4 ms·

I have my popcorn ready to watch the appeals process and policy discussions this should engender. I expect that much of the ruling will be struck down, but cann

I have my popcorn ready to watch the appeals process and policy discussions this should engender. I expect that much of the ruling will be struck down, but cannot help but think that the state-caused-danger has legs. Ultimately, my guess is that a superior court will set the judgement aside while upholding some elements as correct, then direct the city and county to address those specific elements deemed to have merit. The end result would be legislative change in the context of elements deemed valid. Or perhaps I am overly optimistic....

giantg2 6y ago
Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That's supposed be for the executive and legislative branch to come up with. It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That’s…actually not all that true, especially in the case of systematic racial discrimination by local government. School integration, including bussing, is a pretty good example where policy was often dictated in fairly explicit detail by the courts.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    In the case of school integration, the prior ruling under Brown was not being followed. That failure to follow that ruling then lead to a second judgement giving judges specific powers to force the correct implementation of Brown if the school districts had not done it themselves. It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or general issue must be corrected. Usually it takes a failure of valid corrective policy to be implement for the courts to force a specific policy which they have devised.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        I missed that it was an injunction. I still feel this is unusual for an injunction given the scope.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Right, but... if I understand correctly, the judge ordered things to be done to stop the ongoing harm while the case was being decided. In order to avoid having to do this, LA is going to need to win an appeal about the temporary order before the 180 days runs out. Court slowness is now working against LA. Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Ah, I missed the part about it being temporary. It seems like quite a large and expansive judgement for a temporary measure. Usually they are small injunctions against a new law or policy, like the recent one against enforcing the bump stock ban.

giantg2 6y ago

Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That's supposed be for the executive and legislative branch to come up with. It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That’s…actually not all that true, especially in the case of systematic racial discrimination by local government. School integration, including bussing, is a pretty good example where policy was often dictated in fairly explicit detail by the courts.
- giantg2 6y ago
  In the case of school integration, the prior ruling under Brown was not being followed. That failure to follow that ruling then lead to a second judgement giving judges specific powers to force the correct implementation of Brown if the school districts had not done it themselves. It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or general issue must be corrected. Usually it takes a failure of valid corrective policy to be implement for the courts to force a specific policy which they have devised.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I missed that it was an injunction. I still feel this is unusual for an injunction given the scope.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Right, but... if I understand correctly, the judge ordered things to be done to stop the ongoing harm while the case was being decided. In order to avoid having to do this, LA is going to need to win an appeal about the temporary order before the 180 days runs out. Court slowness is now working against LA. Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...
- giantg2 6y ago
  Ah, I missed the part about it being temporary. It seems like quite a large and expansive judgement for a temporary measure. Usually they are small injunctions against a new law or policy, like the recent one against enforcing the bump stock ban.