I'm not familiar with these things, but is that how it works? People make arguments pro, con, and the judge just waits for all of them to say their peace and then gives his ruling? He doesn't engage what was said, he just reads from the paper he'd prepared before the whole thing started? Seems inefficient.
Fair enough. The whole thing seems odd to someone looking at it with fresh eyes. One side is arguing that the rules are broken, the judge is talking about "the will of the electorate". If the will of the electorate is the gold standard, and rules can and SHOULD be broken in pursuing that will, what is even the point of having rules?
Yeah, bad ruling. If the rules aren’t followed then you don’t know what the people wanted. So he said the only think you could, “The rules were followed and the guidance was accurate...” Which is obviously not true.
I'm not familiar with these things, but is that how it works? People make arguments pro, con, and the judge just waits for all of them to say their peace and then gives his ruling? He doesn't engage what was said, he just reads from the paper he'd prepared before the whole thing started? Seems inefficient.
thats how it works in the United States.
A judge or justice is a poltical activst, and whatever you say in court doesnt matter.
Yeah. Pretty common.
Fair enough. The whole thing seems odd to someone looking at it with fresh eyes. One side is arguing that the rules are broken, the judge is talking about "the will of the electorate". If the will of the electorate is the gold standard, and rules can and SHOULD be broken in pursuing that will, what is even the point of having rules?
Yeah, bad ruling. If the rules aren’t followed then you don’t know what the people wanted. So he said the only think you could, “The rules were followed and the guidance was accurate...” Which is obviously not true.
Yups he is just reading his preprepared ruling