View Single Post
Old August 31, 2011, 01:46 PM   #88
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
I think we are looking at that trial court, right now.

If you read the errors committed by Judge Kendall in not following the guidance of the en banc circuit in Skoien as enumerated by the panel in Ezell, we are seeing it happen at this minute.

Remember, the panel held that irreparable harm was ongoing. They issued a mandate to the trial court: Docket entry #112; The district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is REVERSED, with costs, and the case is REMANDED with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion.

Judge Kendall ignored the mandate and proceeded with the MTD for mootness as if there were no harm being committed.

Coincidently, this also goes against the direct wording of the SCOTUS in Heller.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
Judge Kendall has already decided just that.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03664 seconds with 7 queries