undefined | Better HN

0 pointsepistasis3d ago0 comments

There is no "sense of justice" that will sway an appeal, it's all about the law. And this jury just found that there was zero merit under law.

Appeals are for finding legal technicalities or edge cases. They do not overturn findings of fact from a jury.

That is, it used to be that way in the US, when the courts were ruled by law. In the modern US, the Supreme Court is a partisan political body, so perhaps people are confident it will get overturned because Musk is now political enough for the Supreme Court to give Musk personal favors for all his massive political contributions.

That sort of rank corruption is the only reason to be confident that Musk could ever win this silly case.

0 comments

ScoobleDoodle3d ago

I'm clarifying and drawing the distinction related to the following because the responder wasn't responding to what was meant, but what they heard: > Sam didn't "win" the case in the sense that most people will think of when reading this headline.

There are 2 senses of "win" here. You're talking about the "win" (A) where it is achieving victory regardless of reason.

The second type of "win" (B) that is being called out in quotes is one based either on the merits of the law (verses a technicality) or a sense of justice.

I'm not highlight the first sense of win (A) which parent of my comment and you seem to be talking about I'm pointing out grandparent is talking about (B).

zozbot2343d ago

Juries issue findings of fact, they don't issue rulings about the law. The issue of whether the statute of limitations applies to any given factual situation is one of law.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse