"Oglethorpe" <antikerry@go.com> wrote:
>
>"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:52611c08$0$32308$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>>
>> "Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>> news:8vr169l2htib09ibjlbbvetojr3bm0mhij@4ax.com...
>>> "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Personally I don't think the judge should have
>>>>taken so long to render his decision. SCOTUS hears much more elaborate
>>>>and difficult cases and renders decisions within a couple of months. Why
>>>>should your decision take years? Anyway, glad to see you back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Appeals courts often take years; and the SCOTUS in some cases DOES
>>> take years. It's only in "national emergencies" (as defined more by
>>> politics than any real disaster) that they speed things up.
>>>
>>> But, I do tend to agree: Six years for a judge to rule on a case, even
>>> one as complicated as mine, DOES seem a bit excessive. Especially so,
>>> in light of what his final ruling was.
>>>
>>
>> The judge probably made his decision two minutes after your lawyer began
>> your defense.
>>
>Same decision as Pontius Pilot made. The judge washed his hads of the
>matter. There's no "good" decision to be made.
>
No matter WHAT conclusion he came to, *somebody* was likely to be
mighty pissed about it; and scream, "That's the WORST decision I ever
heard!" My *guess* is that he decided to piss-off least those he
lives around.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 |
|