(4) David Welch and Elizabeth Behrmann. Why Tesla Scares German Carmakers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ar ... re-mercedes-and-bmw
Quote:
"Tesla Motors, whose Model 3 electric car enticed 325,000 would-be buyers to put down $1,000 deposits during the week of its debut in April, threatens them in a way that Toyota's Lexus never did.
"it's clear German brands are most vulnerable to customer defections as Tesla grows.
"says Jürgen Pieper, an analyst at Bankhaus Metzler[:] 'Many see in Tesla the innovation they’re missing from the Germans.'
Note: summary underneath the title in print: Its $35,000 Model 3 could lure luxury car shoppers
(5) Tim Jones with Greg Stohr, Brother, We Can Ask You to Spare a Dime.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politic ... -supreme-court-case
the first two paragraphs:
Don Norton and his wife, Karen Otterson , have been arrested about 50 times while panhandling in downtown Springfield, Ill, over the past eight years. In 2013 they sued Springfield for infringing on their First Amendment Rights to freedom of speech. The city had passed an ordinance prohibiting verbal requests for money in the city's historic district, just a short walk from Abraham Lincoln's home, tomb, and presidential library. A federal appeals court took Norton and Otterman's side and overturned the ban , an din February the Us Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal. ' kind of feel privileged that I was able to help people have the right to do this,' says Norton, 55, who carries a cardboard sign asking for help.
"His victory came thanks to a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court in which the justices agreed with the arguments of Arizona pastor Clyde Reed, who wanted to put up signs directing people to Sunday services at his church. He challenged a local ordinance that put strict time limits on signs providing directions. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the law treated directional signs differently from other displays, such as those for political candidates. Under previous Supreme Court rulings, restrictions on specific types of speech were considered valid only if they were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Note:
(a) summary underneath the title in print: A Supreme Court move bolsters the right of panhandlers
(b) The print version is similar but different. The quotation above is from the print.
(c) Norton v City of Springfield (CA7 2015) 768 F.3d 713, cert denied (2016) _ US _.
media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-25/C:13-3581:J:Easterbrook:aut:T:fnOp:N:1424423:S:0
(d) Reed v Town of Gilbert (2015) _ US _.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf
|