Started By
Message

Opponents to ask for rehearing in St. George matter

Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:19 am
Posted by tharre4
Louisiana
Member since Jan 2015
579 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:19 am
WAFB

quote:

Mary Olive Piersen


quote:

Pierson says the request will include multiple issues for the state’s highest court to reconsider. She did not elaborate on what those issues are.


The regime simply cannot allow St. George to happen. They know how royally F*CKed they will be and they did it to themselves.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99031 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:22 am to
It'll be denied 4-3. Nobody is changing their minds.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423151 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:22 am to
The NAACP telegraphed their lawsuit a few days ago.

Once LASC denies this rehearing, I expect the NAACP one to be filed in federal court immediately thereafter.
Posted by tigerpawl
Can't get there from here.
Member since Dec 2003
22332 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:24 am to
quote:

She did not elaborate on what those issues are.
Let's cut to the chase: 1) exposing a cancerous culture and 2) underestimating what you can REALLY do in a free society.
Posted by Demonbengal
Ruston
Member since May 2015
1344 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:26 am to
I don’t get the naacp’s claim here. Black people, and other people of color, live in what will be St. George. Are they really going to try to argue that St. George is bad for people living north of Florida Blvd?
Posted by Lutcher Lad
South of the Mason-Dixon Line
Member since Sep 2009
5780 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:33 am to
The people have spoken. It's time the haters stop trying to overturn democracy.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51777 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:33 am to
quote:

The NAACP telegraphed their lawsuit a few days ago.

Once LASC denies this rehearing, I expect the NAACP one to be filed in federal court immediately thereafter.


On what grounds do you think they'll be asking the feds to overturn a State SC on a purely State matter? Disparate impact? Backdoor red-lining attempt?
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 7:34 am
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423151 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:38 am to
quote:

Disparate impact? Backdoor red-lining attempt?

Those sorts of reasonings. I imagine they'll try to file for a TRO and halt everything for a few months prior to that trial.

There is also the litigation that will occur about the annexed property post-election. They ma

I'm not saying these suits will win, but they can delay things for 5-10 years.
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96232 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 7:39 am to
Maybe it is just me but aren’t the plaintiffs supposed to lay out everything in the original case in order to preserve everything upon appeal?

What MOP is trying to push is that the court didn’t address XYZ and now wants to do that, but I think the whole argument by then was “This is null so it doesn’t matter what happens if it actually gets upheld.”
Posted by rmc
Truth or Consequences
Member since Sep 2004
26536 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:01 am to
If you are a St George resident and you are serious about the ultimate issue of having a school district the thing to do in my opinion is to migrate en masse to a neighboring Parish. Let RE prices in St George crash due to inventory. Strip the Parish of its funding. This will go on for many years just to have the city officially exist. The school district is an entirely different matter. In reality this will never happen. Life is too easy. St George residents will still vote at a clip high enough for SWB to go back in. Or Ted James which would be worse. You get the government you vote for. You get the government Lipsey, Engquist etc told you to vote for.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99031 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:03 am to
quote:

On what grounds do you think they'll be asking the feds to overturn a State SC on a purely State matter? Disparate impact? Backdoor red-lining attempt?


Challenge to the City is arguably barred.

NAACP's gripe is about the potential new school district and they will likely find a receptive audience in federal court for the because God forbid a federal court not stick its fricking nose into local education issues.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36123 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:08 am to
What would happen if Broome, the NAACP, and MOP and her ilk launched an all out war against their real enemy; the thugs, gangs, drug dealers, and culture that is prevalent in large parts of BR that is causing much of the decay instead of these non stop attacks on all the good folks who do not want to be a part of what BR is becoming?
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 8:13 am
Posted by Icansee4miles
Trolling the Tickfaw
Member since Jan 2007
29219 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:09 am to
Judge Parker is sitting next to Satan with a smirk on his drunken face.
Posted by rebeloke
Member since Nov 2012
16134 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:09 am to
St George stacked, BR fracked!
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
423151 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:11 am to
quote:

What would happen if Broome, the NAACP, and MOP and her ilk launched an all out war against their real enemy; the thugs, gangs, drug dealers, and culture that is prevalent in large parts of BR that is causing much of the decay instead of these non stop attacks in all the good folks who do not want to be a part of what BR is becoming?


Posted by Wednesday
Member since Aug 2017
15439 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:12 am to
Correct.

There’s no way they went that far in the ruling and are turning back.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99031 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:13 am to
quote:

Icansee4miles
Judge Parker is sitting next to Satan with a smirk on his drunken face.


frick that worthless sack of shite.

He set BR on its path to decline and Katrina poured gasoline on it.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36123 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:14 am to
quote:

If you are a St George resident and you are serious about the ultimate issue of having a school district the thing to do in my opinion is to migrate en masse to a neighboring Parish


They have been doing this for a couple of decades.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
99031 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:19 am to
quote:

What MOP is trying to push is that the court didn’t address XYZ and now wants to do that, but I think the whole argument by then was “This is null so it doesn’t matter what happens if it actually gets upheld.”


I loath the bitch, but her argument is that because the Court took the next step of declaring the incorporation valid and can move forward, that did not address some extant issue attendant to incorporation.

As for the boundaries, that's set forth in the petition and the annexation post petition are subject to a pending lawsuit in the 19th (it was stayed in 2022 pending the outcome of the challenge to the incorporation itself).

As a basis for rehearing, it should be rejected because it wasn't raised by the challengers (if...then) and because there's pending litigation in the lower courts.
This post was edited on 5/1/24 at 8:20 am
Posted by GBPackTigers
Louisiana
Member since Sep 2009
1083 posts
Posted on 5/1/24 at 8:22 am to
quote:

but they can delay things for 5-10 years.


The problem with our freaking country. Litigation and lawyers.

The reason nothing ever gets done in a timely manner.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram