This is a strange ruling. I've never heard of one like it before

al66pine said:

Steely

Is the 'strange part' to you that Appellate Ct
1. removed trial ct judge from this case
or
2. postponed operations of the monitor to oversee new LE stop & frisk procedures.
Or
3. Something else.

If 1,
App Ct said judges are not supposed to solicit cases or invite persons (thru media interviews) to file lawsuits on a particular issue, and a judge doing that is violating the judiciary’s code of conduct, so the judge cannot hear the case.
“In its ruling, the panel of three judges — …. — criticized Judge Scheindlin for granting media interviews and for making public statements while the case was pending before her, including articles in The New Yorker and by The Associated Press. In criticizing the judge for bringing the stop-and-frisk case under her purview, the three-judge panel also cited an article by The New York Times in a footnote.” SBM
and
“The Court of Appeals …. ruled that the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ‘ran afoul”’of the judiciary’s code of conduct by compromising the ‘appearance of impartiality surrounding this litigation.‘ The panel criticized how she had steered the lawsuit to her courtroom when it was filed nearly six years ago.” SBM

If 2,
The App Ct also said it has not yet decided to reverse or affirm Judge S’s ruling that ‘old’ (current) LE stop & frisk procedures are unconstitutional and new procedures are to be put in place. Under the App Ct ruling,the ‘old’ (current) procedures stay in place, i.e., status quo continues. The App Ct will hear arguments next year about the merits - about whether the ‘old’ (current) procedures are unconstitutional, then issue its decision. Until then the new trial judge is to place the case on hold.

“The new judge, John Koeltl, was instructed to put off ‘all proceedings and otherwise await further action”’ from the panel. The appeals court has not yet taken up whether Judge Scheindlin’s decision reached the correct constitutional conclusion regarding the police tactics.”
“’We intimate no view on the substance or merits of the pending appeals,’ the two-page order stated.”
“The panel set a schedule for the appeals process that extends into 2014...”
　
If 3,
Can you be more specific about the strange part?

JM2cts & I may be wrong.:seeya:

Click to expand...

Steely Dan said:

I wasn't aware that judges could steer cases their way.

Click to expand...