There’s something just wrong about using the term “oral arguments” in this context.
There are multiple arguments for a new trial in this case.
1. The issue with the video recordings which shows bias by the judge.
2. The conduct of the trial itself, including labeling matters of opinion as findings of fact.
3. The non-disclosure by the trial judge that he could personally benefit by his decision.
4. The fact that the state deliberately put up a weak defense because the Governor and Attorney General both opposed the amendment.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think the case needs to be retried with the backers of the amendment given a chance to vigorously defend the law before a neutral judge.
Nope,
NO conflict here judge!!!
No reason for recusal?
Is there ANY reason to trust our govt. any more???????