Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

  1. #31
    Professor

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-16 @ 07:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,526

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    I wish people's desire for the whole story would actually extend beyond what a journalist interprets a court decision to be.

    After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ complaints state plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and should be permitted to proceed in the litigation. However, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy to be granted in this circuit only upon a “clear showing” of entitlement. After thorough review of the record, the court finds that as to two challenged provisions of SL 2013-381, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing they are likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying legal claims. As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction. Consequently, the motions for prelimminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied. This resolution renders the motions to exclude expert testimony moot.
    The judge never said the plaintiffs had "plausible claims," he just sited their complaint and that they should be handled during the trial. The fact that denied the injunction pretty much means this case is going nowhere. Pretty common sense, if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would have granted the injunction. The rest of the decision cites some case precedence which more or less support that conclusion.

    At this point, I wonder what this has cost the Federal government? Sadly, the current DOJ seems hell bent on continuing these fishing expeditions attempting to overturn established precedence.

  2. #32
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    I told you I didn't see it. However it was referenced and if you know how the system works, you'd understand why this is unnecessary. The judge spells out what the defendant asked for.
    So it really wasn't about this decision at all?
    It's just something which was referenced as background?
    The judge referenced the defendant's response to judge's decision in the decision itself?

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Which means further cases can be brought, however, this one was defeated.
    Imho, the "case" is the Mann v et al and these were two motions filed in the case--one by plaintiff and one by defense.
    Each motion was denied.

    But I expect that the attorneys will continue to litigate and file all sorts of this that and the others.
    I may be wrong.

  3. #33
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    ...courts habitually grant injunctions when they see the likelihood of a suit being successful and the potential for the plaintiff's suffering some form of harm without the injunction.
    The judge says "irreparable harm" is a "a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief" and that "a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy".

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    This simply tells me that the judge wants to see the case go to trial, presumably to provide some guidance/closure, but that he doesn't believe it's likely to succeed in the end.
    The judge said he wasn't convinced on two of the challenges, but even if he was convinced the plaintiffs would win on all challenges, the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer irreparable harm in the mean time.
    I may be wrong.

  4. #34
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishstyx View Post
    The fact that denied the injunction pretty much means this case is going nowhere. Pretty common sense, if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would have granted the injunction.
    When I read where the judge wrote

    "As to the remaining provisions, the court finds that even assuming Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, they have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable harm - a necessary prerequisite for preliminary relief - before trial in the absence of an injunction."

    I took it a totally different way than you did.
    To me, it seems that the judge is saying more or less the opposite of what you're saying.

    I would have paraphrased what it seems the judge specifically and explicitly said as something more like, "Even if the case had a likelihood of success based on the plaintiffs' plausible claims, the judge would NOT have granted the injunction."

    I may be wrong.

  5. #35
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    So it really wasn't about this decision at all?
    It's just something which was referenced as background?
    The judge referenced the defendant's response to judge's decision in the decision itself?
    You have absolutely no idea how a lawsuit works do you?

    Imho, the "case" is the Mann v et al and these were two motions filed in the case--one by plaintiff and one by defense.
    Each motion was denied.
    above question applies here, too.

    But I expect that the attorneys will continue to litigate and file all sorts of this that and the others.
    That's what they do.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #36
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    You have absolutely no idea how a lawsuit works do you?
    Do tell.
    I may be wrong.

  7. #37
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Do tell.
    Plaintiff files a complaint with the court. Defendant files a response. In the response, the defendant requests what they would like the court to do (counter suit, in a nutshell). The defendant is not filing a separate complaint....it's a response to the complaint. The complaint was defeated....had it never been filed, the defendant would not have requested anything at all....to claim it is a loss for both sides is a superficial and, well, a childish way of looking at things.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  8. #38
    Hates Kittens
    NonoBadDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Mountains
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    15,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    I find it ironic that people had to show their ID 4 (four) times to get into the DNC convention in but they are pushing for no ID for voting. Amazing, just freaking amazing.

  9. #39
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    ...to claim it is a loss for both sides is a superficial and, well, a childish way of looking at things.
    In any case, the judge seems to think that he has denied motions from the defendant and the plaintiff.

    "After careful consideration, the court concludes that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied in its entirety."
    "Consequently, the motions for preliminary injunction and the United States’ request for federal observers will be denied."
    I may be wrong.

  10. #40
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,981
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: DOJ loses NC voter ID case in federal court.

    Quote Originally Posted by NonoBadDog View Post
    I find it ironic that people had to show their ID 4 (four) times to get into the DNC convention in but they are pushing for no ID for voting. Amazing, just freaking amazing.
    Maybe there's more of a problem with people trying to enter the convention than there is of the kind of voter fraud which would be prevented by showing ID?

    Apparently, the kind of voter fraud which can be prevented by showing ID is extremely rare.

    I may be wrong.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •