Do you think a judge really has the power to do this??
Do you think a judge really has the power to do this??
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...
Should a judge be able to legislate without consent
Answers:
This is a very strange article. First, the article doesn't say who the parties are -- generally a party has to have "standing" to sue. Were these parents? A trade association? what? Second, the judge has to have "jurisdiction" over the defendant. Here, the order appears to make a countywide ban for all schools. But that doesn't fit, because I'm guessing that each of those schools didn't have an opportunity for notice and to be heard on the issue. Thus, it's likely that the injunction can't really be enforced against those schools. Third, the county-by-county choice is strange. It may have something to do with the first or second issues (who is suing and who is defending).
But this is a very different issue from the normal manner in which injunctions issue: Usually, someone asks a judge for a _particular_ person to stop doing a _particular_ thing (even if it's for the attorney general to enforce or not enforce a rule or law statewide). What would make sense is a group of parents getting together and asking for the schools that their children be enjoined from having such practices. And maybe that's what happened, but we just don't know because the article is too vague.
Also, if this is truly a "temporary restraining order", it's possible that the defendants may not have appeared. In that case, due process requires that there be notice and a hearing within 10 days, so my guess is that this judge, a little too quick to jump the gun and a little too worried after the kid died at practice, got a little overzealous. But that's why there are appeals and subsequent motion practice to dissolve the injunction!
(Remember judges in Alabama are ELECTED, so I wonder if this judge thought that the parents in those schools would refuse to vote for him/her next election for failing to "protect" their "children"!)
seems a little extreme to me. i'll be there will be backlash
more liberal global warming hooey
yeah, we can start calling it "Judicial Privilege"
what?
it works for the president
Well I have mixed feelings about it, it should have been statewide versus selected cities/counties.
lol wow thats bad...a lot of judges have been making some really wierd decisions lately...a couple of months ago a judge ruled that the words "forced" "assualt" "rape" and so on could not be mentioned by the DA police or victim in a rape trial he even made the docter chance form saying rape kit to sex kit...he told the victim that instead of saying "i woke up and he was on top of me raping me" she had to say "i woke up and he was having sex with me"
Apparently she does!
We had a kid die about this time last year during football practice in my hometown. Found out later, the coach was breaking several of the state athletic commisions rules (practicing in full pads two weeks before he was suppose to, not allowing water breaks every 30 minutes, etc). He tried to cover it up, but it came out. Lost his job; SOB should have went to jail. Actually, he's moved to MS to coach. Wonder if he was affected by this judge's ruling.
I'm afraid that Judges, even though lacking law to back up alot of their desisions, are in fact binding, even though most likely TEMPORARY, remain in force, ONLY UNTIL IT IS OVERTURED!! BECAUSE,.A Judges incorrect ruling/decision, must be argued in court, overturned, and a new ruling re-established on the record, the error corrected. NO WAY should this contiually overlooked, abuse of power be tollerated!! Neither by the Justice System or us citizens of this country!!It causes ENDLESS problems, large cost to ALL involved!!
Notwithstanding other issues, it isn't legislation. It's an injunction. It isn't permanent.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: