Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unfortunately, that was procedurally a shitty case to overturn Obergefell.  I wouldn't take this as much of a victory.

That said, fuck Kim Davis in her goatse ass.

 

the conservative block wants a better case 

Posted

also ...

One couple whom Davis discriminated against sued her for violating their civil rights, and a jury ordered her to pay $360,000 in damages in attorneys’ fees. She and her lawyers at the fringe-right law firm Liberty Counsel have spent years fighting that award. And that is what Davis v. Ermold is really about.

 

fuck kim davis 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

 

BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito has granted a *temporary* administrative pause on Judge Jeff Brown’s ruling re: Texas’ congressional map. He is requesting a response from the plaintiffs by EOD Monday on whether to pause the ruling for the length of the appeal

  • Haha 1
Posted

I confess I don't understand civil law in this area at all. The district court ruling was a full ruling by a panel of 3 on the merits after a hearing that lasted more than a week. How does the one judge (presumably it comes to Alito for the emergency petition because he's over the Fifth Circuit?) have the ability to overturn a merits ruling, even "temporarily" when this is not at the injunction stage? Is this a Purcell vs. Equal Protection question (as far as which one governs) and what is the legal standard used here to block a ruling for the losing party's benefit... when there hasn't even been briefing from both parties yet?  Seems like bullshit

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I confess I don't understand civil law in this area at all. The district court ruling was a full ruling by a panel of 3 on the merits after a hearing that lasted more than a week. How does the one judge (presumably it comes to Alito for the emergency petition because he's over the Fifth Circuit?) have the ability to overturn a merits ruling, even "temporarily" when this is not at the injunction stage? Is this a Purcell vs. Equal Protection question (as far as which one governs) and what is the legal standard used here to block a ruling for the losing party's benefit... when there hasn't even been briefing from both parties yet?  Seems like bullshit

This is an administrative stay, which at least in theory is not based on any evaluation of the decision below. But basically to preserve the status quo for a few days for briefing. 

But it's unnecessary. Nothing is going to change in three or four days. 

Motions like this are made to a single justice assigned to the circuit. Lucky us we have Alito. For a significant issue, usually referred to the entire court. 

A three judge panel for redistricting questions is provided by statute but it seems a party does have to ask for it. Appeal is or may be directly to the Supreme Court. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
9 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I confess I don't understand civil law in this area at all. The district court ruling was a full ruling by a panel of 3 on the merits after a hearing that lasted more than a week. How does the one judge (presumably it comes to Alito for the emergency petition because he's over the Fifth Circuit?) have the ability to overturn a merits ruling, even "temporarily" when this is not at the injunction stage? Is this a Purcell vs. Equal Protection question (as far as which one governs) and what is the legal standard used here to block a ruling for the losing party's benefit... when there hasn't even been briefing from both parties yet?  Seems like bullshit

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

For some background.  To get an injunction, a court order to do or not do something, you generally have to prove the following:

  • Likelihood of success on the merits, ie you're going to win at trial, most likely
  • Irreparable harm, something that can't be fixed after the fact, as by an award of damages
  • The public interest
  • The harm of any injunction outweighs the harm of the action enjoined

So, when considering a stay of an injunction, an appeals court reviews these things, often focusing mostly on the first two.  The last two things tend to kind of merge, except in purely private lawsuits, like say a patent infringement case.

When the party is the government, it tends to be rather assumed that what's at issue favors the public interest, that is, that what the government is doing is in the public interest and enjoining the government is not.  But the last factor can undo that, as in the case of when the government is attempting something clearly or even marginally unconstitutional.

The grant of injunctive relief by a trial court is usually "fact intensive," like Sara Ellis in Chicago finding Bovino and fICE to be full of shit, or in the redistricting case that Texas' motivation was more racial than political.

Appeals courts and SCOTUS especially, should defer to the trial court's evaluation of factual issues, like credibility.  Thus, the usual way to reverse (on full decision on the merits) or temporarily stay (shadow docket) is to find that the trial court applied the wrong law or misapplied correct law.

The shadow docket is almost always reviewing an injunction and applying some form of the above analysis.  Two places they have gone horrendously wrong in the pro-Trump orders are:

  • when evaluating likelihood of success, they apply law they think they're going to make, not the law as it stands (and then they get mad at the lower courts for following the law as it stands without ever having given an opinion that changes the law or explains how the new law should be applied)
  • their evaluation of the harm, like Kavanaugh's stops that ignore that people are imprisoned for days, weeks, or months on flimsy and unconstitutional premises

From a sort of political science or governing perspective, changes in the law should come slowly or gradually especially when not made by the legislative branch.  By doing the above, the Court is making abrupt changes in the law, or permitting the executive to do so, without due consideration for the status quo ante, the way things are, have mostly been, and in most cases should stay that way.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

Also, taking it out of the rubric of legal analysis, and putting it purely in terms of politics or even political philosophy, SCOTUS in its shadow docket decisions is valuing the "rights" or power of the executive/government over the rights of the people.  Specifically the executive.

The legalistic excuse is that stays (or unstaying in some cases) are only temporary, pending a full decision on the merits.  But, again in the real world, these stays last months or years before a more permanent solution is reached by a full decision on the merits.  And it may well be that they ultimately rule against the executive/government, but the harm is mostly done by then.

Which tells you that their harm analyses are wrong, ab initio.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...