August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

I. Can't wait for this to go to the 9th so those fat idiots.... it's you idiots.....

High IQ's and.....

No comment's much required here. 😉

 

[Claxon]

The 9th Circuit Court disection of the west's claim.


"Moreover, because the seniority systems at issue
already had been effectuated in both cases, the courts simply
were not faced with the possibility of interfering in a union’s
internal conflict before the conflict manifested as concrete injury to the plaintiffs.

We also note in these cases the apparent absence of contingencies
that stood between the union’s advocating to the
employer a position on a certain policy and the implementation
of that policy."

Mr. Szymanski, representing USAPA, made this very clear to Judge Silver in the recent transcripts.

The East should be very proud of the fact they are represented by this most competent attorney.

Mr. Szymanski backs his claims by the rule of law. Politics and emotions in court are a waste of valuable resources.

 

[Res Judicata]

"Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))."

Oh, like the MOU you ratified? Funny how 98.5% of PHX understood what was happening and less than half of PHL did. Your fake unions "communications" department needs a refresher course at the local grammar school. It must be tough to maintain a consistent message when you keep burning through various law firms and threaten to sue them after the fact. BTW, I'm keeping my references to USAPA at a minimum, I'd hate to get sued for royalties/intellectual property/trademark infringement by your most mentally stable munchkin, former Grand Poohbah, gnat dicked Michael Cleary.

 

[Claxon]

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ
/Transcript_Silver_8-15-13_Conference.pdf

 

[Metroyet]

You want your Nic windfall so bad you can taste it.

If the Nic didnt hurt us, then how can I backslide the rest of my career? I would have neen in the top 1%.

The Nic is irellevent to my career. My joy will come when USAPA gets its neck snapped in front of the 1600 families that never deserved the persecution and loss of income that you "people" so gladly delivered. Again, delivered to a number of families whom are guilty of only two things: trusting the other parties to the TA and playing by the rules.

How the FK did you get the idea you were going to retire in "the top 1%" when your twice BK airline was literally snatched from the jaws of CH7 death by the Alcoholic liar Doug Parker?

Everybody involved in this industry knows that you and your career was doomed without America West. Tough to swallow? Maybe, but facts are facts.

 

[Phoenix]

The Nic is irellevent to my career.....

Nicely put!

 

[Phoenix]

I disagree. Mr. Szymanski is right on. Judge Silver is writing a one way ticket to the 9th for the company and the west pilots.

"THE CLERK: This is civil case 13-471, Addington, et
al., versus United States Airline Pilots Association, et al.
This is the time set for in-court hearing regarding the
proposed scheduling order.
Counsel, please announce.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, Marty Harper and Jen Axel for
the plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SZYMANSKI: For defendant U.S. Airline Pilots
Association, Patrick Szymanski, Susan Martin, and Gary
Silverman.
THE COURT: Thank you.
All right. Let me ask you, do all counsel believe
that the Department of Justice's lawsuit has no merit?
MR. SZYMANSKI: I have no way of telling, Your Honor.
I'm not an antitrust expert and I'm not in the case, so I'm not
prepared to say that the Department of Justice and the
government lawyers....

Interupted by Judge Silver

"it would be beneficial even if there was no merger."​

When did the speculation of "beneficial" become the standard of jurisdiction and ripeness? Silver is much much smarter than Wake.

Indeed, Silver appeared to be completely oblivious of the fact that she was having her hearing to contemplate going to trial with a lawsuit accusing a defendant. She was leading the plaintiff and the co-plaintiff (i.e. the company who feigns neutrality.)

In her own words, her trial will be beneficial even if there is no merger!! "Beneficial" is a very speculative prediction in the face of uncertainties...






THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Harper.
MR. HARPER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: In response.
I think your position is is that the lawsuit by the
Department of Justice will be defeated, and that I should take
that into account in determining whether or not this matter
should be stayed or, as has been requested by defense counsel,
whether it should be dismissed.
MR. HARPER: That's -- that's right, Your Honor, and
our position is that we've been following it quite closely for
the past 48 hours.




THE COURT: Let me hear -- let me hear from U.S. Air.
And I am sure, Mr. Siegel, you're going to tell me
that you think the DOJ lawsuit has [no?] merit.


MR. SIEGEL: First of all, I will not surprise you to
tell you that U.S. Airways and American believe, as we said to
the press yesterday, thatthe Department of Justice got it
very, very wrong, and that we intend to prevail at an expedited
trial.



