Request for Review of "Request for Review of Election Commissioners"

As per the Court Ruling which can be found here, especially the following sentence:

The Court may overturn its prior rulings, but must do so in response to a new request as a result of some factual evolution (not simply a request to "look again"), and must do so concurrent with the publication of its reasoning in doing so
Click to expand...

This request for review is denied on the basis that there has been no factual change in this matter since the ruling was delivered, and thus this Court may not overturn the previous ruling.
 
With all due respect, there were no facts in the first place other than what the Constitution and Legal Code said, and they were ignored.

A five hour time period for filing of briefs while 70% of the people of the region are asleep is not due process.
 
Romanoffia:
With all due respect, there were no facts in the first place other than what the Constitution and Legal Code said, and they were ignored.

A five hour time period for filing of briefs while 70% of the people of the region are asleep is not due process.
Click to expand...
Roman, give it up man, you are pissing into the wind.

There is no way facts, law or common sense will win this lot over.
 
The request here essentially says "I don't like the answer, please give me another review"

That's not the purpose of requests.

Roman, at your disposal you have a few options. One, you can not vote for any of the justices in future elections because you believe them to be incompetent. Two, you can recall the justices because we have overstepped and/or abused out authority. Three, you can seek to make changes to law in order to adress the points that we raised in our ruling.

What the court will not allow is a "I don't like the answer, please give me another review".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top