Posted on 07/15/2014 3:03:06 PM PDT by Hostage
I made reference to a battle being won by the GOPc. You speak of the war that is another matter altogether
No I am not reading anything into it. This judge could have denied the write of mandamus. But he ordered the Harris County and the MS AG to respond and he also asked McDaniel to supplement to clarify terms.
That’s a win no matter how you look at it.
He wrote GOPc not GOPe. I am guessing he meant GOP conservatives.
BTTT
mo’ bttt
Speaking as a lawyer (albeit not a Mississippi lawyer), I don't see it that way. The Order sets a time for the defendants to respond to McDaniel's papers-- it was inevitable the Court would want a response-- and it asks McDaniel to supplement his papers to explain what laws authorize what he's asking for (which suggests that his opening papers didn't satisfy the Court).
Not used to seeing GOPc, not GOPe.
Not a win and not a loss. It's a cautious Court (BTW, it's a panel, not a single judge) making sure they have a full record before deciding a high-profile case.
You obviously didn’t read it and I question your legal credientials.
It is not inevitable that the Supreme Court would order a response. They could have simply denied it.
The order for supplement asked for him to clarify terms as to “Ballot Box” and “contents”.
The supplement did not ask for laws for what he is asking for but for all the of laws that apply to protection of privacy of voters.
Both of these orders for supplement are easy to provide and do not signify in the least that the judge is not satisfied. In fact it helps set the stage for the judge to rule tomorrow that Harris County will provide complete access to the McDaniel campaign to review the results of the election as is his clear right to do.
The order for laws pertaining to privacy are to ready McDaniel’s attorney in oral rebuttal of the Harris County and the MS AG.
This is a win for McDaniel. No other way to spin it.
LOL.
What are your legal "credientials"?
For sure a lot more than yours.
You tipped yourself off when you called yourself a lawyer and said it was “inevitable” that the court would order a response. Any lawyer knows a Supreme Court does not need to hear a case. They can simply let stand a lower court decision.
Ergo, you are no lawyer.
This is not a discretionary appeal of a lower court's decision, which a Supreme Court can either accept or reject. If you look at the caption, this is not an appeal of a lower court's order; it is an original writ petition. The Court has no discretion to not hear it; it could have either denied it -- which would be a denial on the merits, unlike a refusal to take the case, granted it without asking for a response, or asked for a response. Given the high profile of this case, it was "inevitable" that the Court would take the third option.
Well alrighty then!
Every appeal to a supreme court is a petition. It doesn’t matter what the subject of the petition is, a supreme court always has discretion to not hear a case. You said so yourself but chimed in that it was “inevitable” it must be heard. Yherefore, you are confused.
The fact is the MS Supreme Court has decided to hear the case and that is a win for McDaniel.
This is a decent response from the court. The better response would have been to simply grant the petition for the writ of mandamus.
Just to clarify, the respondent in a mandamus action is not permitted to respond usless invited by the court to do so.
Yes it is because the supreme court had the decision in front of them from the lower court that came attached to the petition. Therefore, they could very well have denied the writ had the lower court decision been solid.
The supplement orders to McDaniel are very telling. The first one asks for clarification on what is meant by “ballot box” and “content”. Some have argued that the poll books are not defined as part of the contents of the ballot box. But other parts of the law refer to ballot materials meaning all materials required to be kept, stored and secure. I will state that the MS Supreme Court will settle those terms tomorrow in favor of McDaniel because clearly the spirit of the law allows for McDaniel and others during the election process to monitor and review all ballot materials.
The second supplement order regards the laws in Mississippi that contextually relevant to voter privacy. This order was not necessary as the laws cited in the lower court decision should suffice to inform the court of their application. But the order makes sure that McDaniel is aware and prepared to argue against Harris County and the AG tomorrow. Again I see this favoring McDaniel because it helps him and it was not necessary to bring it into the court’s purview.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Does that count?
By the way, credientials has a typo for credentials.
Or were you too absorbed in one-upping someone who pushes back?
I don’t see how ANY court can require a state-wide candidate pay almost a hundred grand just to see the vote records (never mind mere copies)- yet that’s just what the lower court did!
There would be no practical review of a vote under such an application of the Public Records Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.