Dan Epps

There really does seem ideologically slanted because the court has this complete discretionary power.

It can just pick whichever cases it wants to step in, take some time out of all the cases where something unjust might have happened.

And it does seem like

The court has a certain view on how it should use that rare power.

And this is another case that I think continues that narrative.

So it's a case where the plaintiff was a woman who was protesting at the governor's inauguration in Vermont.

So she was at the sit-in at the state capitol.

And the Capitol closed and she and a number of other protesters refused to leave.

They were told they were trespassing and would be removed.

And she refused to move.

And in the course of her removal, an officer...

her, you know, took her arm, put it behind her back, put her in sort of like a pain wrist block and dragged her out.

And her allegation is that this violated her rights and caused her a lot of physical injury, which might sound like the kind of thing that someone is allowed to sue for.

And so the court and the lower court—this is coming from the Second Circuit, which is the court of appeals, federal court of appeals that governs Vermont, New York, Connecticut.

That's it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And the Second Circuit had said, you know, this—we're not going to say who wins yet, but this is the kind of claim that can go forward.

We can let a jury decide whether this violated the plaintiff's rights.

And the court comes in and says—