CLINTON V. JONES
· Dispute about 12(g) in the case- Clinton wanted to make a motion to freeze all motions until the court decided his immunity motion. However, Rule 12(g) says that if he makes this motion, he has to make all the others at the same time. Clinton asked the court to freeze all other motions in the case until the court decided the immunity issue, and then retain those other motions later. This went against 12(g)
· Jones argued that everyone else in the world had to adhere to 12(g), and so did the President. That this was obviously a stalling tactic, and the purpose of 12(g) is to discourage stalling tactics.
· Clinton argued that the whole point of the immunity motion was to not waste the President’s time with all of these motions.
· Judge decided that the procedural issue had to trump, and that she would interpret 12(g) in the traditional way
· POLICY: Equal and same treatment regardless of whether you’re the President v. This was an unpragmatic decision that was divorced from the realities of litigation.
· Trans-substantive procedure- These rules apply the same way, no matter what kind of claim you’re asserting. Is this the right way to do things?