THE COURT: Did you come
any closer to deciding?
MR. SIEGEL: On the -- on the McCaskill-Bond issue?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SIEGEL: No, it's a dif -- it's a -- USAPA has
argued that the West Pilots are not a party and the West Pilots
and U.S. Airways have argued that they are a separate party.
Mr. Harper has amended his complaint to seek a declaratory
judgment on that action -- on that issue, and we filed an
intervention complaint on that issue as well.
So frankly, what -- one of the things that we were



THE COURT: Essentially, from the -- from the last
time you were here and what you gave me in writing, your client
has taken a position, and so has American, of neutrality,
essentially, on this issue,



THE COURT: -- McCaskill-Bond.
So -- so okay. So you've given me an idea of where we
are, and whether or not there has been any progress in moving
forward as was -- was the plan under the merger.
Now I'm going to ask you for a moment to tell me,
what -- what position would you take if I went forward with
this in September? What would your client's position be in
this litigation?


MR. SIEGEL: Well, first of all, we favor you going
forward, because we -- we think that -- that it's on the
calendar and it would be very beneficial to have --

THE COURT: And -- and it would be beneficial even if
there was no merger.

 

[Res Judicata]

Indeed, Silver appeared to be completely oblivious of the fact that she was having her hearing to contemplate going to trial with a lawsuit accusing a defendant.





THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Harper.
MR. HARPER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: In response.
I think your position is is that the lawsuit by the
Department of Justice will be defeated, and that I should take
that into account in determining whether or not this matter
should be stayed or, as has been requested by defense counsel,
whether it should be dismissed.
MR. HARPER: That's -- that's right, Your Honor, and
our position is that we've been following it quite closely for
the past 48 hours.




THE COURT: Let me hear -- let me hear from U.S. Air.
And I am sure, Mr. Siegel, you're going to tell me
that you think the DOJ lawsuit has [no?] merit.


MR. SIEGEL: First of all, I will not surprise you to
tell you that U.S. Airways and American believe, as we said to
the press yesterday, thatthe Department of Justice got it
very, very wrong, and that we intend to prevail at an expedited
trial.



THE COURT: Did you come
any closer to deciding?
MR. SIEGEL: On the -- on the McCaskill-Bond issue?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SIEGEL: No, it's a dif -- it's a -- USAPA has
argued that the West Pilots are not a party and the West Pilots
and U.S. Airways have argued that they are a separate party.
Mr. Harper has amended his complaint to seek a declaratory
judgment on that action -- on that issue, and we filed an
intervention complaint on that issue as well.
So frankly, what -- one of the things that we were



THE COURT: Essentially, from the -- from the last
time you were here and what you gave me in writing, your client
has taken a position, and so has American, of neutrality,
essentially, on this issue,



THE COURT: -- McCaskill-Bond.
So -- so okay. So you've given me an idea of where we
are, and whether or not there has been any progress in moving
forward as was -- was the plan under the merger.
Now I'm going to ask you for a moment to tell me,
what -- what position would you take if I went forward with
this in September? What would your client's position be in
this litigation?


MR. SIEGEL: Well, first of all, we favor you going
forward, because we -- we think that -- that it's on the
calendar and it would be very beneficial to have --

THE COURT: And -- and it would be beneficial even if
there was no merger.

AKA: it's STILL ripe. Fire Poindexter and re-hire $eham, the REAL liar.

 

[Phoenix]

AKA: it's STILL ripe. Fire Poindexter and re-hire $eham, the REAL liar.

Actually she did not even address ripeness in the least, neither did she consider the impact that the DOJ suit has on her facts and analysis that led her to conclude the issue is ripe, found in Doc 122. She instead invented the standard of "beneficial" with or without a merger, and then substituted her newly invented standard for jurisdiction and ripeness, to replace the standards she used in Doc 122.

She no longer needs jurisdiction and ripeness standards she used in Doc 122. Now she has "beneficial even without a merger." She is much, much smarter than Wake.

Oh, and I almost forgot her other standard that supersedes ripeness and jurisdiction. The premise to her order... "in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed."

Now she thinks she is an airline travel agent.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Actually she did not even address ripeness in the least, neither did she consider the impact that the DOJ suit has on her facts and analysis that led her to conclude the issue is ripe, found in Doc 122. She instead invented the standard of "beneficial" with or without a merger, and then substituted her newly invented standard for jurisdiction and ripeness, to replace the standards she used in Doc 122.

She no longer needs jurisdiction and ripeness standards she used in Doc 122. Now she has "beneficial even without a merger." She is much, much smarter than Wake.

Oh, and I almost forgot her other standard that supersedes ripeness and jurisdiction. The premise to her order... "in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed."

Now she thinks she is an airline travel agent.

