Author Topic: ITT we celebrate judges who actually read and apply the law (Read 5600 times)

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **on:** May 27, 2017, 06:12:53 PM »

This may be a short thread, but here goes!

Turns out the Obama FAA's rule that drone owners register their drones is against the law. Because that's what the law says. I present the D.C. Court of Appeals in Taylor v. Huerta:

Quote

In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.

Judges doing what judges are supposed to do!

In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-on-travel-ban-judges-reach-trump-only-decision/article/2624241?platform=hootsuite

star seed 7 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2017, 06:13:40 PM »

what an activist

Phil Titola · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2017, 06:38:51 PM »

9th circuit

4th circuit

Institutional Control · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2017, 06:40:58 PM »

Rulings that KSU agrees with is just reading and applying the law... but rulings he doesn't agree with are liberal activism?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2017, 11:38:43 PM »

Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.

Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.

Gooch · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2017, 01:50:20 PM »

Judges!

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2017, 01:56:20 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2017, 11:38:43 PM

Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.

Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.

Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.

Spracne · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2017, 07:54:45 PM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2017, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2017, 11:38:43 PM
Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.

Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.

Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.

While I also think things spoken while campaigning should not be weaponized in this context, you're simply incorrect. It's not hearsay. It's not even a hearsay exception. It's an exemption, which is to say it's classified as nonhearsay under the federal rules of evidence. Now that's not to say that prudence shouldn't dictate that it get tossed under Rule 403, but that's another matter.

The Big Train · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2017, 08:13:55 PM »

But that's another matter

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2017, 09:07:55 AM »

Quote from: Spracne on May 30, 2017, 07:54:45 PM

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2017, 01:56:20 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2017, 11:38:43 PM
Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.

Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.

Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.

While I also think things spoken while campaigning should not be weaponized in this context, you're simply incorrect. It's not hearsay. It's not even a hearsay exception. It's an exemption, which is to say it's classified as nonhearsay under the federal rules of evidence. Now that's not to say that prudence shouldn't dictate that it get tossed under Rule 403, but that's another matter.

It's more of a stretch to call it exempt than hearsay, granted it doesn't get more arcane and mundane than discussing hearsay.

You could argue the judge should be recused if he ever commented favorably about asylum. It's just as stupid and colorable.

Would be better if the appellate courts just followed the law, instead of making garbage partisan rulings setting horrible precedent to be exploited in the future.

AbeFroman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2017, 09:40:31 AM »

Disband the judicial branch! Libs! Checks and balances are socialism!

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2017, 01:00:52 PM »

This from a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) who thinks firing Comey ran afoul of checks and balances.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2017, 02:00:43 PM »

It's perfectly fine if judges just make crap up as they go: As long as it's in line with our ideology . . . Libs

star seed 7 · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2017, 02:01:48 PM »

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2017, 06:56:15 PM »

Considering that the party seeking the injunction bears the burden of prrof and must establish irreparable harm, a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, etc., I'd be pretty bent out of shape if some partisan hack granted the injunction solely on the basis of an out of court statement (aka Hearsay). Whether the hearsay was offered into the record as an exception, exemption or bc no judge in the country knows the rough ridin' hearsay rules is irrelevant. There's no way it's sufficient evidence to obtain an injunction.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 31, 2017, 06:58:19 PM »

Apparently it is

Spracne · « **Reply #16 on:** May 31, 2017, 07:32:15 PM »

The thing about party admissions is that courts will take you both seriously and literally.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

cfbandyman · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2017, 07:38:43 PM »

Quote from: Spracne on May 31, 2017, 07:32:15 PM

The thing about party admissions is that courts will take you both seriously and literally.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Oh don't start with this reasonable logic. Clearly liberal

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2017, 08:02:45 PM »

That's not logic, dumbstick

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #19 on:** May 31, 2017, 08:05:36 PM »

Construing campaign puffery as a party admission is illogical, tho.

Spracne · « **Reply #20 on:** May 31, 2017, 08:12:02 PM »

Puffery? Not a term I would associate with the leader of the free world. I don't mind a precedent that makes our politicians say what they mean and mean what they say. Trump has already proven that he is serious about fulfilling campaign promises. Sounds a lot like the boy who cried wolf, to me.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #21 on:** May 31, 2017, 09:16:57 PM »

Injunctions for everyone! eff the rule of law! Awesome precedent, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #22 on:** May 31, 2017, 09:20:46 PM »

Let's get the internment camps fired up for the antifa, they've probably said, "I'm gonna kill trump" a million times. Party admission for civil assault on the president, errr treason. Superb precedent!

Spracne · « **Reply #23 on:** June 01, 2017, 07:16:39 PM »

Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 09:20:46 PM

Let's get the internment camps fired up for the antifa, they've probably said, "I'm gonna kill trump" a million times. Party admission for civil assault on the president, errr treason. Superb precedent!

Somtimes you can't change
A
Dumbfuck idea (or a
Critical mis-
Understanding) into
Ngenious satire simply by
The Force of Hyperbole!

cfbandyman · « **Reply #24 on:** June 01, 2017, 07:28:10 PM »

Author Topic: ITT we celebrate judges who actually read and apply the law (Read 5600 times)

The Big Train