The audio isn't as good as normal because I'm doing a quick update while I'm away from home. I wanted to get this update out rather than wait until I get back. Regardless of your view on the CTA, this isn't the end--more appeals are coming, and this ruling only applies to the plaintiffs in this case.
Traditionally, judges appointed to the federal judiciary are chosen by the elected representatives and Senators from that state. So, they tend to reflect the local politics. This is why cases seeking to advance right-wing issues are typically brought in right-leaning states, and cases seeking to advance left-wing issues are typically brought in left-leaning states. If a Plaintiff has options where to bring a case, then they can and should choose where their case is most likely to be successful. Thus, they chose the Federal District Court in Alabama.
The audio isn't as good as normal because I'm doing a quick update while I'm away from home. I wanted to get this update out rather than wait until I get back.
Regardless of your view on the CTA, this isn't the end--more appeals are coming, and this ruling only applies to the plaintiffs in this case.
thank you!
You're welcome!
Great video, but why are you inclined to preface Alabama's Supreme Court as an entity that would rule favorably for the plaintiffs against the CTA?
Traditionally, judges appointed to the federal judiciary are chosen by the elected representatives and Senators from that state. So, they tend to reflect the local politics. This is why cases seeking to advance right-wing issues are typically brought in right-leaning states, and cases seeking to advance left-wing issues are typically brought in left-leaning states.
If a Plaintiff has options where to bring a case, then they can and should choose where their case is most likely to be successful. Thus, they chose the Federal District Court in Alabama.