Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 30th Sep 2012 22:01 UTC
Permalink for comment 537177
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-08-22
No, the appeals court were very much in lock step with the interests of established big businesses. They may as well have built their own that's-no-moon with a two metre wide weak spot.
It is rogue in that it is suppose to follow the precedents set by SCOTUS, and they have even blatantly ignored SCOTUS - including one of their own calling out the rest of the judges on doing so.
If they don't follow the law - written, unwritten (e.g. common law), and judicial precedent - then they in fact rogue.