Court Opinion

ID: 9449753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:21:44.250243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:58.264740
License: Public Domain

GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I would deny the motion for a preference and for a hearing before November 20, 1963, on the original record (not printed) and typed briefs as requested by the United States. It is inconceivable to rae that the overcrowded docket of a busy panel of an overloaded Court of Appeals should be further burdened with giving a preferential and special hearing in a case where a U. S. District Judge has presumptively given a careful review to 175 ietter requests for registration. There will not be sufficient time for printing the records or the briefs. Everything else must be laid aside in order to hear this case. There are many important cases in this Court pending long before this one, which have not been heard and which will not receive preferential treatment. There are literally hundreds of such cases, involving the liberty of human beings who are in prison, property rights, constitutional rights, and numerous other important legal questions, which will be decided without special preference. Nevertheless, the United States has requested us to disregard all other responsibililies and give a special hearing to determine whether a U. S. District Judge acted wisely and discreetly in passing upon the letters in question. The motion is not verified and it is not supported by affidavits or other documents. It is nothing more than a request of counsel for a litigant who has appealed, that we hear that litigant's case before others of equal or even greater importance have a chance to reach the docket. The Judiciary should not allow the zealous, demanding and over-enthusiastic request of one litigant to prevail over others whose cases are also vital, and deserve the early attention of the Court. An emergency is not created by the unsworn, unsupported assertion of an advocate that it does exist.
I would Deny the motion and require this case to take its place in line with the hundreds of others already pending. See dissenting opinion in Armstrong, et als. v. Board of Education of Birmingham, et als., 5 Cir. 1968, 823 F.2d 333.