| Read that again "current administration's pointed directive on transparency in government, and the public's renewed interest in the question of legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that participated in the warrantless wiretapping program while considering currently pending legislation repealing the amendments to FISA, the Court finds that the public interest lies in favor of disclosure."
Nowhere in there do I see any discussion about the relevant LAW pertaining to this case. The judge is making a decision based on an Obama campaign promise and the fact that people are watching him.
--
The goggles! They do nothing! - McBain |
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Read the ruling. My take is that the court is denying the temporary stay because it doesn't believe the Defendants intend to pursue their appeal and that the Defendants haven't presented any new arguments. Additionally, the judge does reference legal precedences on what's required to prevail in a motion to stay a pending appeal. In order to prevail on a motion to stay pending appeal, Defendants would have to address the following factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). In ruling on a motion for a stay pending appeal, courts employ “‘two interrelated legal tests’ that ‘represent the outer reaches of a single continuum.’” Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983)). “At one end of the continuum, the moving party is required to show both a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.” Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. “At the other end of the continuum, the moving party must demonstrate that serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Id. |
