Are you saying that Tanya Chutkan lacked discretion. Here I thought that a judge was all about discretion. If they don't have discretion then we don't need judges just automatons, AI.
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.
Baloney. As usual the media dolesn't understand the procedure. Without evidence the judge lacked discretion.
Are you saying that Tanya Chutkan lacked discretion. Here I thought that a judge was all about discretion. If they don't have discretion then we don't need judges just automatons, AI.
It's not a done deal. The judge is open to the plaintiffs returning with facts that will lead to a ruling against Musk.
I am only a layman, but so far she has ruled in favor of the plaintiff's, to me that is a tell. She didn't have to, and should not
1. Discretion -- "clear and convincing" is not the same as "preponderence." Judges can't rule if the plaintiffs don't bring actual evidence. Can't grant a TRO on the pleadings. In antideluvian time, the lawyers had to verrify, under oath, the pleadings. Who are the actual witnesses?
2. In the actiual case on the merits she has to take testimopny and give both sides due process before she rules.