Request for injunction to be ruled on within a day
(Written by kencraw)
This just in: At 1:30 this afternoon (8/30) Judge Miller heard an hour’s worth of argument about whether this new fence breaks the injunction. At the end of those arguments she indicated that she’ll give a ruling within 24 hours. To me that means tomorrow morning, tomorrow mid-day at the latest.
Maybe it is just a judge thing that they don’t rule on anything right away but it seems ridiculous to me that she couldn’t say “Look, they haven’t cut anything down; it’s temporary; I said temporary fencing could go up for safety reasons back in March when it was asked in regards to the additional seismic testing; your request to have the fencing removed is denied.”
How hard is that?
In any case, I suspect this is a just a judge thing that they don’t rule on anything right away (probably because it would give the appearance of already having had made up one’s mind). I will say this: if she rules in favor of the tree-sitters, I’ll be VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY worried about the actual case later in September.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I like your Cal Football blog. Have you checked out this Cal Football podcast?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=19863
August 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I don’t know anything about this particular judge, but I would assume–as in all things judicial–this is just a matter of course. She’ll take time to review the arguments, research any applicable case law and then make her ruling. Given her earlier stand (leaving the administrative interpretation of her injunction in the University’s hands), I doubt she will find in favor of the activists.
As I understand it, she made it clear earlier that the University could deal with the tree sitters however they saw fit (legally, of course), just so long as the environmental status quo is maintained. The fence is obviously temporary: it wobbled as the brouhaha was going down, but it is strong enough to stay in place. Cyclone fences are often used for longterm, short-term projects (did that make sense?).
In other words, the University has argued (I assume) that the fence was installed to provide safety for all parties–fans, faculty, teams, activists, etc.–during the course of the upcoming season. That consists of six games over the next twelve weeks. Logically, the fence will be removed once the games (and safety) are no longer a factor. A chainlink fence is a sturdy and effective solution that is also an easy, inexpensive quick fix that holds no permanent repercussions to the sanctity of the “Ancient Grove”…
…not like, say, cutting away branches to better fit your shack-of-a-treehouse and the intricate pulley system used to convey contraband.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:04 am
Is it just me or has the Chronicle’s reporting on this story been incredibly biased?
August 31st, 2007 at 7:35 am
joshiemac, I’ve heard that charge about the Chron in regards to this story a number of times and to be honest, I’m not convinced. They definitely suffer from the reporters disease that makes them incapable of deterining the size and scope of criticism. All opposing parties are the same size and have the same validity according to just about every newspaper.
But other than that, it seems they reported the position of each side from their own mouths and gave them equal time. We just want them to be smart enough to point out how stupid the protestors arguments are and I’m not sure that’s the Chron’s job.