https://www.npr.org/2019/08/06/748615956...york-times

I hope she wins. It would put an end to major media pulling this sort of stunt.

"A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a lower court was wrong to dismiss former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against The New York Times over an editorial linking her to a 2011 mass shooting.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court, saying her case against the newspaper "plausibly states a claim for defamation and may proceed to full discovery....""

Why are lower court judges immune from sanction on overturned decisions. These judges that rule against certain people because of politics should be removed from office after a couple of overturned decisions. 3 strikes and your out.....

Question. When a higher court overturns a lower court decision does the case then go back to the original lower court or to another lower court?

(08-06-2019 12:43 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Question. When a higher court overturns a lower court decision does the case then go back to the original lower court or to another lower court?

The original one.

In most cases, this is the higher court saying that they erred in their decision, and they need to correct their decision and move forward. So it gets sent back to the lower court so that they can "correct" their action and move forward.

It can be really difficult to get the judge changed out. Even if they are egregiously wrong. I saw a case in TN where a man was defending himself in a child support case, and the judge kept getting mad that he was raising an objection (which the transcript showed was legitimate.) The judge put the man in jail for contempt, then continued with the hearing without the defendant present, and came to a very bogus decision not based on the law. (Which is why the man was objecting in the first place.) The appellate court was furious, but even though the man sought for a different judge, the appellate court decided against allowing the judge to be changed out. In the end, the woman had to pay the man's attorney's fee's, and wound up with a financial support decision that had to be corrected to the amount it should have been. So the man got sh*t on, had to spend time in jail, and ended up with a decision he should have gotten in 10 minutes, the woman didnt get the decision she wanted, and ended up having to pay the mans attorney fees, and nothing happened to the judge.

(08-06-2019 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:43 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Question. When a higher court overturns a lower court decision does the case then go back to the original lower court or to another lower court?

The original one.

In most cases, this is the higher court saying that they erred in their decision, and they need to correct their decision and move forward. So it gets sent back to the lower court so that they can "correct" their action and move forward.

It can be really difficult to get the judge changed out. Even if they are egregiously wrong. I saw a case in TN where a man was defending himself in a child support case, and the judge kept getting mad that he was raising an objection (which the transcript showed was legitimate.) The judge put the man in jail for contempt, then continued with the hearing without the defendant present, and came to a very bogus decision not based on the law. (Which is why the man was objecting in the first place.) The appellate court was furious, but even though the man sought for a different judge, the appellate court decided against allowing the judge to be changed out. In the end, the woman had to pay the man's attorney's fee's, and wound up with a financial support decision that had to be corrected to the amount it should have been. So the man got sh*t on, had to spend time in jail, and ended up with a decision he should have gotten in 10 minutes, the woman didnt get the decision she wanted, and ended up having to pay the mans attorney fees, and nothing happened to the judge.

Thanks for the info. IMO, it seems the lower court would have a built in prejudiced against the plaintiff seeing as how it was basically told by the higher court that if f'd up the first time. Seems like the plaintiff wouldn't inherently get a fair shake going forward.

(08-06-2019 01:25 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 01:00 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 12:43 PM)VA49er Wrote:  Question. When a higher court overturns a lower court decision does the case then go back to the original lower court or to another lower court?

The original one.

In most cases, this is the higher court saying that they erred in their decision, and they need to correct their decision and move forward. So it gets sent back to the lower court so that they can "correct" their action and move forward.

It can be really difficult to get the judge changed out. Even if they are egregiously wrong. I saw a case in TN where a man was defending himself in a child support case, and the judge kept getting mad that he was raising an objection (which the transcript showed was legitimate.) The judge put the man in jail for contempt, then continued with the hearing without the defendant present, and came to a very bogus decision not based on the law. (Which is why the man was objecting in the first place.) The appellate court was furious, but even though the man sought for a different judge, the appellate court decided against allowing the judge to be changed out. In the end, the woman had to pay the man's attorney's fee's, and wound up with a financial support decision that had to be corrected to the amount it should have been. So the man got sh*t on, had to spend time in jail, and ended up with a decision he should have gotten in 10 minutes, the woman didnt get the decision she wanted, and ended up having to pay the mans attorney fees, and nothing happened to the judge.

Thanks for the info. IMO, it seems the lower court would have a built in prejudiced against the plaintiff seeing as how it was basically told by the higher court that if f'd up the first time. Seems like the plaintiff wouldn't inherently get a fair shake going forward.

Especially in that case I mentioned. I mean, good grief, the judge was wrong and threw the guy in jail. If I'm that guy, there's no way I would believe he could rule without bias.

But what is usually supposed to be the case is that the lower court simply ruled incorrectly, it was an honest misinterpretation of the laws or statutes, and the higher court is simply sending it back down to them to do over with the correct interpretations. And if there wasnt any bias, that process would work.

When politics are involved, it’s very rarely a ‘misinterpretation ‘ ....

And now the fake newspaper get bullied by an online mob for quoting the president accurately.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-t...-democrats

"Blowback against the New York Times over a headline about President Trump's response to recent mass shootings is a frightening precedent, according to Mollie Hemingway.

The fact several media and political figures were able to convince the paper to change its headline after the first edition exposes the collective outrage as a "mob," Hemingway claimed Tuesday on "Special Report."


"Clearly, the first headline was more factual and less opinion-y than the second headline -- which was not a very well constructed headline," the Federalist senior editor said...."