From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 02:34 PM 2/20/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: > >John, > > > >>>I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San > >>>Francisco. It's been nice having something to cheer about while watching > >>>the local newscast. :-D > >> > >> I presume by the smiley that you aren't serious. > >> > >> Surely that kind of judicial ruling is not good for a free society. > > > >Do you mean that it is /not/ the job of Judges to insist that legal > >documents be constructed so as to insure that their meaning is clear? > > You have GOT to be kidding me, right? > > To quote Ivanova "You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit > of the law." > > I'm sorry, but forcing a multi-day delay in a legal process over a > semicolon is cynical, craven, crass, and unbecoming of a judge no matter > what side you are on. > > And I must say that I am *shocked*, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find none of > Brin-L's reisdent left-wingers criticzing this absurdity, and in fact, > several of them praising it. > > JDG - Who is frankly sick and tired of liberals on Brin-L cynically > insisting upon so-falled "fair-mindedness" from conservatives, and seeing > scant sign of it from themselves. > > Did somebody once mention "due process" on this List? I couldn't tell. > Did you even *read* the article. quote: ------------------------------------- The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked the judge to issue an order commanding the city to "cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to and/or solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples; to show cause before this court." "The way you've written this it has a semicolon where it should have the word 'or'," the judge told them. "I don't have the authority to issue it under these circumstances." ------------------------------------- The semicolon changes the meaning of what is written, and the judge said he didn't have the authority to order it as it was written. It isn't just symantics and technicalities, it's a matter of *law*. The article also said: ------------------------------------- The second judge told the plaintiffs that they would likely succeed on the merits eventually, but that for now, he couldn't accept their proposed court order because of a punctuation error. ------------------------------------- See, one of the same judges that "shot it down" on what you call a technicality said that the plantiffs (the people seeking to stop the marriages) would probably win on their merrits. This isn't a case of judicial activism using symantics to strike down something they disagree with, it is clearly a wrongly worded order, and is something that the judges *cannot* order. I would *never* want a wrongly worded order to be issued in court, as all court orders are legally binding. If there is anyone to be angry at, be angry at the lawyer that prepared/submitted it. It's who I would be angry at if an issue important to me was shot down in court because the documents submitted were not correct/appropriate. A lawyer should know what is and is not neccessary, and should know not make mistakes like that. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
