LogFAQs > #923852903

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 227: Cancel the Politics Topic: 250 B8ers will Die
xp1337 06/25/19 11:25:47 PM #142:	red sox 777 posted... xp1337 posted... https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf "To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection." The standard for this kind of review is to assume all of the facts are as favorable as possible to the party opposing the request. Effectively they are asking for a ruling that even if all the allegations about the Hofeller stuff is true, the decision would still be the same. The Supreme Court can't look at the evidence in the other case and decide what's credible and what's not so they have to assume the worst possible facts for the party seeking this kind of determination. That's an "and" though, as in "plz address equal protection and also say that evidence wouldn't matter in regards to it regardless of what it might say". They're still requesting SCOTUS to address equal protection, are they not? Certainly the equal protection argument is larger than just those files. Yes, the government won in district court on that which is why it isn't an issue here, but it seems to me like DOJ is straight-up asking SCOTUS to affirm that district court ruling on equal protection when, AFAIK, it was never argued before SCOTUS. Am I mistaken? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:923852903] in Politics C... [t:77811053]...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>xp1337 posted...</cite> <quote>https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/104091/20190625161322614_DEPT OF COMMERCE ET AL 18-966 LETTER.pdf "To avoid that needless prospect, and as the government explained in its opposition to NYIC's motion to remand (at 16-17), this court should address the equal-protection claim in its opinion, and make clear that the administrative record, the extra-record evidence, and the Hofeller files do not, individually or together, provide any basis for setting aside the Secretary's decision on the ground that it violates principles of equal protection."</quote> The standard for this kind of review is to assume all of the facts are as favorable as possible to the party opposing the request. Effectively they are asking for a ruling that even if all the allegations about the Hofeller stuff is true, the decision would still be the same. The Supreme Court can't look at the evidence in the other case and decide what's credible and what's not so they have to assume the worst possible facts for the party seeking this kind of determination.</quote> That's an "and" though, as in "plz address equal protection and also say that evidence wouldn't matter in regards to it regardless of what it might say". They're still requesting SCOTUS to address equal protection, are they not? Certainly the equal protection argument is larger than just those files. Yes, the government won in district court on that which is why it isn't an issue here, but it seems to me like DOJ is straight-up asking SCOTUS to affirm that district court ruling on equal protection when, AFAIK, it was never argued before SCOTUS. Am I mistaken? --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1