July 13, 2006
Ruling late Thursday afternoon, the 5th Circuit agreed to a schedule proposed by BenkiserÂ’s attorneys, by which they would file their opening brief tomorrow, the state DemocratsÂ’ attorneys would file a response by July 21, the GOP would file a reply by July 26 and an appeals court panel of judges will take the case July 31.The panel of judges will determine on July 31st whether theyÂ’ll hear oral arguments in the case.
That would permit them to rule by the August 4 date that the Texas GOP is claiming it needs to name a replacement -- and to come up for a replacement for THAT candidate if he/she is on the ballot for another office.
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle, being the local paper of record, contains only a small blurb with significantly less information.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday granted an expedited hearing to the Texas Republican Party on its quest to replace former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot.An order signed by Judge Fortunato "Pete" Benavides said the court will take up the case on July 31, but did not commit to hearing oral arguments.
Attorneys have until July 26 to file briefs.
The Texas Republican Party is appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks that GOP Chair Tina Benkiser cannot declare DeLay ineligible to appear on the ballot and that the Republicans can take no action to replace DeLay. The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Democratic Party.
So much for fully informing the constituents of CD22 about a situation that directly impacts them. And only 9 hours later than the much more informative Fort Bend Now post cited above.
Posted by: Greg at
07:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.
Standards. Oral argument must be allowed in
every case unless a panel of three judges who have examined the briefs and record unanimously agrees that oral argument is unnecessary for any of the following reasons:
(A) the appeal is frivolous;
(B) the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided; or
(C) the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented in the briefs and record, and the
decisional process would not be significantly
aided by oral argument.
Given the amount of time to prepare for the briefs, I find C unlikely and I'm sure "A" would not be acceptable.
They may be able to rule by August 4, but I think it would cover if they needed to hear oral arguments.
Posted by: unrepresented at Fri Jul 14 16:36:04 2006 (04mbJ)
But I will say that what is ignored is the ability of the federal court to issue an order extending any statutory deadline for equitible reasons based upon the delay cause by the court process.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jul 14 16:49:52 2006 (rhBHm)
21 queries taking 0.0082 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.