@gracels That misses the point entirely and absolutely.
-
-
@gracels Even her lawyer's acknowledge from the start that their claim here is purely procedural.pic.twitter.com/JaHkWCcALB
-
@chrisgeidner They’re trying to force piecemeal litigation. Courts hate that. -
@gracels Yes, and yet. Blind squirrel and all ...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@chrisgeidner Sorry. I thought you meant on merits. You mean just on class cert? What would that accomplish? -
@gracels Of course she's going to lose on the merits. And, it's not on class cert; it's on this "clarification" that Bunning issued. -
@gracels I think the 6th Circuit could go either way on it. From the one side: "At the end of the day, she's wrong wrong wrong. So, stop." -
@gracels On the other side: "If you're going to be throwing people in jail for contempt, we're going to make sure your orders are clear." -
@chrisgeidner But Bunning’s contempt citation is not tainted by any confusion over the “clarification” is it? -
@gracels Yeah, it is -- at least as to the order in which he released her. Her release is contingent on not violating the clarified order. -
@chrisgeidner To reverse clarified order would procedural nightmare for both trial and appellate court. Not seeing that scenario.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.