Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be  for assertion of federal power in federalism cases; "not ascertained" for conflict between states; for attorney; for the validity of challenged selective service regulation; or for the government interest in dispute with someone attempting to resist induction; for the authority of the challenged official in challenge to magistrates or referees; for defendant in Indian law - criminal; for the claim of the Indian or tribal rights in Indian law; for federal or state authority in Indian law vs state and federal authority; for interest of US or US firms when opposed by foreign firms or government; for US government if opposed to either US or foreign business in international law; for government regulation in immigration Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

BIGGS, Chief Judge.
Vladimir Behr and Anne Livingston Behr filed notice of an appeal from an order of the court below filed on December 12, 1951 which, inter alia, denied their motion for leave to intervene as parties plaintiff. A previous motion for leave to intervene made by the Behrs also was denied by the court below and on appeal that decision was affirmed by this court. 190 F.2d 675. See 186 F.2d 1023, Appeal of Ginsburg. The case is presently scheduled for trial in the court below on Monday, January 14, 1952. The plaintiffs, Hirshorn and others, have moved to docket and dismiss the Behrs’ appeal. The Behrs, through their counsel, in open court on the argument on the motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, suggested and agreed that the appeal should be considered upon the merits at the same time that this court gave consideration to the merits of the motion to docket and dismiss. We adopt the suggestion.
The present application for leave to intervene in the court below is without merit, like the previous application, and like it was correctly denied by the trial court. D.C.W.D.Pa., 101 F.Supp. 549. The additional facts alleged by the Behrs to support the present application are irrelevant to the issue presented and are of such slight consequence as not to merit discussion here.
Since the order appealed from was an appealable order we will not dismiss the appeal. We will, however, order the appeal docketed and we will affirm the order complained of. We will further direct that the mandate go down forthwith. The trial set for January 14th should be proceeded with without further delay. The costs of the appeal will be charged against the Behrs.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D