--jks
>
>Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> > OK, there's no distinction. The judge just asked to me look up whether
>some
> > plaintiffs can maintain a malicious prosecution action. Shall I say,
>Judge,
> > you are a liberal Democrat, and these are plaintiffs suing a city that
>"we
> > all know" is corrupt. Sure they can. I'll write it that way, because law
>is
> > just politics. I don't need to worry about whether they have satisfied
>the
> > elements of this cause of action, that's just window dressing,
>ideological
> > folderal. Good idea? On the other hand, the plaintiffs are cops, and as
> > liberals, don't we hate cops? So maybe we should find for the city
>because
> > cops are bad. Oh, what fun, law is totally indeterminate.
> >
> > - --jks
> >
> > >
> > >Justin Schwartz wrote:
> > >
> > >>This isn't politics. It's law.
> > >
> > >Fascinating distinction.
> > >
> > >Doug
> >
>
>The level of indeterminacy increases with the hierarchy; lowest at trial
>courts and highest at the Supremes where standards for cert more or less
>acknowledge the fact. Probably _Bush v. Gore_ was the only case they had
>in years where it was impossible to craft multiple opinions for multiple
>outcomes consistent with precedent and the accepted rules of
>constitutional and statutory construction.
>
>john mage
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com