"How dare these peasants try to tell us kings how to rule."
"How dare these peasants try to tell us kings how to rule."
"y'all can't do that, only we can do that" - GOP
May someone please explain that 1st one, I don't understand what it's trying to say.
They need to hurry up with the student loan thing. I know it is a long shot, but a lot of our long-term plans are going to be decided based on this ruling and i got shit i want to do lol.
Yea, the GOP thing is just grand standing, non of that matters, only the SCOTUS.
Jokes on them in the second ruling. There won't be any wetlands left in 50 years!
Sent from my SM-A505U1 using Tapatalk
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law...ues-for-appeal
Article explains it, but I am having trouble putting it into simple terms.
I'm still a little lost. I was hoping Kaslo or Gredival had a way to explain it in a good way.
Gred, explain it in Abyssea terms pls.
So two basic principles at work here
First, in order to prevent appellants from tacking on a bunch of irrelevant shit as the appeal gets deeper (and to punish bad lawyers) you have to preserve issues for appeal by bringing them up right away.
Second, appeals are only given if the court fucked up not the jury (issue of law vs issue of fact). With some radical exceptions, if the jury decided something, no matter how stupidly, the court can't just say they are wrong.
In this case, the appellant didn't raise an issue at his post trial so normally the issue dies by not being preserved for appeal. The appeals court refused to hear his case because of this.
The Supreme Court is allowing the appeal because it is a legal claim only, and because he filed a motion on the issue before the trial that was rejected. Because it was a legal question, the trial didn't change anything so filing it again after the trial wouldn't have resulted in a different verdict. Therefore appealing the denial pre-trial to the next court, rather than raising a post trial motion only to get denied again, should be sufficient to keep the issue alive.
There is no verdict in the case. This is only saying that the appeals court now has to actually listen to the appeal.
This is a good decision that a lot of people will misinterpret because the appellant was a cop trying to get out of liability for claims by an inmate.
i don't remember that part of abyssea
Lol
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
The Abysses part comes in when the prisoner wins because he cries about being oppressed by someone higher in the power structure and the court fucks over the guard despite the guard's investment in playing and winning by the predefined rules.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
God, y’all don’t know how much schadenfreude I experienced when the XI devs finally admitted that day of the week and direction didn’t have any effect on crafting. Someone in my LS tried arguing with me on that so hard and they were so adamant about it with the whole “I’ve got multiple 100 jobs across five characters I know what I’m talking about!!!” and I’m like ok go off Queen and that was like 2010 but I still remember how damn obstinate they were