Both you and East are spot on. And to add insult to injury, Silver makes the assumption, on behalf of both the BK judge AND the Judge presiding over the DOJ complaint that she knows how they will rule without EVEN ANY HEARING scheduled under the DOJ lawsuit.

Silver and Wake have simply made this fiasco even more complicated. It will take several more years for appeals to work its way through the system. The only good thing about it is that it may actually make M/B moot because all seniority integrations after this MUST be tested by measurable objective standards.

Silver was overturned on her last foray into RLA law...see http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/01/07-17232.pdf

 

[end_of_alpa]

I disagree. Mr. Szymanski is right on. Judge Silver is writing a one way ticket to the 9th for the company and the west pilots.

"THE CLERK: This is civil case 13-471, Addington, et
al., versus United States Airline Pilots Association, et al.
This is the time set for in-court hearing regarding the
proposed scheduling order.
Counsel, please announce.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, Marty Harper and Jen Axel for
the plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SZYMANSKI: For defendant U.S. Airline Pilots
Association, Patrick Szymanski, Susan Martin, and Gary
Silverman.
THE COURT: Thank you.
All right. Let me ask you, do all counsel believe
that the Department of Justice's lawsuit has no merit?
MR. SZYMANSKI: I have no way of telling, Your Honor.
I'm not an antitrust expert and I'm not in the case, so I'm not
prepared to say that the Department of Justice and the
government lawyers....

Interupted by Judge Silver

Silver isn't listening to Pat. She doesn't have jurisdiction and Pat should have pressed home that point. She is trying to end run the Ninth and Pat simply doesn't have the presence to press home the point. It simply isn't ripe and that is overwhelmingly evident. Now, however, there are good things to happen now that the DOJ has weighed in. We WILL appeal after the 24th when her ruling is against us. Yes, I predict a ruling against us. Even if we win, the Ninth can and will test for ripeness no matter the merger goes through or not because there will be a case in the future deciding CBA terms before a CBA is agreed to opens the floodgates for frivolous litigation like what we have now.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Pat does not stand a chance.

Silver is biased and is handing the West something.

Really?

Apparently, the 9th Circuit has a history of reversals by the Supreme Court. Do you have evidence of the same reversal rate from the 9th with Judge Silver?

Article:

Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench
By Judson Berger

The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.

As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.


"That's an indication this court is way out of the mainstream," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "They're getting impatient with them. They just keep coming back with this stuff."

The Supreme Court, in its rulings, signaled that the circuit must hew more closely to precedent and, in some cases, give more weight to state court rulings. Scheidegger said the high court used some "severe" language to get that message across.

In a Jan. 19 reversal, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the 9th Circuit committed a "clear error" by overturning the murder conviction in the case of a Sacramento man. The Supreme Court accused the circuit of having "failed to accord the required deference" to the state court's decision -- in other words, the 9th Circuit horned in on the state's business when it shouldn't have.

Kennedy accused the circuit of demonstrating "judicial disregard" for "sound and established principles."

In that case, defendant Joshua Richter had been convicted in connection with the 1994 shooting of two men at the home of a California drug dealer. He had initially denied involvement but later claimed he went inside the home after hearing gunshots, apparently from his accomplice.

On appeal, Richter challenged his attorney's representation, claiming his counsel did not counter testimony from a blood pattern expert called by the prosecution -- that testimony had conflicted with Richter's. The state Supreme Court denied this claim. So did a federal district court judge. So did a panel on the 9th Circuit. But when a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges reviewed the appeal, they rejected the conviction on a split 7-4 ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling, though, said there was "sufficient" evidence pointing to Richter's guilt and that the state court's decision was reasonable.

That was one of three criminal cases -- one having to do with an Oregon defendant who challenged his lawyer's competence after pleading no contest to a felony murder charge, the other with California's parole system -- written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, among the most liberal judges in the country.

"He is out on the fringe," Scheidegger said.

Reinhardt was nominated to the bench in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. He has since developed a reputation as one of the most left-leaning judges in America. In an interview with a California legal magazine several years ago, he conceded, "I think I was born that way." The judge has been at the forefront of several controversial decisions out of the 9th Circuit, including a 2002 opinion that ruled the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms.

The judge has generated controversy more recently over his refusal to recuse himself from a panel considering California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 law -- Reinhardt's wife is a longtime official with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Scheidegger speculated that the Supreme Court was aiming its recent rulings not so much at Reinhardt but at the rest of the judges on the appeals court, who, he said, "need to rein him in." Scheidegger's group filed friend-of-the-court briefs, at odds with the 9th Circuit rulings, in two of the above criminal cases.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said he doubts the Supreme Court is trying to single out Reinhardt, though he said there's "no question" he's one of the most liberal judges in the country. Turley said he doesn't sense a pattern in the rulings.

