It doesn't matter which judge it is, or how outspoken the judge is, NO JUDGE would EVER say anything even approaching “nothing will be dismissed on procedural grounds,” particularly at such an early stage (before any procedural issues - other than service of process - have been raised). No judge would say such a thing, because any judge who DID say such a thing would be violating their ethical duties as a judge - it is simply impermissible for a judge to state how he would rule on a motion before that motion is made, and by saying "nothing will be dismissed on procedural grounds," the judge would effectively be saying "any motion to dismiss on procedural grounds would be denied."
Making such a statement would not simply violate the judge's ethical duties, but would also, quite likely, violate one or both of the parties' Constitutional rights - many of the "procedural" rules that govern litigation are rooted in due process, and if any judge were to say that he would not dismiss an action based on procedural issues, that judge is effectively saying that the Defendant's due process rights are unenforceable
As much as I admire Orly for her persistence, the more I hear from her, the more incompetent she appears.
I have read some comments about her by lawyers who say her knowledge and work are not good and hinder her cause. Still, I have hope she can slug her way through this until the real issues are heard.
Why do I get the feeling that some of our ‘conservatives’
here are hoping Dr. Orly fails?
The judge was likely referring primarily to the narrow case that US Attorneys were there, to argue on Obama’s behalf, that Obama hadn’t even been served. The judge sais they were being ridiculous and needed to immediately take service of the papers. That is taking ridic proecdure to a new level.
You are correct. No judge would make such prejudicial comments, especially from the bench, in open court and on the record, ever. To say that such comments would be the foundation upon which an appeal could be built, would be a profound understatement.
Secondly, the counselor is making a serious mistake characterizing (or probably mischaracterizing is more appropriate) the bench's comments so publicly. It's my experience that judges don't like to be misquoted or mischaracterized.
Reading the other accounts of the motion hearing, to me, it sounds like this attorney's procedural missteps probably should have cost her the case yesterday. But, the bench, in what could only be described as a very generous ruling, is giving plaintiff's counsel an opportunity to correct her paperwork before he rules on the motion.
I would like to read the transcript of the hearing before making final judgment, but it appears that this attorney is in a little over her head.
Didn't SC judge Ginsburg recently say something about abortion (Roe vs. Wade) that contradicts your statement???