2 ms·

Both the judge and the article thought the "Even if there was standing..." question worth talking about. It sounds like you're trying to quash discussion on any

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  Both standing and particularized harm are questions the court (properly) addressed in the context of the actual plaintiff (the public defender), not hypothetical plaintiffs that are situated differently. There were also a whole host of other procedural issued cited in denying the appeal (including that it's an appeal, but the specific remedies claimed and the entities against whom they are claimed weren't argued properly in the trial court), in the non-exhaustive list of reasons for denial provided by the court. Assuming the court isn't blatantly misrepresenting the procedural history, it looks like the plaintiff did, almost literally, everything possible wrong procedurally. OTOH, I have to wonder if the intent isn't really to get the court to issue an order but to get headlines and media attention to force Alameda County to fix the problem.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]