However, he described the court's recent activity as "corrective."

"It's clear that some of the more conservative justices tend to view the 9th Circuit with an element of unease," Turley said. "This is a very clear direction from the Supreme Court."

But it wasn't just the conservative justices voicing discontent with the 9th Circuit's opinions.

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal regulation did not require credit card companies to give holders advance notice for an interest rate increase following "delinquency or default" -- contrary to a 9th Circuit decision.

In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the 9th Circuit that challenged NASA's background checks for employees. The 9th Circuit, among other things, had ruled that a form asking prospective workers about recent illegal drug use would likely be held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed.

A representative from the 9th Circuit could not be reached for comment.

Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/#ixzz2cHwDsJXs

First, READ THE LAST SENTENCE: " Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th CIRCUIT DECISIONS ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent."

Secondly, Silver WAS OVERTURNED in the last RLA case she heard. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/01/07-17232.pdf

"Defendant Mesa Airlines (“Mesa&rdquo😉 appeals the grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff Association of Flight Attendants (“AFA&rdquo😉. AFA and Mesa are parties to col- lective bargaining agreements (“CBAs&rdquo😉 that have expired. They are now in the process of bargaining for new agree- ments. AFA brought this suit after Mesa changed the applica- ble Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA&rdquo😉 regulations (“FARs&rdquo😉 for its scheduling of flight attendants. Previously, Mesa had used those designed for flight crews; after the change, it used those designed for flight attendants.
AFA contends that the Railway Labor Act (“RLA&rdquo😉, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., prevents Mesa’s unilateral change to the union’s status quo working conditions. It contends that its dis- agreement with Mesa over the change is a “major dispute” within the meaning of the RLA, and that it may therefore seek an injunction in federal district court against the change. Mesa contends that the terms of the parties’ CBAs permit it to make the change, and that its disagreement with AFA is a “minor dispute” within the meaning of the RLA for which the exclu- sive remedy is binding arbitration.
The district court held that the disagreement is a major dis- pute and granted a preliminary injunction against Mesa. Mesa has brought an "interlocutory appeal" over which we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We hold that the dispute is a minor dispute within the meaning of the RLA. We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court with directions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Silver dismissed US Airways in its order 122 which She considered it a minor dispute and she has no jurisdiction. Yet she is erroneously taking jurisdiction over a NOT RIPE case and even further she is involving herself in inter-union policies she has no business being in. I truly hope the Supreme Court weighs in by reaffirming that the definition of Seniority IS length of service and that any test for reasonableness falls outside that definition.

 

[Phoenix]

Silver isn't listening to Pat. She doesn't have jurisdiction ...

Not only was she not listening, she was dismissive... even approached being frivolous and demeaning in her response. Pat actually covered all three points made in USAPA's reply about why the Judge should dismiss without prejudice. The Judge flatly refused to address the precise dismantling of her Doc 122 Order, and in her newest order simply chose to replace the cogent facts and objections with a staw-man argument that she found more to her liking. She cited USAPA's request for a delay (which is an outright misrepresentation and dismissal of the issues that place her on dangerous ground), and then used a frivolous reply to justify continuing her show trial --- "in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed."

USAPA attacked her Doc 122 Order of ripeness to have a trial, she completely ignored the facts and made the assumption that the DOJ suit is meaningless (though she didn't even know if the bankruptcy judge is a male or female, much less any other facts of the case).

She is proceeding to trial without affirming the requisite premises of her Doc 122 Order, but instead now relies on "the trial will be beneficial even if there is no merger" and " "in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed", neither of which is a legal basis for ripeness or jurisdiction in a DFR lawsuit.

She is much, much more ingenious than Wake ever hoped to be.

 

[Claxon]

Pat does not stand a chance.

Silver is biased and is handing the West something.

Really?

Apparently, the 9th Circuit has a history of reversals by the Supreme Court. Do you have evidence of the same reversal rate from the 9th with Judge Silver?

Article:

Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench
By Judson Berger

The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.

As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.


"That's an indication this court is way out of the mainstream," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "They're getting impatient with them. They just keep coming back with this stuff."

The Supreme Court, in its rulings, signaled that the circuit must hew more closely to precedent and, in some cases, give more weight to state court rulings. Scheidegger said the high court used some "severe" language to get that message across.

