You said it right there. You, you said it. In your post. And then concluded with "justice was not served here". Amazing.
Sorry, but damn, you are not good at this. You just said the evidence showed "The possibility of an incorrect outcome of this election is possible." THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. Possibility is conjecture! That is not enough in our current legal framework. The evidence has to show that an incorrect outcome happened, not that it's possible. You might not like that morally/spiritually, but that's legally how the law works.
The law was served correctly in this case. The judge made the correct decision with the evidence, or lack thereof he was given. That of course doesn't mean justice was necessarily served, but if you expect the law and justice to always be on the same page, I've got some dry land on the Florida coast to sell you. Cheap.
Then take the word "possibly" out and conclude that if the law is broken then the vote count can not be relayed on to be accurate. It is so obvious to most people commenting here and everywhere else that the judge got this wrong. Keep defending his actions like you know the law so we'll, but it really just makes you sound like a troll.
You said it right there. You, you said it. In your post. And then concluded with "justice was not served here". Amazing.
Sorry, but damn, you are not good at this. You just said the evidence showed "The possibility of an incorrect outcome of this election is possible." THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. Possibility is conjecture! That is not enough in our current legal framework. The evidence has to show that an incorrect outcome happened, not that it's possible. You might not like that morally/spiritually, but that's legally how the law works.
The law was served correctly in this case. The judge made the correct decision with the evidence, or lack thereof he was given. That of course doesn't mean justice was necessarily served, but if you expect the law and justice to always be on the same page, I've got some dry land on the Florida coast to sell you. Cheap.
Then take the word "possibly" out and conclude that if the law is broken then the vote count can not be relayed on to be accurate. It is so obvious to most people commenting here and everywhere else that the judge got this wrong. Keep defending his actions like you know the law so we'll, but it really just makes you sound like a troll.