May 10, 2009

Motion? What motion? Denied.

Filed under: Hawaii Media,Hawaii State Politics — Doug @ 11:22 am

Hmmm. The Hawaii Supreme Court has not (so far as I know) responded to the Lingle administration’s motion to reconsider the Superferry ruling. More than ten days have elapsed since her motion and the Senate’s amicus brief were submitted nearly a month ago.

According to the procedure Charley Foster helpfully wrote about earlier, the decision invalidating Act 2 still holds. “Neener, neener, neener,” says the Court. Okay, the justices say that through only by inference through their inaction, but still… :)

Nothing overt “happened,” but this is clearly news. Did I overlook a mention of this development by the media? I don’t think so, but lemme know if I did.


  1. i wonder if there was something in the motion to extend time to file the brief that mentioned something about the court getting more time to reconsider itself. doubt it though.

    Comment by line of flight — May 10, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

  2. The court agreed to give Bennett more time as I remember.

    Comment by Andy Parx — May 11, 2009 @ 11:15 am

  3. The Hawaii Supreme Court issued an order in the case, extending until May 15, 2009 the time within which it could act on the Motion for Reconsideration.

    DOUG: Mahalo, Mr. Bennett. When did this happen (and how did I miss it)?

    Comment by Mark Bennett — May 11, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

  4. The Hawaii Supreme Court fairly routinely issues orders extending the 10-day automatic denial deadline in reconsideration motions (these orders are not usually published, so only the parties are informed, generally speaking). Most likely, that is what happened here.

    Comment by Robert Thomas — May 11, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

  5. Ba da boom, ba da bing. Whatcha say now, General B.?

    While we wait for that, ;-) , the amended opinion, while not different in result, did clarify the analysis. The amended opinion clearly disavows the equal protection approach so that entire earlier debate, in which I was laid waste by “line of flight,” has been mooted. Clarity is a good thing, especially for guidance in future cases, and the amended opinion gives us that, at least as it relates to this specific issue.

    DOUG: What I wouldn’t give for some Ramseyer on this amended opinion… I don’t feel motivated to do a page-by-page comparison.

    Comment by ohiaforest 3400 — May 13, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

  6. Almost as good: go to the Supreme Court’s Order of Amendment that states exactly what was deleted and what was added.

    DOUG: Yup, that’s perfect. Mahalo!

    Comment by ohiaforest 3400 — May 14, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress