Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (243353)	7/11/2022 4:09:55 PM
From: Doo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356251

Yeah, or perhaps another description is to say it was a "result oriented" decision - the majority wanted to hold drop boxes to be unlawful and tried their darndest to make it so. It's a pretty poorly crafted decision, to say the least. The threshold question of "standing" is the most ridiculous result one could imagine. The dissenting justices got it right, both standing and their statutory interpretation were really very standard fare for what judges are supposed to do, if they are honest and objective. One thing to keep in mind is that some states (Wisconsin is one) elect judges and even justices of their supreme courts. I haven't dug into it, but I'd wager the 5 justices in the majority are of the R persuasion. Granted, WI claims to have a "non-partisan" election process for judges, but that's just a label and little more.