Mickey Kaus

Kausfiles

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
Mickey Kaus

13

Pretty sure that’s not right–eg if lower court gets the law wrong (as higher court sees it). twitter.com/jpodhoretz/sta…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

Related

| 5 years ago on Twitter

Post navigation

← Remember @megynkelly barely mentioning O’s exec am… Leave Fabio alone! https://t.co/kgbn6co4rg https:/… →
Logging In...

Profile cancel

Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook
or

Not published

  • 13 Replies
  • 0 Comments
  • 13 Tweets
  • 0 Facebook
  • 0 Pingbacks
Last reply was March 18, 2016
NicholasStix retweeted thisjimbeha retweeted this
  1. @jpodhoretz
    View March 18, 2016

    @kausmickey from ABA, which supports my contention and also may in part support yours https://t.co/89Ooxvtx2b

  2. @jonathanmprince
    View March 18, 2016

    @jpodhoretz @kausmickey I believe the distinction is matters of fact (not) vs matters of law (yes)

  3. @GruitMaster
    View March 18, 2016

    @kausmickey appeals court can only rule on matters of law. Trial courts determine facts and can not normally be overruled on facts.

  4. @jpodhoretz
    View March 18, 2016

    @jonathanmprince @kausmickey from what I read, Denton’s chief claim has to do with matters of fact–wants things introduced

  5. @jonathanmprince
    View March 18, 2016

    @jpodhoretz @kausmickey right, but WHETHER they can be introduced is a matter of law; WHAT they mean when introduced is a matter of fact

  6. @dkahanerules
    View March 18, 2016

    @kausmickey @jpodhoretz Sullivan v. NYT would seem to be controlling law here: reckless disregard/actual malice tough hurdle.

  7. @thesummerofblog
    View March 18, 2016

    @jpodhoretz @kausmickey legal rulings can be the basis for a new trial. It depends on the ruling and the standard of review.

  8. @EsotericCD
    View March 18, 2016

    @dkahanerules @kausmickey @jpodhoretz Wrong analysis. This is not libel/slander. Invasion of privacy.

  9. @conchapman
    View March 18, 2016

    @kausmickey @jpodhoretz Kaus is right. Appeals courts review all applications of law to facts

  10. @nixon1960
    View March 19, 2016

    @kausmickey You’re very polite to the Pod here. He’s completely wrong. But at least he got Rubio right!

  11. @PaulKarch1
    View March 19, 2016

    @kausmickey Well obama era everything out window: Roberts said written word fee(?) really “meant” tax so ESP legal aid of Supremes.

Pages

  • About

Categories

  • Blog Items
  • digital marketing
  • PPC
  • SEO
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized

Links

  • RSS Feed

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • April 2010
  • March 2010

Copyright © 2010 - 2021.

Proudly powered by WordPress and hosted by PressHarbor Managed Hosting.