“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

Post by giantg2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #119

giantg2 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the courts generally say that you have to accommodate or remedy whatever the general request or grievance. They generally do not write/rewrite policy. That's supposed be for the executive and legislative branch to come up with. It should be interesting to watch. My guess is we won't hear the final result for a few years... as usual.

Right, but... if I understand correctly, the judge ordered things to be done to stop the ongoing harm while the case was being decided . In order to avoid having to do this, LA is going to need to win an appeal about the temporary order before the 180 days runs out. Court slowness is now working against LA. Disclaimer: IANAL, and all that...

Post by giantg2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 9:47 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #122

giantg2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of school integration, the prior ruling under Brown was not being followed. That failure to follow that ruling then lead to a second judgement giving judges specific powers to force the correct implementation of Brown if the school districts had not done it themselves. It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment. Usually it's only that a specific policy is not allowed or…

> It's very odd to jump directly to writing detailed policy on a first judgment It is not at all unusual for preliminary injunctions, when they are issued at all, to include specific mandated interim actions to prevent or interrupt ongoing harm. That’s, in fact, the whole reason preliminary injunctions exist.

Post by celticninja » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 12:41 PM UTC

thrill wrote: post #25

celticninja wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have legalised cannabis in the states, that's a better pain relief option.

And your medical degree is from where?