It would be nice. From your specific wish I take it you probably already know, but for general discussion it looks like they’ve just filed the Notice of Appeal with the trial Court, which is entirely procedural and required before an appeal can be brought to the Circuit Court. We’ll likely have to wait for the briefing before we get the substantive arguments. Reporting on appeals really does give the impression that it’s like a second trial though.
Beehaw.org was at war with Lemmy.world. Beehaw.org had always been at war with Lemmy.world.
This is particularly galling as the standard applied originally came from Glucksburg. Glucksburg was a case on physician assisted suicide where the Court applied the “not deeply rooted in and offensive to US tradition” standard being cited here, but also held that the state had a rational and compelling interest in banning physician assisted suicide for the preservation of life and to protect the mentally disabled or ill from medical malpractice or coercion. But in the case of gender affirming care the science and medical practice supports the opposite–gender affirming care drastically reduces suicide rates and provides significantly better outcomes for those with gender dysphoria. They appear to be applying half of the reasoning of Glucksburg while directly going against the second half. That’s not even touching the sex discrimination argument, which is compelling in its own right. I’m ashamed to live in the 6th Circuit today.
I’d be interested as well, and it’s actually a bit of an open question in the US even whether an emoji can satisfy Statute of Frauds requirements. Not every contract needs to be in writing, but the Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of contracts do need to have a written contract and agreement–sale of goods valued more than $500.00 is one of those categories. Canada has its own various Statute of Frauds laws, but that’s way outside of my jurisdiction, and I can’t tell from the reporting whether any applied or were considered in this case.
Emojis are the focus of more and more litigation these days, and it’s really interesting watching how these cases play out. Here’s a good source (US focused) from Lexis Nexis discussing emojis in contract litigation:
I’m a lawyer (though admittedly not in Canada!)–this doesn’t sound as absurd as the headlines read, and I would hesitate to to form opinions on any case on the basis of headlines or blurbs. That said, looking at other sources it seems there’s more here than the posted article conveys:
The judge noted that Mr. Achter and Mr. Mickleborough had had a longstanding business relationship and that, in the past, when Mr. Mr. Mickleborough had texted Mr. Achter contracts for durum wheat, Mr. Achter had responded by succinctly texting “looks good,” “ok” or “yup.”
Both parties clearly understood these terse responses were meant to be confirmation of the contract and “not a mere acknowledgment of the receipt of the contract” by Mr. Achter, wrote Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. And each time, Mr. Achter had delivered the grain as contracted and had been paid.
Looks like they had a long standing business relationship where this sort of communication had been the common understood form of acceptance in the past. It’s also important to note the guy only tried backing out of the deal after a price fluctuation meant he’d be taking a relative loss.
I’d want to see all of the facts and arguments, but this seems reasonable from what we can see reported.
Just so we’re on the same page, could you give an example of a “Spirit of the Law” system, or a country that uses one? I want to make sure I’m not mixing up concepts.
As I’m understanding the terms now, I’m not sure I agree that the US has either a Letter of the Law or a Spirit of the Law system, at least not inherently one over the other. Letter of the Law appears to be the current prevailing majority view, but that’s largely because the majority of the Court are Originalists and Textualist (and even then they’re only really Letter of the Law when it suits them). But Spirit of the Law is still an alive legal philosophy in the judiciary–many landmark 5th and 14th Amendment cases find their basis there, for example. I’d argue these examples and many other Holdings serve themselves as examples of the “safeguards” working, even if the system isn’t always perfect.
Overall I ultimately agree with your last paragraph–that said, I think bang for buck reform of the legislature is going to make the most appreciable difference for many of these issues rather than reform of the judicial branch itself (not that it should be one or the other, but it seems to me that many of the issues in the judicial and executive branches are symptoms stemming from a disfunctional legislative system).
But the deeper problem is whether their role is needed at all. Why not permit existing representatives to make laws reflecting the needs of the time? Court judges themselves have pointed out that if Congress doesn’t like the Court rulings, it should pass its own laws, or even a constitutional amendment, to provide a new point of reference.
Unless I’m grossly misunderstanding the author’s argument, this is already how the system works (at least, when it is actually working as intended). The Court doesn’t legislate–when it says congress should “pass its own laws or amend the constitution to provide a new frame of reference,” it is saying so because it only has the power review existing laws brought to controversy–it’s already up to the legislature to do exactly what the author is asking.
The current Court is certainly abusing its discretion in practice, and that absolutely needs addressed and reformed, but I’m struggling to imagine a workable system without some concrete form of review/check on the legislature (and even that was, to a degree, an open question before Marbury v. Madison) even if just to ensure due process and equal protection.
I guess my question is (and I’m honestly interested in the discussion): what safeguard would replace the Supreme Court? The current Court is abysmal and needs addressing, but I’m even less convinced that doing away with the Supreme Court and leaving things up the the Federal/State legislatures would be beneficial considering many of the legislatures we have today and the laws they are passing.
The takeaway here is that he’s actually received a Target Letter, which indicates a strong belief that there is substantial evidence against him and that criminal charges are being seriously considered. It’s a procedural step, and one that many people likely inferred, but it is important and shows a concrete stance on the investigation. It’s worth noting that “Target” is a specifically defined legal term in this context, on relevant part:
USAM 9-11.151