5th Circuit Panel Accuses Right-Wing Judge Of ‘Abuse Of Discretion’ In Obamacare Case

[txlawyer]

Dishing risks disclosure of my secret identity.

[richardinjax]

Lets take a look at the other side of this bullshit. Not the in’s and out’s of how it was done but what it will do. The goal was to chisel away a critical part of the Affordable Care Act out of cruel partisan motive. Take away its preventive healthcare.

Preventive Care is the gist of modern medicine. Its what all Docs clock in for. 1 in 8 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in their lives. 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. If they do nothing about these conditions or do not know they have them about 80 % of them will die of these cancers. Both are horrible ways to die.

Both are very treatable and with treatment survival is 90 % or better. However to survive prostate or breast cancer you must first be diagnosed with it BEFORE it has reached an untreatable stage. That’s done with PSA testing, mammograms and other screening. Preventive health care. How cruel would it be to take that away from 150 million people? In that 150 million about 18 million will suffer one of these cancers. Some will seek care when they pee blood or feel a lump but that’s the 1950’s way to go about it.

Can anyone fathom the cruelty in this O’Connor assholes desire to shoot down ACA because Obama is responsible for it? I’ll bet that POS gets great healthcare gratis of the taxes of those he would take it away from.

Why not be “Pro Life” and fix the silly appointment argument so that people can live rather than use it to let a few conservative misanthropes enjoy the misery they cause ?

[DuckmanGR]

If that jackass Kascmaryk (SP don’t care) can do injunctions from the Alamo Chapel for the whole country I don’t see why a State can’t prosecute people in the state who are impacting everyone in the State.

The Supreme Court has poisoned our entire country.

[txlawyer]

This is silly. Crimes get prosecuted in the jurisdiction(s) where they occur. It’s basic due process.

[DuckmanGR]

Right. So is the NV AG going to be able to proceed with this case against the alleged fraudulent electors?

[txlawyer]

Try reading my comment before responding the it and then demanding the information it already contained.

[noonm]

@txlawyer

This is silly. Crimes get prosecuted in the jurisdiction(s) where they occur. It’s basic due process.

But isn’t this crime basically against the entire state of Nevada, meaning any county should have jurisdiction?

[txlawyer]

No. That’s the silly thing. trump tried to fuck over the entire country with J6, but he’s charged with it in DC because that’s where he did the crime.

[stellermeller]

Thank you for the excellent comments.

[ronbyers]

Great point, but if Connor’s decision leads to the death 18 million poors the conservative world is enhanced. So from Connor’s point of view setting in motion the premature death of millons of poor souls who don’t work for companies that provide health care is achieving his conservative goal.

[DuckmanGR]

Gosh, you’re right, I shoulda read that comment again before I asked a dumb question.

I just asked, my friend, I demanded nothing. I’m not your enemy. I appreciate your legal knowledge. I’m trying to read and ask questions while I’m working, so even in this surprisingly short thread I can’t always go back and remind myself how you responded.

I know, I should just eff off and focus on my work, just like everyone on these comment boards does, right? Just shut up and don’t ask questions, just sit in the back of the pew. Thanks, appreciate your understanding and compassion.

I guess I should just not participate on these boards, or perhaps, just not with you. So, fine, I’ll refrain from trying to understand the legal ramifications of what the GOP and our Oligarch Overlords are doing. I hope that makes you happy, tx.

[txlawyer]

You know that old saying about there being no bad questions? They were wrong.

[edgarant]

@carpe_diem

@edgarant

“Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law,” he said, according to contemporaneous notes kept by multiple staff members in the meeting. “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.

How is this not perjury? He was sworn in for this testimony unless I am mistaken.

If it quacks like a duck……

It seems clearly to be perjury.

[brian512]

@txlawyer

Ah, Judge O’Connor. That brings back . . . nightmares.

PTSD: Paleocon Trumpist Stress Disorder.

[dont]

@richardinjax

I’ll bet that POS gets great healthcare gratis of the taxes of those he would take it away from.

You get many bonus x 100 for this. And many more.

