Posted on 10/26/2004 11:02:49 AM PDT by SwinneySwitch
Says non-evidentiary hearing insufficient to consider A.R.T. activities illegal.
A summary of the ruling:
In re Norman F. Newton, et al. petition for writ of mandamus from Travis County CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, opinion by Justice Hecht:
The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a temporary restraining order against a political-action committee raising or spending allegedly illegal corporate donations. In this case the Associated Republicans of Texas sued to overturn the trial court’s order, raising two principal questions: (1) whether the mandamus petition properly was filed directly in the Supreme Court and (2) whether, absent a clear express violation of state election law, the restraining order in essence finally adjudicates a matter affecting the political-action committee’s rights to participate in the November 2 election. The trial court issued its order based on the plaintiffs’ pleadings and argument at a hearing and scheduled a hearing on a temporary injunction for November 3.
The rest of the story, subscribers only
Super Texas Ping!
Please splain.
Well, it sounds good. What's it mean in non-lawyer terms ??
Near as I can figure out, the trial court restrained a Republican PAC from running ads. The Texas Supreme Court vacated (removed) the order, allowing the PAC to run the ads.
Yea, anyone know that this means in english?
I just hope that this is John McCain's last term in the senate.
SUPREME COURT OVERRULES RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ASSOCIATED REPUBLICANS(OF TEXAS)
You might have been confused about over rules? Harvey needs some editing help.
Yea, anyone know that this means in english?
7 posted on 10/26/2004 11:58:00 AM PDT by Bush_Democrat (Now EX-Democrat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You have distilled the essence of the story perfectly.
Well then, hoo rah! :)
The Associated Republicans of Texas will crank up their ads again....... or at lease if the want to and until told to cease and desist by some other legal entity.....
Ah. Thank you! :^D
Quorum Report October 26, 2004 4:51 PM
DEMOCRATIC PLAINTIFFS SEEK REHEARING IN ASSOCIATED REPUBLICANS CASE
Claim Supremes relied on misrepresentations from ART attorneys.
Writing for the Democratic plaintiffs, attorney Susan Hays said, "By accepting ART’s misrepresentations, this Court has placed the entire 2004 electoral process in question, casting a shadow on the integrity of the electoral process by opening the ballot box to the corrosive effect of corporate cash. Indeed, if ever there is a time necessitating injunctive relief at the trial court level, preserving the electoral system from corruption is such a time. The Court’s ruling today — by potentially permitting illegal conduct in the election — risks doing damage to the most fundamental component of democracy — clean elections."
The plaintiffs claimed that the Supreme Court erred based on two misrepresentations by Associated Republicans of Texas. They then questioned the need for "extraordinary relief."
The rest of the story, subscribers only
Dem lawyers are dumb!
Thanks.
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.