* U.S. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS CORONAVIRUS VACCINE POSSIBLE AROUND NOV. 3, ELECTION DAY@Reuters— Carl Quintanilla (@carlquintanilla) August 6, 2020
And I find myself actually agreeing with Mark Stern:
But I think these 5–4 emergency orders are a bad look. In argued cases, the justices explain their rulings in written opinions. But now the five conservatives are issuing these momentous unsigned orders with literally no explanation! It just looks like an exercise in raw power.— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) August 5, 2020
A bad look for reasons like this:
According to the plaintiffs in the original case, the judge wrote, the jail misrepresented its efforts to take safety precautions to Bernal’s district court. Officials argued that they had released about half of the jail population, but according to court filings, more than 300 people in the facility nevertheless tested positive for Covid-19 in May.
The trial court is the trier of fact. No appellate court can overturn conclusions of fact; it is bound by them. Which means the trial court is owed some deference on factual isues, even if the appellate court transmogrifies them into legal issues (i.e., questions of law), which all too often happens.
This is a stay on an injunction, so it's not a ruling on the final judgment by the trial court. Still, the court should decline to interfere where there are questions of veracity by the moving party (i.e., Orange County, which sought to have the injunction lifted) that have been found against them in the trial court.
Because an injunction is an act of equity (it's a law school lecture), and you have to come to equity with clean hands. Orange County is seeking to have equity set aside in favor of the law; but Orange County doesn't have "clean hands."
It's at least a better legal argument than whatever the GOP majority came up with. IMHLO, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment