@nytimes
Absolutely not. pic.twitter.com/7GilOhcp7l
— AOC's Anger Translator \u2696\ufe0f (@NomDeGuerre333) January 6, 2021
More from Court
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
There will be no substantive change to the sentences passed on the killers of Pc Andrew Harper.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 16, 2020
The Attorney General\u2019s application to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and the defence applications for leave to appeal against sentence have been refused by the Court of Appeal. https://t.co/qxTzuj7jR3
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
It appeared an overtly political decision.
Grimly cynical.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 12, 2020
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.https://t.co/QWdINvUwwf
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged \u201cfriend\u201d, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are \u201cwet liberal judges\u201d who are \u201csoft on criminals\u201d. https://t.co/5uGggN8tTT
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
On the day of the hearing, it appeared from selected reports that the AG was out of her depth. She appeared to be making political submissions to the Court of Appeal that have no place in a case of this type.
The Attorney General had to be embarrassingly corrected during the hearing by an actual criminal silk after making irrelevant and politicised submissions to the Court of Appeal.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) November 30, 2020
What a farce. pic.twitter.com/wy81xoFIDI
The Court of Appeal judgment helps understand what happened.
The AG played a limited role. She “rehearsed some of the facts and said that the sentences had caused widespread public concern”
Her contribution was seemingly not considered by the Court to be legal submissions. Oof.
1) God bless the State of Texas and @KenPaxtonTX What he has just done gives us every chance to save our Republic and our country.
Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by
2) another state is one of those instances.
https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh
Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to
3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were
4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting
5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but
Keep in mind that there are only a few instances where a party can file a direct lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court, a state claiming harm by
2) another state is one of those instances.
https://t.co/xvXGDdgDYh
Texas Attorney General @KenPaxtonTX has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court seeking and emergency injunction against Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia “from taking action to
The ONLY court that can hear the #TexasLawSuit is the Supreme Court of the United States. When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases. SCOTUS does not have discretion to ignore
— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) December 8, 2020
3) certify presidential electors or to have such electors take any official action including without limitation participating in the electoral college.”
@KenPaxtonTX argues that arbitrary changes made by the state’s governors, secretaries of states and election supervisors were
4) “inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.”
The lawsuit states: “these non-legislative changes … facilitated the casting
5) and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.” […] “By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens vote, but
In the MATTER OF Jones David HOLLISTER
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
A171609.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
July 8, 2020.
https://t.co/qB3G8IAtxS we must correctly interpret the statute.
Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or. 72, 77, 948 P.2d 722 (1997).
legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary
Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
https://t.co/oJuecwvEKc
J. Gibbons https://t.co/TieeoF2bZd
— braingarbage (@braingarbage) December 5, 2020
Bruce L. Campbell, John C. Clarke, and Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Transgender Law Center, interACT, and Beyond Binary Legal.
Does ORS 33.460 permit the circuit court to grant a legal change of sex from male or female to nonbinary? The circuit court concluded that the statute does not permit such a change, and it denied petitioner's application under ORS 33.460
