I have been concentrating on other things again and not paying much attention to some of the political blogs. I did a post on the Iowa case on another blog of mine (for that article go here). Once again there is ranting that an appellate court was being anti-democratic, anti-majoritarian, tyrannical, etc.. Oddly (yes, I am being sarcastic here), those making those claims oppose the decision.
As a lawyer, I know of only one way to describe these sort of people: sore losers. That also goes for those decrying decisions which go against my own political views.
Don Sherfick posted And then there's Vermont over on the Indiana Equality blog. I first saw the topic discussed on Lawyers. Guns and Money in the post Problematic Conceptions of Democracy, Selectively Applied. Both are good articles but I did add a comment to the second one.
Judicial opinions may be poorly reasoned, they may be stupid, but you got to read the things to discover those facts. I disagree with rulings but I judge them on the basis of how they explain how they got to their result. Go read the opinion (there is a link to it on my other post here). I thought it did a very good job of explaining itself. Tyrannical, no. Just people doing their job as best they can.
What does Judge Preska's decision striking down the CFPB mean for consumers? - by Jeff Sovern Allison blogged earlier about Judge Preska's decision striking down the CFPB as unconstitutional and I've been wondering what it means for c...
6 hours ago