Comments on: The al-Haramain Case Stays On Track http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Wahrheit http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-149230 Wahrheit Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:48:32 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-149230 <p>This is really encouraging in spite of the Obama DOJ channeling Addington. Maybe they need to open the windows and bring in a psychic cleanser. </p> This is really encouraging in spite of the Obama DOJ channeling Addington. Maybe they need to open the windows and bring in a psychic cleanser.

]]> By: MarkH http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-149197 MarkH Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:14:47 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-149197 <p>Typical crazy Bushie behavior: you’ve been caught with the 183 water-boardings story, so you reveal that you illegally wiretapped and blackmailed a Dem Congresswoman to distract people’s attention from the earlier story.</p> Typical crazy Bushie behavior: you’ve been caught with the 183 water-boardings story, so you reveal that you illegally wiretapped and blackmailed a Dem Congresswoman to distract people’s attention from the earlier story.

]]> By: acquarius74 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148988 acquarius74 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:02:15 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148988 <p>Thank you, bmaz, for all your ‘real work’ in helping us understand the really important decisions being made regarding the laws we are all supposed to abide by. If we can just get our Justice Dept cleaned up, our country can make it through whatever else comes. Judge Walker gives me hope that someday that may be possible.</p> Thank you, bmaz, for all your ‘real work’ in helping us understand the really important decisions being made regarding the laws we are all supposed to abide by. If we can just get our Justice Dept cleaned up, our country can make it through whatever else comes. Judge Walker gives me hope that someday that may be possible.

]]> By: acquarius74 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148972 acquarius74 Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:11:14 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148972 <p>Good to ’see’ you again, posaune. I really wish you would share your mother’s diary with us in some form. (some things I <em>never</em> forget…)</p> Good to ’see’ you again, posaune. I really wish you would share your mother’s diary with us in some form. (some things I never forget…)

]]> By: scribe http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148835 scribe Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:18:05 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148835 <p>The basic reason Walker is requiring a stipulated protective order is in two parts.<br /> The first part - as to those parts the parties agree to - is that a stipulation is not appealable. It is a fundamental of appellate law everywhere that a party can only appeal from an order or judgment, and only those orders and judgments which make the party an ”aggrieved party” are appealable. In other words, you can only appeal from orders which went against you. The simplest example is if, during a trial, the judge overrules your objection to a particular piece of evidence or testimony. You can appeal from that, saying the judge overruling the objection was erroneous. If, OTOH, the judge sustains your objection, that means he has ruled in your favor. As a matter of definition, you cannot be aggrieved by a ruling in your favor and therefore cannot appeal from it.<br /> In the case of a stipulated order, i.e., one founded in a stipulation, it is not appealable because a stipulation is an agreement. In other words, you cannot be aggrieved (to support an appeal) if you agreed to that which you now say aggrieves you. It’s about the same as a settlement of a litigation: if you settle, you agree that a certain resolution is sufficient and acceptable to both parties. End of story - no one can be aggrieved by it.<br /> Clear? (NB - the whole ”only an aggrieved party can appeal” thing is a part of … standing doctrine.)<br /> The second part - requiring the parties to both identify where they disagree and, more importantly, why, is a bit more interesting. Walker is saying he does expect the parties will not be able to resolve all the issues between them. But, wanting them to identify why in essence makes them lay their cards on the table. Then, he can see where DoJ and the plaintiffs are coming from and craft his resolution of the open issues in such a way as to make them … unappealable.<br /> Crafty, but this is what judges do to work through settling cases. They maintain control of the progress and disposition of the case by pushing one side or the other into an unappealable situation.</p> The basic reason Walker is requiring a stipulated protective order is in two parts.
The first part – as to those parts the parties agree to – is that a stipulation is not appealable. It is a fundamental of appellate law everywhere that a party can only appeal from an order or judgment, and only those orders and judgments which make the party an ”aggrieved party” are appealable. In other words, you can only appeal from orders which went against you. The simplest example is if, during a trial, the judge overrules your objection to a particular piece of evidence or testimony. You can appeal from that, saying the judge overruling the objection was erroneous. If, OTOH, the judge sustains your objection, that means he has ruled in your favor. As a matter of definition, you cannot be aggrieved by a ruling in your favor and therefore cannot appeal from it.
In the case of a stipulated order, i.e., one founded in a stipulation, it is not appealable because a stipulation is an agreement. In other words, you cannot be aggrieved (to support an appeal) if you agreed to that which you now say aggrieves you. It’s about the same as a settlement of a litigation: if you settle, you agree that a certain resolution is sufficient and acceptable to both parties. End of story – no one can be aggrieved by it.
Clear? (NB – the whole ”only an aggrieved party can appeal” thing is a part of … standing doctrine.)
The second part – requiring the parties to both identify where they disagree and, more importantly, why, is a bit more interesting. Walker is saying he does expect the parties will not be able to resolve all the issues between them. But, wanting them to identify why in essence makes them lay their cards on the table. Then, he can see where DoJ and the plaintiffs are coming from and craft his resolution of the open issues in such a way as to make them … unappealable.
Crafty, but this is what judges do to work through settling cases. They maintain control of the progress and disposition of the case by pushing one side or the other into an unappealable situation.

]]> By: klynn http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148829 klynn Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:44:24 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148829 <p>BTW EW</p> <p>Even though attention is mostly given to newspaper blogs, your 183 post can be nominated for a Pulitzer…I think you earned one on Saturday.</p> BTW EW

Even though attention is mostly given to newspaper blogs, your 183 post can be nominated for a Pulitzer…I think you earned one on Saturday.

]]> By: BayStateLibrul http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148828 BayStateLibrul Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:31:59 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148828 <p>Marathon Monday.<br /> Boston Billy<br /> and Marcy mentioned in the morning NT Times.<br /> Great work EW, Bmaz, and contributing members of FDL..<br /> What a day break</p> Marathon Monday.
Boston Billy
and Marcy mentioned in the morning NT Times.
Great work EW, Bmaz, and contributing members of FDL..
What a day break

]]> By: alabama http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148823 alabama Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:30:53 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148823 <p><a href="http://http//www.washingtonpost.com/" rel="nofollow"></a></p> <p>Can anyone find anything about any of this in <em>WaPo’s</em>morning edition?</p>

Can anyone find anything about any of this in WaPo’smorning edition?

]]> By: Hmmm http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148822 Hmmm Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:25:07 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148822 <p>Put differently: What else, besides leaning on NYT, did the Bush administration lean on Jane to do for them?</p> Put differently: What else, besides leaning on NYT, did the Bush administration lean on Jane to do for them?

]]> By: Anastasius http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148821 Anastasius Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:42:49 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/19/the-al-haramain-case-stays-on-track/#comment-148821 <p>Does someone know which positions Harman had back then and why Gonzo knew she would reliably come out out in defense of the program?</p> Does someone know which positions Harman had back then and why Gonzo knew she would reliably come out out in defense of the program?

]]>