August 3, 2016

That’s the date the Respondent’s brief is due in the SCOTUS for Manuel v. City of Joliet.  The argument date, apparently, to abide that event.

We don’t want anything about the Manuel case to pass unnoticed, not that we have any control over anything at the SCOTUS.  Or anything else, it often seems.  Except maybe our Lenten pledge to refrain from all alcoholic beverages, including wine, to which we are otherwise partial.

Ugh.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “August 3, 2016

  1. I’ve been nursing a bottle of gamay for Lent. And by “Lent,” I mean 9:30 am.

    Like

  2. zoe

    This must cost the State truck-load of (taxpayer) money.

    I’m sure this is an important and interesting case for lawyers, but at what point does the State concede? Bitchslap, fire, fine, and criminally prosecute (and publicaly shame) the 6 cops that were involved, fire and fine the prosecutors involved, pay for Manuel’s lost wages and college costs while he was imprisoned, pay for his legal fees, medical costs, and some small punitive damages. This would still cost less taxpayer money than the legal fees for chasing appeals and SCOTUS hearings.

    At what point does “fiduciary responsibility” kick in?

    Like

    • I appreciate this comment, from an unfamiliar commenter yet.

      Where to begin? For the most part there is no point where the State/gov’t concedes. That hasn’t always been as true as it is now, but it’s still been true to some extent. It’s an often frustrating, but just as frequently bewildering thing to me. Here’s one kind of example – you have to read closely – from 1942. Here’s something I wrote almost four years ago about it.

      There’s a feeling some people have that to admit error is to show weakness, but nothing is weaker, in the sense of being more destructive, than willfully persisting in error.

      All that said, I didn’t like the Manuel case because of the very unappealing career-criminal type Plaintiff and the argument the Petitioner is making, and I still don’t. The problem here is not that it’s costly the way you are arguing; rather, it’s terrifying to contemplate the cost of what the SCOTUS might do with the Manuel case, given what is being argued, unless something to counterbalance this cert grant happens in the meantime, before Manuel is decided.

      One hopeful thing is that it’s not going to be decided until well into the next term.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s