“but I am getting tired of the need for slick moves in this case/mess. Once we get to this or that find point of the law for justice, justice goes out the window.”
actually, turns out that it’s more than a slick maneuver: it’s apparently how emergency writs of mandamus are handled when they’re not simply denied outright (the usual case)...
the appeals court simply wants to hear Judge Sullivan’s side of the arguments in the writ before they actually rule on it ... courts like to hear both sides of an argument before they make a ruling ... which is a good thing ...
“the appeals court simply wants to hear Judge Sullivan’s side of the arguments in the writ before they actually rule on it ... courts like to hear both sides of an argument before they make a ruling ... which is a good thing …”
Not buying the simply wants to hear thing, when this appears to be open and shut. At some point in procedure, justice goes out the window, and something else takes it’s place, like injustice. Sorry you did not cross the T or dot the I will not work for justice here. Or my timelines are more important than other things like justice.