All in all a story very reminiscent of Newcastle in the 1970s. But the Council could have nipped it in the bud by being open and transparent, something that they decided they wouldn’t do. Instead they resigned blaming the lone blogger and forgetting the 160+ residents who applauded when the resignations came.

Keep watching that (virtual) space.

Niall

The job of an appellate court is to rule on whether the original trial court followed the legal process correctly. So you cannot look at the decisions of an appellate court and draw conclusions about the judge’s opinions.

For instance, if a man was convicted of murder, and his lawyer appealed because he found video tape of someone else committing that murder, the appellate court would probably not hear his appeal. If for some reason they did hear his appeal, they would not allow the new evidence. An appeals court is not a second trial, it is a place to find errors in the first trial.

If there were no errors, and even if everyone knows the trial courts outcome was incorrect, the appellate court will not overturn the ruling.

In the extreme case I mentioned, I believe there are other ways of achieving justice and having an innocent party’s name cleared.

But my point is, the Republicans are trying to make her decisions as an appeals court judge appear as her personal opinions, or even her opinions on the cases. But that doesn’t make sense. Because the only opinion she’s expressing is whether the legal process was followed correctly. If it was, and even if she disagrees with the outcome, then her job is to “follow the rule of law” and not overturn the decision.