"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process
by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states,
"and who underwent excessive vetting during
what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."
IMO, Surrick used political, extra-legal, Obama defense team-like political arguments to squash lawsuit It sounds like an argument
Obama defense lawyers would make.
It also sounds like Surrick had already made up
his mind to squash the lawsuit irrespective of any Legal Arguments.
He makes Four indefensible assertions that are political and subjective and not legal in nature.
1) derail the democratic process - Political statement
A counter arument is that the democratic process has already been subverted.
2) invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted - Political statement that can be said of Hillary also
3) underwent excessive vetting - this comment is a joke considering
the complete MSM news blackout on his past
4) One of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory -
This is a completely irrlevant comment.
These comments are non-legal, subjective and politically partisan in nature and could be grounds for overturning his Verdict.
Topic: Surrick inserted political, non-legal opinions into his ruling (Read 600 times)