Read on Twitter
A quick thread on the recent #FreeAssange decision from a small town plaintiff lawyer’s perspective:
In family law, which i don’t specialize in, but practice enough to know, we call the decision splitting the baby -- I know, horrible imagery but bear with.
/1
In family law, which i don’t specialize in, but practice enough to know, we call the decision splitting the baby -- I know, horrible imagery but bear with.
/1
Lower courts hate getting overturned on appeal, especially when there is little precedent to guide, as here. There is often little precedent in family law because people so rarely appeal, and the law is really squishy anyway.
/2
/2
This leaves the lower courts in a damned if they do, damned if they don’t position b/c they know someone is going to be really unhappy, and back in the their face with another motion.
Hence, they punish everyone just for being before them.
/3
Hence, they punish everyone just for being before them.
/3
It’s the same Assange’s judge. Nobody got what they wanted out of this necessarily. The U.S. didn’t get it’s man, and likely won’t. Assange wasn’t released, and likely won’t be.
/4
/4
Hurt both sides and make them both loathe to seek the court’s providence in the future, while yes, punting in the meantime if they don’t get the message.
/5
/5
I’ll add, too, (and I’d love to hear from those who have spent time in the courtroom litigating) that you might be surprised how widely employed and effective this judicial tactic is. In real life, judges don’t do justice they do finality (if they’re doing their job right).
/6
/6
They end conflicts with an inviolable decision. But here, the judge turns the table.
It sucks.
In my experience, it happens way too much.
And it is fatiguing on the parties, no doubt.
/7
It sucks.
In my experience, it happens way too much.
And it is fatiguing on the parties, no doubt.
/7
Like running a two person marathon at top speed for months to arrive at a photo finish only to have the judge declare that she won.
#AJAB
/end
#AJAB
/end
