That's a good point but I still believe that the judge's role was to adjudicate a dispute as opposed to creating a remedy. Since the question was whether the rules agreed to a year before by the Dem Party Establishment for THEIR own caucus could be altered at the last minute and would that be fundamentaly unfair to those that were prepared to participate at the closer meeting points established a year before, the judge really only could rule the way he did.
“That’s a good point but I still believe that the judge’s role was to adjudicate a dispute as opposed to creating a remedy.”
Oh I agree... I didn’t mean the ruling was bad, but that the original rule was bad. I guess I should have used a different word than rule! It does give an unfair advantage to the unions. But, as you said, it was all agreed to long ago. My point was that if the plaintiffs had really felt voters were disenfranchised, they would have sued to get themselves the same benefit union members were getting, not sued to shut the at-large precincts down.