View Single Post
  #226  
Old 04-02-2019, 6:35 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NV, ID, OR, CA soon to add TN
Posts: 19,965
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Bercerra is making the argument, based on these cases:

"See Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A party seeking a stay must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, [3] that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and [4] that a stay is in the public interest.” (citing Winter
v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008))).
"

Love to hear what that means translated from legalise.

It seems almost laughable that he is asking Judge Benitez to grant a stay based on the idea that an influx of LCM's into CA will cause harm. Didn't the decision just make the opposite case, that NOT having LCM's cause the public harm?
Yep, probably will not be granted. The California whole argument got shredded with the summary judgment
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote