Richard Esenberg said he was not surprised by the ruling but criticized the judge. "There is applicable Supreme Court precedent that a court has no authority to enjoin the publication of a law," he said. "The state has repeatedly cited that law to her and as far as I know she has not only failed to explain herself about why she feels she has the authority, she hasn't even acknowledged there is an issue. That just leaves me speechless." Esenberg was referring to a 1943 state Supreme Court opinion that said courts could not interfere with legislation until it is published and becomes law.
:-)
ReplyDeleteVERY good communication on YOUR part for certain.
:-)
Richard Esenberg said he was not surprised by the ruling but criticized the judge.
ReplyDelete"There is applicable Supreme Court precedent that a court has no authority to enjoin the publication of a law," he said. "The state has repeatedly cited that law to her and as far as I know she has not only failed to explain herself about why she feels she has the authority, she hasn't even acknowledged there is an issue. That just leaves me speechless."
Esenberg was referring to a 1943 state Supreme Court opinion that said courts could not interfere with legislation until it
is published and becomes law.
how about "mind the gap (between your ears)" for huebsch and the rest of them.
ReplyDelete