Skip to main content

View Diary: 9th Circuit strikes down Arizona anti-Planned Parenthood law (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What's-her-face, Orley the lawyer/dentist was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phonegery, daeros

    fined by a court for her many silly birther suits, but I believe that was because she kept annoying the same judge.

    The right of the women of this State to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated by the State legislature.

    by Mayfly on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:31:35 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  She was the plaintiff (or plaintiff's lawyer) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright, Mayfly, phonegery

      filing frivolous lawsuits that had no basis in law or fact. That's what got her in trouble, and no, it wasn't all in front of the same judge, but they took judicial notice of each others' rulings. Once one judge has told you an argument is frivolous, filing the same argument in a different court means you already knew it was frivolous. Big sanctions result.

      Here, it's the AZ legislature and governor who are doing the obviously unconstitutional things, and Planned Parenthood, ACLU, etc. who are bringing the issue into court as they're entitled to do. That's much harder to punish. The leg and governor are co-equal branches of government, and arguably it isn't really unconstitutional until SCOTUS says so (if they do). So no, wasting the court's time that way doesn't necessarily get you sanctioned.

      OTH there was the case in NH that went all the way to the Supremes -- all in the same week -- after the Governor ordered the flag over the State House lowered to half mast on Good Friday to honor Jesus's martyrdom. The ACLU got legal fees on that (as the prevailing party), but I don't believe there were sanctions levied against either the Governor or the AG's office that defended his action (as they were legally bound to do -- but sent one of the young guys in the office, not the AG himself, which was a pretty strong signal. The Bar always sympathized with the guy who got stuck with that task, who went on to have an excellent legal career in private practice.)

      •  Thanks, rugbymom. nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        phonegery

        The right of the women of this State to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated by the State legislature.

        by Mayfly on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 07:22:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for taking the time to answer. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mayfly

        I realilze that things take time, It just seems lately as if the same thing, only slightly changed or restated, calls forth some 'way in the future this case will be heard, and the decision will be contested, and the next higher court will have to get it and take the time to reach a decision, which will be appealed, and then,

        finally, in the future the case will be heard.  But, by then, it may well be too late.  The lake has been drained.  The explosion has occured.  The water is undrinkable. The court has been so starved for money that it is three years behind, and two judges short. The children who were in forth grade, are now in eighth grade, and the teacher has 45 kids in the class, and no helper.  I so wish it wasn't so.

        Time is a long river.

        by phonegery on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 09:52:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site