Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So he is stalling....I just wanted to see if a leftie would say that....
Oh... it's far more significant than a "stall."
The reason the plaintiffs want to expedite and skip the appeal is because they are terrified (for very good reason) that the appeals court will reverse Judge Vinson.
And The DoJ is equally confident that they will.
This is just damn good lawyering... on both sides.
The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE filed a brief in response to a request to expedite made by the opposing attorney. Their response points out that skipping lower courts and the thoughtful opinions of lower appeals courts is to short-circuit the legal process.
No its not.. There are laws in place to bypass lower courts for scenarios JUST LIKE THIS...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Barring an emergency, we haven't done that in the past, and there is no need to do it now. The Supreme Court justices will review the application by Virginia's Attorney General, and the brief filed against that application by the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and will make up their own minds.
They have indeed done this in the past..
Antititrust cases for example
There is no request for the Supreme Court to not get involved. There is every expectation that the Supreme Court will get involved. There is a request that lower courts not get involved. That the legal process be aborted. Virginia is asking for the legal process to be aborted. The Department of Justice is arguing that the process itself has value, and that skipping the lower courts ignores that value. The Supreme Court will have to decide.
This is NOT aborting the process.. Please review laws like the 1903 Expedition Act, and the 1974 Expedition Act..
No its not.. There are laws in place to bypass lower courts for scenarios JUST LIKE THIS...
Duh! Nobody I can see here has argued against that. The problem, however is, you're dismissive of established processes, response to request for expediting something, and of the established normal process.
Duh! Nobody I can see here has argued against that. The problem, however is, you're dismissive of established processes, response to request for expediting something, and of the established normal process.
The NORMAL process is to expedite court hearings which have national impact.. AGAIN.. the 1903 and 1974 Expedition Acts give the Supreme Court the authorization to bypass ALL court hearings and to hear the case directly. The bypassing of lower courts have happened previously in examples like antitrust cases..
I'm again asking you why you think you know more than US Federal Judges and the US Supreme court who has HEARD cases without lower court rulings..
No its not.. There are laws in place to bypass lower courts for scenarios JUST LIKE THIS...
They have indeed done this in the past..
Antititrust cases for example
Actually, dear, as YOU"VE labored to point out over and over, it's not up to you to determine if this is a scenario where Rule 11 applies. It's not up to you, it's not up to you...It's up to the court. The attorney general makes a persuasive case, but as the attorney general himself points out, there have been waivers issued to numerous entities, which means the impact of the legislation that has taken affect is already diluted, and much of the legislation won't take effect for some time. As the Department of Justice points out, we have a process that is tried and true, the process itself adds value to the final rulings of the court, and the decision to abort the process should only be done in extreme emergencies. How much of an emergency this case is will have to decided by the judges.
That's all that is necessary. Vinson issued his order. The DoJ complied. This is now officially out of Vinson's hands unless and until a higher court sends it back to him for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Its very clear that you have no concept of a time is of the essence order. By asking the Supreme Court to not get involved, which will delay the Supreme Courts decision, you are VIOLATING the order which mandated time is of the essence.
And you have no idea what "a court order" means. You can't violate an order that was never given. And there was no order given for the DoJ to skip the appeal process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
There is nothing limiting the Supreme Court from taking the case from the appellate judges to hear it.. Sadly for you liberals its up to the Supreme Court to decide what they hear.. not Obama and not you liberals.
No. There isn't. But it would be a rare and unusual exception to the legal process. Both sides have made their cases. The Supreme Court will decide one way or the other.
I am not sure what your real problem here is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
By asking that the 1974 Expedition Act be ignored, he is indeed violating the federal judges demand for time is of the essence.
The DoJ has not asked for the Expedition Act to "be ignored." And they are violating no court order.
They have simply made their argument to SCOTUS just as the plaintiffs have regarding whether or not this case should skip the appeals court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
