Thursday, December 1, 2011

A REQUEST FOR "J ". PLEASE

 
WSJ.com  
 * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
   
 
Justin.....I don't knw if this is anythng to worry about...I don't thnk so....but would appreciate j's take on this. Pat

 
   
   
  Click the following to access the sent link:
   
 
WSJ.com - NY judge lets anti-gay marriage lawsuit proceed* This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.
     
 
 
  SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
 
 
   
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
   
   
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/AP64c2012d598944e8bf5ff1df294becd7-kEyUDA2MTQxYzMyMDAzMTAyWm.html?mod=wsj_share_email

5 comments:

J said...

Well, gentlemen, it is virtually impossible to handicap this horserace without seeing the forms filed with the court. Two things come to mind here: If the law is violated, is the remedy a judicial nullification of a legislative inactment? I rather doubt that it is. Usually when these open meetings laws are violated the remedy is some kind of a misdemeanor prosecution. Also, the language of this judge's ruling is so intemperate and partisan that he sounds like a ringer. The question is whether New York allows interlocutory appeals of rulings like this. If they don't, this sideshow trial will be held and the issue of its propriety resolved on appeal once trial is over and a final order entered by the trial judge. If interlocutory appeals are permitted, you may have it decided in a more august forum in relatively short order. Frankly, this sounds like another Christer monkey wrench that will delay, but not derail the inevitable. Not to worry.

JustinO'Shea said...

THANKS, J. . .
Your explanation makes a lot of sense.
Good to read your opinion of the judge. . .it backs up my feelings while reading it that the judge had already decided the case.. . "what need have we of further witnesses?" hahaaa His mind was set. So much for an impartial court.

It is good knowing you are still practicing law! ;-)

Pat said...

J.... Thanks. I assumed it wasn't a deal breaker but one never knows with politics i nvolved. I appreciate your response. Thank you, too, Justin. ...nice scriptural reference btw! Pat

Gary Kelly said...

Today I learned two new words: nullification and interlocutory. Now I gotta figure out how to use them when I'm at the supermarket checkout chatting with the checkout chick.

J said...

Practicing it like a bitch, Justin!