However, by showing the various steps (which bv themselves are weak points), when taken as a whole, they go to prove the overall case.
Case for what?
I quoted nothing of the sort. I quoted specific areas of judgment that the Ninth circuit is extremely liberal in their rulings.
No, you quoted about the court's political disposition, not about the assertion of jurisdiction, a matter of civil procedure. Political persuasions and ideologies are not a factor in jurisdiction. Whether the court is liberal or conservative in viewpoint or in application is entirely distinct from the
kind of power the court either
can or
does assert.
The 9th Circuit is a federal district court covering at least eight states. It is not a California court and it is not relevant your claim about how you "know what goes on" in California. Either you're talking about the 9th Circuit or you're talking about California. Make up your mind.
So you are saying the Ninth is liberal in viewpoint, but conservative in its rulings?
No. Exactly as I have stated, California courts are rather conservative in assertion of jurisdiction. It is very consistent on the whole with the areas in which courts exercise power and where they refuse to do so, leaving it to the legislature.
The death penalty, and the banning of lethal injection is a perfect example. The interpretation of "cruel and unusual" is stretched to its very limit in that ruling to make a liberal interpretation based on ideology.
You might want to do some further reading on the history of capital crimes before making that statement. What about states where capital punishment is off the books? How is it possible that those decisions are less of a stretch? How is it possible that executions stopped in 1972 based on the opinions of some of the most conservative SCOTUS justices of the past century? Further, lethal injection isn't banned; it's the
only method of execution in the state of California.
California consumers have an interest, but California does not have an interest in protecting their citizens? You make no sense at all.
The state of California has no interest at law in the issue. It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the terminology, but insist on using it anyway. California has no interest here, i.e. the state is not a party and there is no public policy issue to tackle. A court will be reticent to impose new law contrary to previous law where there is no health or safety risk or where the state has no interest.
IJ Reilly said:
I don't understand what you mean by this. If the state has laws, then the state has an interest.
No. A state has interest only where legal action confines decisions as a matter of public policy. The state has no interest because it is not advancing a position of law (e.g. requiring that realtors be licensed and therefore infringing on liberty of unlicensed realtors). The state here is neither a party to the suit nor does either suit challenge state policies. There is therefore no state interest to balance. The existence of law is not sufficient to create an interest, because otherwise the state would have interest in
all cases brought before it; state interest is a particular
kind of issue, not a tautology.
This, when combined with the lack of a pressing safety or health issue and the other factors mentioned in my earlier post, mean that the state will not create new law here. At best, they will enforce existing common law and require unlocking upon satisfaction of contractual obligations, with assorted caveats and exceptions (for example, an indication that the device simply will not work on other networks [whether it
potentially could or not).
