This case is way too big for a lower court judge to even pretend like he’s going to preside over it. Denied with prejudice also infers he doesn’t want Rudy “fixing” any mistakes with the intent on returning to his court room.
This goes up the ladder all the way to scotus and the quicker the better.
I think it's like suing Walmart for a problem in Target.
The defendants weren't responsible for equal treatment in counties other than their own.
But this might've just been a necessary step to get to the supreme court where the issue can be argued more broadly. I'm not sure who would be responsible for equal protection. The state?
Certainly one county isn't responsible for what another county does, so it's confusing that they sued the 7 counties.
Any legal savvy orders out there know the real scoop? I have seen people commenting this particular case is essentially dead due to the nature of the ruling and "with prejudice".
Sounds like specific procedural roadblocks are legit to kill this particular case.
It’s a disingenuous representation of what’s going on.
There was no mistake, at all. The judge just doesn’t want it to be his problem so he has released the case to be shuffled along up the appeals court ladder. With prejudice only means it can’t return to the lower court for a second look.
An analogy would be an employee at a big box store that calls for the manager when a customer has a bigger problem than he wants to try and handle. This case is going to the Supreme Court. This judge basically doesn’t want to be responsible for a case this big.
The suggestion that Rudy botched something is how they are protecting the image of the judge’s decision.
It might be a stretch but I've read that lower court cases are only being filed to set up a case for the US Supreme Court. And that losing lower state court cases might actually help their case when it goes before SCOTUS.
Did you read the article?
They didn't present voters from the defendants' counties. Two voters from two other counties were irrelevant for this particular case.
They botched it.
But at least it can move toward the Supreme Court, regardless.
This case is way too big for a lower court judge to even pretend like he’s going to preside over it. Denied with prejudice also infers he doesn’t want Rudy “fixing” any mistakes with the intent on returning to his court room.
This goes up the ladder all the way to scotus and the quicker the better.
I think it's like suing Walmart for a problem in Target.
The defendants weren't responsible for equal treatment in counties other than their own.
But this might've just been a necessary step to get to the supreme court where the issue can be argued more broadly. I'm not sure who would be responsible for equal protection. The state?
Certainly one county isn't responsible for what another county does, so it's confusing that they sued the 7 counties.
Any legal savvy orders out there know the real scoop? I have seen people commenting this particular case is essentially dead due to the nature of the ruling and "with prejudice".
Sounds like specific procedural roadblocks are legit to kill this particular case.
With prejudice just means a case can’t be tweaked to address errors that would allow it to go forward otherwise.
Doesn’t mean it’s dead in the water, but it does mean the case moves more quickly to the next court in line when the appeal is made.
Can anyone explain this to me? I'm not understanding what this means.
It’s a disingenuous representation of what’s going on.
There was no mistake, at all. The judge just doesn’t want it to be his problem so he has released the case to be shuffled along up the appeals court ladder. With prejudice only means it can’t return to the lower court for a second look.
An analogy would be an employee at a big box store that calls for the manager when a customer has a bigger problem than he wants to try and handle. This case is going to the Supreme Court. This judge basically doesn’t want to be responsible for a case this big.
The suggestion that Rudy botched something is how they are protecting the image of the judge’s decision.
It might be a stretch but I've read that lower court cases are only being filed to set up a case for the US Supreme Court. And that losing lower state court cases might actually help their case when it goes before SCOTUS.
From a legal standpoint, you’ve gotta crawl before you can run.