So if a state managed to pass a law that essentially put certain citizens into a position of involuntary servitude, the LAW would be the status quo, not the right of the citizens not to be slaves? So this panel would hold that it's OK to enslave people until some court decides there is a a 13th Amendment problem?
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi is dead on right here.
This helps underline the importance of representation in the courts.
For instance, Judge Nicole Berner (who is married to Debra Katz) was recently confirmed to be a judge in the Fourth Circuit. Meanwhile, Adeel Mangi, who would be the first Muslim court of appeals judge, might not be confirmed because two Democrats are currently against his nomination.
(I don't wish to ignore that as few as one Republican senator can make that opposition moot.)
I don't want to be non-germane, but I think it's all connected on some level. Ditto the lack of a reasoned explanation. The Supreme Court, who at times is said to be different since they "show their work," repeatedly provides unreasoned orders with no comment from any justice in cases that very well would warrant it. This includes cases this Substack discusses.
I appreciate your effort here in providing details here. Likewise, other court reporters have provided useful background information and context. For instance, Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog regularly provides context to "brief orders" that repeatedly just deny a request with no comment.
Affirms, yet again, the cruel and biased decision-making, generally, of Republican appointees to the courts who, unfortunately, have handed over their judgements to Trump, the Federalist Society, or the Catholic Church. We no longer live according to reason or the principles founded by the Enlightenment; instead, we have regressed to nearly a feudal-thinking orthodoxy that has very little to do with the "public good."
So republicans have been screaming that parents should have more say in their children’s education because parents know best, but not in their children’s medical care. The courts are doing irreparable harm to the mental and physical health of these children. It’s unconscionable and for what? Because they have the power? Because they have the votes?
It has always been a struggle for me to determine what the status quo is when a change in law occurs. Happy to see Judges struggle with it too. Also love the quote, "the majority decided on its own that [Indiana’s law] should go into effect immediately" as if there is not an independent legal process known as the legislature that got it there in the first place.
The legislature actually called for and included a six-month tapering period — as is mentioned in the article. Legal process — had the court just issued its ruling on the PI appeal — also would have allowed for an effort to appeal the panel’s ruling before the mandate issued (as discussed in my first report on this). The irregular action and irregular procedure ignored the first and made the second a nullity.
Isn’t it reassuring that successive Republican administrations have freed the judiciary of activist judges.
So if a state managed to pass a law that essentially put certain citizens into a position of involuntary servitude, the LAW would be the status quo, not the right of the citizens not to be slaves? So this panel would hold that it's OK to enslave people until some court decides there is a a 13th Amendment problem?
Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi is dead on right here.
This helps underline the importance of representation in the courts.
For instance, Judge Nicole Berner (who is married to Debra Katz) was recently confirmed to be a judge in the Fourth Circuit. Meanwhile, Adeel Mangi, who would be the first Muslim court of appeals judge, might not be confirmed because two Democrats are currently against his nomination.
(I don't wish to ignore that as few as one Republican senator can make that opposition moot.)
I don't want to be non-germane, but I think it's all connected on some level. Ditto the lack of a reasoned explanation. The Supreme Court, who at times is said to be different since they "show their work," repeatedly provides unreasoned orders with no comment from any justice in cases that very well would warrant it. This includes cases this Substack discusses.
I appreciate your effort here in providing details here. Likewise, other court reporters have provided useful background information and context. For instance, Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog regularly provides context to "brief orders" that repeatedly just deny a request with no comment.
Affirms, yet again, the cruel and biased decision-making, generally, of Republican appointees to the courts who, unfortunately, have handed over their judgements to Trump, the Federalist Society, or the Catholic Church. We no longer live according to reason or the principles founded by the Enlightenment; instead, we have regressed to nearly a feudal-thinking orthodoxy that has very little to do with the "public good."
So republicans have been screaming that parents should have more say in their children’s education because parents know best, but not in their children’s medical care. The courts are doing irreparable harm to the mental and physical health of these children. It’s unconscionable and for what? Because they have the power? Because they have the votes?
Damn, just like the 5th. When is imposing an incredibly disruptive and damaging new law the 'status quo'?
This means an appeal to SCOTUS, doesn't it?
Thanks for explaining why this order is so corrupt and against precedent
"In short, they have the votes."
And consequences be damned. Which is the hallmark of the far-right appellate courts, as recent history so painfully shows.
Like bulls in a china shop, whether brazen disregard or ignorance the injustice is glaring.
🤬😢
It has always been a struggle for me to determine what the status quo is when a change in law occurs. Happy to see Judges struggle with it too. Also love the quote, "the majority decided on its own that [Indiana’s law] should go into effect immediately" as if there is not an independent legal process known as the legislature that got it there in the first place.
The legislature actually called for and included a six-month tapering period — as is mentioned in the article. Legal process — had the court just issued its ruling on the PI appeal — also would have allowed for an effort to appeal the panel’s ruling before the mandate issued (as discussed in my first report on this). The irregular action and irregular procedure ignored the first and made the second a nullity.