« More on Senator Yee | Main | Senator Yee's business card »
Peruta: opposition to motions to intervene
Right here. As to the State, they have to agree that the court has the power to allow intervention in its discretion; as to everyone else (Brady Campaign, etc.) the argument seems clear that they have no standing to become parties. The State and they are seeking to intervene in order to file a motion for rehearing en banc.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
The strategic goal is maintaining credibility. The AG requested leave to intervene pursuant to 2 arguments: (1) the state has the right to intervene; and (2) the court has discretion to allow the state to intervene. Peruta argued that the state has no right to intervene. Peruta concedes (graciously) that the court does have discretion to allow the state to intervene. Since Brady and the Police Chiefs don't have standing, Peruta argues that the court lacks discretion to allow them to intervene. If Peruta had argued that the court lacks discretion to allow the state to intervene, Peruta would have lost credibility. Allowing the state to intervene, by itself, does not change anything. It is only if the 9th Circuit grants the AG's request for en banc reconsideration that things get interesting.
Yup.
De-fang the snake, make your opponent's argument for them and frame it as much in your favor as you can for the people actually making the decision.
You look gracious (and the goodwill of those with power to make your life hard is never wasted) and knowledgeable (which reminds those with such power that you shouldn't be underestimated nor will you accept being condescended to).
What strategic goal is served by Peruta not objecting to the state's intervention, while objecting to all the other parties' proposed intervention?