California judge gives ruling

[71montess]

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5345/attachments/original/1579047451/2020-1-14-jones-order-denying-amicus-motions.pdf?1579047451

As has been said, “ right in the pie hole “

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

and from a Clinton appointee no less.....

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1217249673016217600

 

[doxdsgn]

Giffords, Everytown, Brady — the judge just very directly, but nicely said STFU! Buh bye.

Seems to be a turn in the Federal courts to less tolerance of nonsense, especially CA, good.

 

[LittleCalm]

Hmm. While a court has discretion whether to permit an amicus curiae brief, I didn't think they were often rejected b/c they were from a partisan organization. In fact, I thought their whole point was to argue for or against a particular issue and help the court arrive at what the author of the brief thinks is the right legal answer. Perhaps here the court felt that these briefs were not adding anything helpful that wasn't already presented by the parties in the case.

 

[Boston4567]

Hmm. While a court has discretion whether to permit an amicus curiae brief, I didn't think they were often rejected b/c they were from a partisan organization. In fact, I thought their whole point was to argue for or against a particular issue and help the court arrive at what the author of the brief thinks is the right legal answer. Perhaps here the court felt that these briefs were not adding anything helpful that wasn't already presented by the parties in the case.

The trial level is different from the appellate level. Trial judges are just trying to work through their dockets.

Allowing partisan amici to intervene in routine motion practice at a trial level would throw a monkey wrench into the administration of justice. Appellate courts are much more amenable to amici because it's much more important they consider all perspectives and ramifications before ruling.