Hi Carl & Zeev - indeed, I ve enjoyed the civil tongue in this thread.
Zeev, it appears Mr Boies is trying to thread the needle. He would be toasted if he had tried to attack the "finding of facts" angle. Now, at least he got a chance.
According to the commentators, indeed, the statutes seem to have fault-tolerance builtin. 20 years ago when I was a good friend of mine at NYU Law School, he told me that there was a movement in which judgement could be based on the affordability principle. That is to say, it is not so much of who is right and who is wrong, but who can afford it. It appears that it is quite prevalent in the malpractice cases until things get quite out of hand. OTOH, there is the RICO law, in which everything is tainted and deemed a fair game. Both seem to ground in some sort of consequential school with opposite conclusion. I guess it depends how the judges frame the rulings. Obviously, since the voters themselves did not do anything illegal, from the angle, their votes are as good as their neighor's. OTOH, if their neighbor's [democrat] votes were thrown out, the situation would be highly inequitable.
best, Bosco |
