative effects.
In Illinois (the state from the article) the assessor is calculating the market value:
Most real property in Illinois must be assessed based on its value on the open market, or its “market value.” This value is the amount at which a property would sell in a competitive and open market... [1]
That's not how it worked where I grew up in Upstate New York. The assessed value was a number way below market value, but assessed values among different houses pretty much differ by the same proportions as the actual market values. I do not know why it is the case.
This is from the same people who announced the "Breakthrough Message", an open competiton with a $1 million dollar prize pool, whose details were "to be announced soon". [1]
The press release was made in July 2015, and there has been no communication about it since then. I'm not sure how seriously to take this group.
The author's argument is that medical marijuana related activities are no longer subject to federal law. This sounds a little dubious on its face, but maybe it is a compelling argument.
This doesn't argue that possession is legal everywhere. It specifically talks about Nebraska, one of the states in the lawsuit:
""In states where voters have not voted on it, for instance Nebraska, of course it's not going to be legal there," Pappas told us. "But patients and medical marijuana centers operating in full compliance with state laws -- through equal protection -- are not going to be subject to federal prohibition.""
This is essentially the current status quo. The author's argument would only apply in the case where a future president acted to enforce federal statues in states where medical marijuna is legal. Then this arguement could be tested in court.
They also raised the price of the powder today. They eliminated the bulk discounts so a month worth is more expensive. It is $280 for a 4 week subscription supply today.
If I'm contacted by a recruiter and encouraged to apply for a position, I would expect to at least get a phone screening if not a full interview. Are you really reaching out to minority candidates individually only to sometimes send back a message that you have decided not to proceed with them a few days later? I think that would leave a bad taste in my mouth and make me less inclined to apply or encourage anyone else to apply with your company.