In a Jan. 19 reversal, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the 9th Circuit committed a "clear error" by overturning the murder conviction in the case of a Sacramento man. The Supreme Court accused the circuit of having "failed to accord the required deference" to the state court's decision -- in other words, the 9th Circuit horned in on the state's business when it shouldn't have.

Kennedy accused the circuit of demonstrating "judicial disregard" for "sound and established principles."

In that case, defendant Joshua Richter had been convicted in connection with the 1994 shooting of two men at the home of a California drug dealer. He had initially denied involvement but later claimed he went inside the home after hearing gunshots, apparently from his accomplice.

On appeal, Richter challenged his attorney's representation, claiming his counsel did not counter testimony from a blood pattern expert called by the prosecution -- that testimony had conflicted with Richter's. The state Supreme Court denied this claim. So did a federal district court judge. So did a panel on the 9th Circuit. But when a broader panel of 9th Circuit judges reviewed the appeal, they rejected the conviction on a split 7-4 ruling.

The Supreme Court ruling, though, said there was "sufficient" evidence pointing to Richter's guilt and that the state court's decision was reasonable.

That was one of three criminal cases -- one having to do with an Oregon defendant who challenged his lawyer's competence after pleading no contest to a felony murder charge, the other with California's parole system -- written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, among the most liberal judges in the country.

"He is out on the fringe," Scheidegger said.

Reinhardt was nominated to the bench in 1979 by former President Jimmy Carter. He has since developed a reputation as one of the most left-leaning judges in America. In an interview with a California legal magazine several years ago, he conceded, "I think I was born that way." The judge has been at the forefront of several controversial decisions out of the 9th Circuit, including a 2002 opinion that ruled the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own firearms.

The judge has generated controversy more recently over his refusal to recuse himself from a panel considering California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 law -- Reinhardt's wife is a longtime official with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Scheidegger speculated that the Supreme Court was aiming its recent rulings not so much at Reinhardt but at the rest of the judges on the appeals court, who, he said, "need to rein him in." Scheidegger's group filed friend-of-the-court briefs, at odds with the 9th Circuit rulings, in two of the above criminal cases.

Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said he doubts the Supreme Court is trying to single out Reinhardt, though he said there's "no question" he's one of the most liberal judges in the country. Turley said he doesn't sense a pattern in the rulings.

However, he described the court's recent activity as "corrective."

"It's clear that some of the more conservative justices tend to view the 9th Circuit with an element of unease," Turley said. "This is a very clear direction from the Supreme Court."

But it wasn't just the conservative justices voicing discontent with the 9th Circuit's opinions.

In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first nominee, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal regulation did not require credit card companies to give holders advance notice for an interest rate increase following "delinquency or default" -- contrary to a 9th Circuit decision.

In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the 9th Circuit that challenged NASA's background checks for employees. The 9th Circuit, among other things, had ruled that a form asking prospective workers about recent illegal drug use would likely be held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed.

A representative from the 9th Circuit could not be reached for comment.

Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2cHwDsJXs

Wow, a Fox News Quote from a right wing poser/
Bottom line is the 9th will spank her highness if and when required. The AZ legal system is embarrassing, you have a AZ Federal Judge deferring to a corporate shark who had no clue his corporation was about to be spanked by the DOJ. Impressive legal footing and situational awareness. Perhaps Mrs. Siegle and Parker should pay more attention to their corporate duties and leave their union busting affairs alone for a while. Their merger just slammed into the same rocks that claimed the USS Nicolau.
Enjoy your drive to Shulas. Be sure to let the missus drive back, as we all are aware of the implications of bad legal news on the western front.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Not only was she not listening, she was dismissive... even approached being frivolous and demeaning in her response. Pat actually covered all three points made in USAPA's reply about why the Judge should dismiss without prejudice. The Judge flatly refused to address the precise dismantling of her Doc 122 Order, and in her newest order simply chose to replace the cogent facts and objections with a staw-man argument that she found more to her liking. She cited USAPA's request for a delay (which is an outright misrepresentation and dismissal of the issues that place her on dangerous ground), and then used a frivolous reply to justify continuing her show trial ---"in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed."

USAPA attacked her Doc 122 Order of ripeness to have a trial, she completely ignored the facts and made the assumption that the DOJ suit is meaningless (though she didn't even know if the bankruptcy judge is a male or female, much less any other facts of the case).

She is proceeding to trial without affirming the requisite premises of her Doc 122 Order, but instead now relies on "the trial will be beneficial even if there is no merger" and ""in the context of airline travel, a delay is never welcomed", neither of which is a legal basis for ripeness or jurisdiction in a DFR lawsuit.

She is much, much more ingenious than Wake ever hoped to be.

I couldn't have said it better myself.