A political talking point is an alleged fact or emotive illustration intended to support an argument or position.
It’s superficial as any observer of talking heads has observed.
A legal brief, on the other hand, is a more rigorous presentation of facts, evidence, statutes, relevant past cases and how the law applies to facts.
A legal brief contains arguments supporting a position to persuade a trial judge or appellate court. There are strong legal arguments that are fact-supported and grounded-in-law, and weak arguments that are defective in these respects.
One would expect that in the highly politicized J.B. Van Hollen vs. Government Accountability Board et al case in which Wisconsin’s Attorney General seeks an extraordinary mandamus order demanding action that could result in 10,000s of citizens being disenfranchised during a historic presidential election that Van Hollen and the Republican Party would present rigorous arguments—full of facts, careful readings of relevant statutes, and a meticulous following of judicial procedures.
But the Government Accountability Board and civil rights organizations show that Attorney General Van Hollen and the Wisconsin Republican Party have filed briefs that read like political talking points (lacking evidence)—composed of poorly reasoned arguments, reckless reading of statutes, and fatally defective procedural steps that voting rights advocates hope will prove both a legal embarrassment for our partisan attorney general and a political club to be used against Van Hollen for what he has become: Corrupt and disdainful of Wisconsin citizens.
For some late-night reading of the legal briefs in this case, see Election Law-Moritz.
A decision on some motions may come as early as Thursday and Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment