CA: Thanks to a semicolon, gays and lesbians keep marrying in San Francisco

AP via San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Feb. 17, 2004 | DAVID KRAVETS and LISA LEFF

[calcowgirl]

SAN FRANCISCO - Two judges delayed taking any action Tuesday to shut down San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree, citing court procedures as they temporarily rebuffed conservative groups enraged that the city's liberal politicians had already married almost 2,400 gay and lesbian couples.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Rednecks. Pitchforks. Tar. Torches.

[tracer]

How soon they forget the Milk Phenomenon that helped to make San Francisco famous for buggery. A sudden loud noise availeth much..........

[longtermmemmory]

Judicial BS. It is called a scrivners error. It dates back to when you literally has some poor clerk writing as fast as possible as the judge orally recited his ruling. A scrivner.

This judge KNOWS they will suceed on the merits. This judge KNOWS he has to rule agains the homosexuals. HOWEVER he/she/it has interjected their personal opinions. Justice delayed is justice denied.

This is bordering on judicial misconduct because the is appear wrong. If it appears wrong it is wrong for a judge.

[GOPrincess]

Well, I think our point was essentially the same. In saying I didn't get it, what I was trying to imply was that the semicolon really couldn't be the issue, because it flies against practice and common sense for how the issue could actually have been handled.

[longtermmemmory]

I bet real money this judge has ruled in favor of attorneys who displayed bad punctuation. All his rulings are public record.

Also there are the people who were ruled against who possibly would help.

The refusal based on the mere semicolon is potentially an abuse of discretion claim for an emergency appeal.

[Don Joe]

Please don't post stuff like that, OK? It can easily result in a knock at your door and a free trip downtown. Seriously.

[clamboat]

I'm sorry, but your strawman has already been litigated in another thread. Thanks for playing, and we have a lovely consolation prize awaiting you, it's hanging on the doorknob.

In other words, you're unable to articulate your fears into an argument that doesn't look ridiculous when set down on paper. Thanks, I think I understand now.

[Don Joe]

*LOL!*

You just can't help yourself, can you. First a strawman, and then when called on it, what do you do? You come right out and put words in my mouth, which you then argue against, and declare victory.

Well, if nothing else, hopefully now you know why I refuse to play with you.

[breakem]

you are asking logical questions to an emotional crowd.

[Thud]

Works for me. My court threw out one of my town's anti-growth initiatives because its punctuation conflicted with a state law about the precise wording of initiatives.

The retired attorney who lead the initiative election got on my case about that. I asked if he had legal counsel in drafting the initiative. He replied yes. Then I asked how much he had paid for the advice, at which point the light dawned and he responded with my next line too: "Nothing, and legal advice is worth what you pay for it."

[HiTech RedNeck]

"Bang bang, my true love shot me down" [cue sad violin]

[longtermmemmory]

But this is a motion not a law. There are millions of pages filed every day. A motion is no law or a point of law. (or intitiative) I have seen some attrocious responsive motions filed in haste. In emergency situtions minor gramatical mistakes are expected. The judge is playing games. The judge knows this, why else was there an preliminary injunction hearing? If there was such a mistake the judge should have precluded the preliminary hearing before it started.

Thankfully spelling does nto count hree on FR.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Every motion I write states "and any other relief the Court deems appropriate."

So help me out here. If the filer writes that prophylactic phrase into the motion, it removes the judge's flimsy excuse for inaction re semi-colon? But, even so it is crystal clear that the judge copped out on a hyper-technicality, right?

I M P E A C H

[HiTech RedNeck]

The judge could have proposed to have the error fixed on the spot without affecting the validity of anything else in the chain of events. The document in question was being submitted to him -- not to an election board or to voters or anybody else, just him.

[tort_feasor]

By adding that phrase, the other side can't claim they weren't prepared for that issue of relief. If it is open ended they have to be ready for everything inclusing an oral motion for summary judgment.

[Thud]

longtermmemmory is right that motion practice is different - it's what I do every day all the time. The one unforgiveable error in motion practice concerns mistakes in the relief request as due process issues are involved there. I'll have to pay more attention to this story, and be thankful that I don't have to deal with this particular motion 90 miles away.

[Thud]

I just reread the article. The drafting error is in the proposed order granting relief, which is bad but not fatal as it would have been in the motion's relief request. The judge has to let the other party comment on any nunc pro tunc changes in the proposed order. That's where the delay comes in.

Lawyers are paid big buck$ not to make such mistakes.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How long should the comment window take? It seems like the spirit of the law is getting tossed out the window; the complainee knew exactly what the complainant intended, whether it was punctuated precisely or not.

[Thud]

24-48 hours in my court. SF I don't know about.

[Libertina]

I greatly dislike these people. And couldn't a semi-colon be retyped before Friday? I bet that these tyrants in black robes have a good laugh on us after they return to chambers. I really dislike them.