13
Pretty sure that’s not right–eg if lower court gets the law wrong (as higher court sees it). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
Mickey Kaus
Kausfiles
Pretty sure that’s not right–eg if lower court gets the law wrong (as higher court sees it). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…
@kausmickey from ABA, which supports my contention and also may in part support yours https://t.co/89Ooxvtx2b
@jpodhoretz @kausmickey I believe the distinction is matters of fact (not) vs matters of law (yes)
@kausmickey appeals court can only rule on matters of law. Trial courts determine facts and can not normally be overruled on facts.
@jonathanmprince @kausmickey from what I read, Denton’s chief claim has to do with matters of fact–wants things introduced
@jpodhoretz @kausmickey right, but WHETHER they can be introduced is a matter of law; WHAT they mean when introduced is a matter of fact
@kausmickey @jpodhoretz Sullivan v. NYT would seem to be controlling law here: reckless disregard/actual malice tough hurdle.
@jpodhoretz @kausmickey legal rulings can be the basis for a new trial. It depends on the ruling and the standard of review.
@dkahanerules @kausmickey @jpodhoretz Wrong analysis. This is not libel/slander. Invasion of privacy.
@kausmickey @jpodhoretz Kaus is right. Appeals courts review all applications of law to facts
@kausmickey You’re very polite to the Pod here. He’s completely wrong. But at least he got Rubio right!
@kausmickey Well obama era everything out window: Roberts said written word fee(?) really “meant” tax so ESP legal aid of Supremes.