UPDATED 07.31.2024 -- 10 AM EDT: Well, none of the Fifth's lunacy will matter, as trial on the merits in the USDC is next week. [If you are going to read any part of this overnight 105 pager, read only the last two dissents -- they accurately state the law; the majority is off in "la la land". This simply political grandstanding in a legal opinion, to try to delay things past November 2024. It will fail.]
Hilarious; but to be clear, the Fifth claimed overnight that factual findings by a USDC Judge are not subject to a clear error standard. That ignores about 100 years of controlling law even inside the Fifth Circuit.
The Fifth heard no live testimony, was not present... but chose to second guess the trial judge on a mere... whiff of contra-evidence.
Silly. And impotent, in the end.
Nope -- it won't matter, and the feds will likely not even bother to appeal to the Supremes -- as all that matters now is trial.
That's next week. Buckle up, buckaroos. End, updated portion.
Welp -- the Texas state goofs (Abbott and Paxton) are likely filing an entirely specious mandamus petition in the Fifth Circuit, as I type this.
Hilarious. They will lose -- and the USDC in West Texas gets it exactly dead-bang spot-on correct here, this evening:
. . .“Where a discretionary stay is proposed, something close to genuine necessity should be the mother of its invocation.” Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E.W. Saybolt & Co., 761 F.2d 198, 204 (5th Cir. 1985). “Generally, the moving party bears a heavy burden to show why a stay should be granted absent statutory authorization, and a court should tailor its stay so as not to prejudice other litigants unduly.” Id. (citing Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij v. Isbrandtsen Co., 339 F.2d 440, 442 (2d Cir.1964)). In granting a motion to continue or stay a trial, a court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of time available, the moving party’s responsibility for the situation, and the likelihood of prejudice. . . .
The United States explains that it has already “expended significant taxpayer funds relocating key trial staff to Austin, printing and shipping exhibits, and making other preparations necessary to be ready on August 6,” 2024. (Dkt. #199 at 2.) The attorneys and witnesses are ready for trial. (Id.) The United States argues it would suffer additional prejudice from delaying the resolution of the case, especially when resolution has already been delayed by months before. (Id.; see also Dkts. # 75, 84.) The balance of interests, as presented to the Court, weighs against a discretionary stay. . . .
This case has never been scheduled for a jury trial. It has been set for a bench trial for months. Despite this, Texas moved for the case to be placed on the jury docket on June 21, 2024, months after the Court’s scheduling order indicated there was no jury trial. (Dkts. # 123 at 2;135 at 2.) Texas filed its present emergency motion four days after the Court’s order denying its motion for the case to be placed on the jury docket. (Dkt. # 198.)
For these reasons, Defendants’ Emergency Motion for a Continuance or Stay of Trial is DENIED. (Dkt. # 198.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2024. . . .
Now you know.
Oh -- and speaking of "prejudice", the floating razor wire barrier Texas is fighting to keep, has definitively killed a mother and her child, as of January -- and maimed perhaps hundreds more -- simply seeking asylum, as our long in force statutes and treaties permit, very clearly.
It would seem that the cruelty. . . is the point for these malign souls. Onward, shaking my head.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment