Clearly erroneous
This story in today's Deseret Morning News contains several errors and awkward passages. The second paragraph reads:
It is axiomatic that a U.S. District Court does not "affirm" decisions of a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals could, however, affirm a District Court decision. A District Court is bound to follow earlier Court of Appeals decisions because that is the distinguishing feature of our common-law system's emphasis on precedent. Finally, I have never heard of the "equal treatment" clause in the Constitution, although the Fourteenth Amendment does have an equal protection clause.
Attorney Brian Barnard plans to file an immediate appeal of U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins' recent ruling affirming the Circuit Court's 1973 decision and dismissing his client's challenge of the public display of a Ten Commandments monument in Pleasant Grove.
It is axiomatic that a U.S. District Court does not "affirm" decisions of a U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals could, however, affirm a District Court decision. A District Court is bound to follow earlier Court of Appeals decisions because that is the distinguishing feature of our common-law system's emphasis on precedent. Finally, I have never heard of the "equal treatment" clause in the Constitution, although the Fourteenth Amendment does have an equal protection clause.
<< Home