Interesting. But the whole concept of dissent at this level, makes for less respect for the law.
I am thinking in general, not only on this case.
How is it possible to have the best judges of the land, hear the same case, the same well exposed arguments, challenge counsels on the same points, look at the same base law...AND then come to different conclusions !
What does that say about the system, the laws and most importantly, about the judges and the court ?
I am thinking in general, not only on this case.
How is it possible to have the best judges of the land, hear the same case, the same well exposed arguments, challenge counsels on the same points, look at the same base law...AND then come to different conclusions !
What does that say about the system, the laws and most importantly, about the judges and the court ?