Legal Innovative Protocols and Tactics Inquiry Thread

[Jace, Extat]

I don't know nothin 'bout no law. 

Nothin

So, @Ser Scot A Ellison , and other legal minds please take me to school here if you have the time and inclination

But in my part-time as moon-shrieking sociologist (we all know it's up to something. Just... up there and all) I have learned that most entrenched power structures are rather unattracted to, even actively allergic to, innovation. It's a bad word in jargon-specific and precedent-reliant professions. "You're trying a NEW argument? Sir, this job is looking for OLD justifications for concurrent actions! Remand yourself from these premises and let the hooker go!"- As I imagine these things go 

So anyway, my point. 

Now that the judges have slapped down all these Trump cases and whatnot, haven't they in-doing provided the Trumpies with the legal checklist to abide to next time? Am I oversimplifying or misunderstanding how this process works? Jokes aside, I seriously don't know how this works.

[Jace, Extat]

Like at some point doesn't it stop becoming endless defeats and you start getting value out of having like a HUNDRED papers with red marks and underlines and see after class notes because, um, a bunch of those judges may not be willing to put their shitty salary and eternal reputation on the line for the legal equivalent of a shit-smeared diagram that says "Trump Rulz, Hilray Droolz"... in 2021-present, but the future is coming around tomorrow and I worry about what these people are capable of next midterms when they have the benefit of private tutoring and some fucking adderall or something. 

Yeah, even the most despicable sellout who gets appointed to a federal bench is still the kind of person who is just too self-serious to stick their neck out for this clown shit

But you come back next time, with tutoring and a CHECKLIST from friendly-inclined judges, and you've got a solid C- kinda case here this time... "states rights, you say, and have done your homework!"... I mean that's a different thing. 

Because in my opinion, I give them a C+ on the Attempt to Overthrow the Republic review. 

Yeah, they didn't pull it off but they also got away with not pulling it off which almost seems harder than pulling the fucking thing off in the first place. 

 

Eta: 

* i meant MIDTERMS in the bolded instance like in a school kinda way not political. Like midterm testing. Could have been better written but fuck it I'm hungry

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Fire and Jace said:

I don't know nothin 'bout no law. 

Nothin

So, @Ser Scot A Ellison , and other legal minds please take me to school here if you have the time and inclination

But in my part-time as moon-shrieking sociologist (we all know it's up to something. Just... up there and all) I have learned that most entrenched power structures are rather unattracted to, even actively allergic to, innovation. It's a bad word in jargon-specific and precedent-reliant professions. "You're trying a NEW argument? Sir, this job is looking for OLD justifications for concurrent actions! Remand yourself from these premises and let the hooker go!"- As I imagine these things go 

So anyway, my point. 

Now that the judges have slapped down all these Trump cases and whatnot, haven't they in-doing provided the Trumpies with the legal checklist to abide to next time? Am I oversimplifying or misunderstanding how this process works? Jokes aside, I seriously don't know how this works.

I guarantee Lake will appeal the ruling.  The nice thing is that she lost on the merits making the appeal much less like to win on a technicality on appeal.

[JGP]

57 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I guarantee Lake will appeal the ruling.  The nice thing is that she lost on the merits making the appeal much less like to win on a technicality on appeal.

Technicality of law, you mean or something else?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, JGP said:

Technicality of law, you mean or something else?

Technicality of procedure.  If the matter was dismissed without ruling on the merits there is less deference given to the lower court by the appellate court.

[JGP]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Technicality of procedure.  If the matter was dismissed without ruling on the merits there is less deference given to the lower court by the appellate court.

This deference still exists? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, JGP said:

This deference still exists? 

Always.  To a lesser or greater degree.  A jury verdict being overturned by an appellate court is very unusual because of the deference given to juries as “finders of fact”.  Similar deference is given to Judges in bench trials as finders of fact.

[JGP]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Always.  To a lesser or greater degree.  A jury verdict being overturned by an appellate court is very unusual because of the deference given to juries as “finders of fact”.  Similar deference is given to Judges in bench trials as finders of fact.

Despite political make up? So it's not all bad. In general. Or...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, JGP said:

Despite political make up? So it's not all bad. In general. Or...

All I can say is that “it depends”.  In SC the SC Supreme Court called Mark Meadows stupid for seeking to prevent his subpoena to the Georgia Grand Jury investigating the Trump steal attempt in 2020 finding Meadows arguments “manifestly without merit”.  That’s legal speak for “what the fuck are you thinking”:

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/29/mark-meadows-testify-georgia-election-probe-sc-supreme-court-rules