Jump to content

Shepard update 7/27 -- dismissed as moot


Recommended Posts

Sounds like Posner thinks that self defense is trivial. I wonder if by preventing our side from talking he violated any of the court rules not that he cares.

 

You would think it violates due process if nothing else. Why allow someone to file if you're just going to <bodily function> in their eye?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like Posner thinks that self defense is trivial. I wonder if by preventing our side from talking he violated any of the court rules not that he cares

 

Regarding the bolded section.....I have been trying to find rules of the court regarding exactly that. I am trying to browse through http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap but so far the only thing I've managed to find is a headache.

 

Between the reduced amount of time, and the way that my peers who were in attendance indicate Mr. Posner conducted himself (quite hastily, imho), one may gather the impression that the outcome was already decided and just waiting to be handed down. Not saying that the "fix was in"....but I don't blame anybody that thinks it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand some of those in attendance thought this didn't go well for us. :(

 

I'm waiting to hear from skinny or Todd. Not that I don't trust the word of others in attendance I'd just like their analysis of what went down.

 

I agree.

Agreed, and it bothers me that we haven't heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand some of those in attendance thought this didn't go well for us. :(

 

I'm waiting to hear from skinny or Todd. Not that I don't trust the word of others in attendance I'd just like their analysis of what went down.

 

I agree.

look at it this way if it was good news they would already been on here telling us about it, so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was there.

 

Posner was very aggressive, and our side literally did not get a full sentence in more than a half dozen times or so in 20 minutes. You won't fully appreciate it until listening to the audio.

 

It was pretty obvious he had made up his mind before arguments began. The other male judge (I forget his name) looked thoughtful and asked one or two relevant questions. The lady listened, and seemed to be thoughtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posner basically kept asking for a compelling reason of what immediate injunction should be made and why any current complaints should not be handled in a separate lawsuit. Brown v. Board of Education was brought up repeatedly by Posner, wherein a law was found unconstitutional, but implementation of the new law happened at a slower pace. The judges did not seem convinced that the State be required to "immediately come in compliance" with the constitution, and that future complaints should be handled as separate lawsuits, which is apparently similar to what happened in Brown v. Board of Ed.

 

His logic seems pretty reasonable IMHO, based on my very limited knowledge of how the law should work. They are asking us how they can implement injunctions without creating some pretty sweeping precedents. I'm not sure how much bias there really is with regards to the legal standpoint they have to work from.

 

On one hand, I think this is not like Brown v. BoE because we're talking about personal security and not education, education can wait.

 

On the other hand, Posner specifically brought up training and asked why he should order the State to allow FOID carriers without *any* training to carry loaded guns around. Our lawyers countered with "well, other states seem to allow it" but that didn't really budge Posner, who responded with something like "does that mean all the other States are automatically wrong"?

 

Given the State is bound by law to issue permits within the next half year, until they fall out of compliance it's hard to complain.

 

As much as I dislike the outcome, from what little I understand I agreed with a lot of his logic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys want my analysis? Listen to the orals. Not once was Berlow interrupted and he actually answered a question that Flaum asked Thompson but Thompson couldn't answer it at the time.

 

I'm gonna say this once: anyone accusing Judge Posner of taking a bribe or any other act of impropriety...for your sake I will ask you to keep that to yourself. If we lose that doesn't mean the judge was bought off. It just means the judge did not agree with our side. We win, we lose, but don't disrespect a judge who you were praising for the last 10 months just because he did not side with us.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys want my analysis? Listen to the orals. Not once was Berlow interrupted and he actually answered a question that Flaum asked Thompson but Thompson couldn't answer it at the time.

 

I'm gonna say this once: anyone accusing Judge Posner of taking a bribe or any other act of impropriety...for your sake I will ask you to keep that to yourself. If we lose that doesn't mean the judge was bought off. It just means the judge did not agree with our side. We win, we lose, but don't disrespect a judge who you were praising for the last 10 months just because he did not side with us.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Dude.....I'm so glad you said it.....***whew***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...