[txlawyer]

@brian512

PTSD: Paleocon Trumpist Stress Disorder.

He starts off normal for a while until he decides who he wants to win, and then it’s complete insanity. And then he changes his mind, and it’s more complete insanity.

[joelopines]

@txlawyer

“abuse of discretion” is the standard of review on appeal.

This is one of the rare instances where I disagree with your take about a fundamental matter.

An error of law does not constitute abuse of discretion. Arrogation of authority is what abuse of discretion is about. When I worked at the Court of Criminal Appeals (drafting opinions for my judge[s]), we reversed many cases, and other reversals circulated before the Court voted them down. It was rare to see abuse of discretion as the cause for these reversals. Errors of law, or of the application of the law to the facts, comprised the lion’s share of cause for reversal,

IMO, they ripped O’Conner a new one, most genteelly.

[john_adams]

@tpr

Why would anything stop? There are no penalties. There is effectively zero cost to those who launch these malicious assaults on ordered liberty.

Bingo! 100% correct. Every single one of these cases is nothing more than a coordinated exercise in boiling the frog. What would have once been considered completely insane requiring immediate legislative remedy is now considered a bit too far. And inch by inch they push farther and farther right until what people consider “far left” is to the right of Nixon. I’ll bring it up again. This is exactly the lessons the Nazis learned in 1933. That you can push the people too far, too fast. So better to gently nudge them so they don’t notice. Take your time. Don’t be in a hurry and you’ll get there. The real problem in this country is that there is zero push back. The right clearly is all in on billionaire-approved far right authoritarian fascism, and if it takes a little Christo-fascism to get there, so be it. But there is no equivalent agenda on the left to take us the other way. Even if there were, at this rate it would take a generation just to stop the far right slide, and another generation to get us back to where we were just before that fat greasy orange slob befouled the White House.

[txlawyer]

@joelopines

An error of law does not constitute abuse of discretion.

A court has no discretion to get the law wrong:

A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if “it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d at 917. This standard, however, has different applications in different circumstances.

With respect to resolution of factual issues or matters committed to the trial court’s discretion, for example, the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 111 S.W.2d 38, 41-42 (Tex.1989) (holding that determination 840*840 of discoverability under Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d) was within discretion of trial court); Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918 (holding that trial court was within discretion in granting a new trial “in the interest of justice and fairness”). The relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id. at 917. Even if the reviewing court would have decided the issue differently, it cannot disturb the trial court’s decision unless it is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918.

On the other hand, review of a trial court’s determination of the legal principles controlling its ruling is much less deferential. A trial court has no “discretion” in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. See Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991) (trial court abused discretion by misinterpreting Code of Judicial Conduct); NCNB Texas National Bank v. Coker, 765 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.1989) (trial court abused discretion by failing to apply proper legal standard to motion to disqualify counsel); Eanes ISD v. Logue, 712 S.W.2d 741, 742 (Tex.1986) (trial court abused discretion by erroneously finding constitutional violation).

In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in the present case, we treat the trial court’s erroneous denial of the requested discovery on the sole basis of Russell as a legal conclusion to be reviewed with limited deference to the trial court. This is consistent with our approach in previous mandamus proceedings arising out of the trial court’s interpretation of legal rules. Cf. Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990); Barnes v. Whittigton, 751 S.W.2d 493, 495-96 (Tex.1988); Terry v. Lawrence, 700 S.W.2d 912, 913-14 (Tex. 1985). Under this analysis, the trial court’s erroneous interpretation of the law constitutes a clear abuse of discretion.

Walker v. Packer, 829 S.W.3d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992).

[stradivarius50t3]

It’s not perjury because it happened at a meeting in Collins’ office, attended by her staffers (who took notes). Kavadope wasn’t sworn in.

He lied through his teeth, but that gave gullible Susie the fig-leaf she needed to support the beer bro’s nomination. Susie wanted to be lied to, and the beer bro obliged her.

As gullible as she is, I am left wondering how in the world teen-aged Susie didn’t get knocked up in high school.