Bolton arrived in the courtroom with her decision (whether on her own initiative, or on orders issued by :others"), and then she had to make up some blather about why her decision was "correct".
We see this same symptom ten years later in the LA Times and Washington Post and Clinton Administration v. Free Republic case. Morrow already had her orders, so she made up some BS about "four points", and ten years later, people are STILL posting full text articles all over the Interwebs, because the Clinton White House-crafted "decision" was tailored to smack down Free Republic.
Hell, I remember reading a full-text LA Times article on the FR "decision" posted on a Lefty website, laughing at FR while they flouted the very "bill of attainder" that apparently only applied to Free Republic...
Perhaps we need a judicial review device to deal with blatant a priori decisions like this.
What's particularly concerning is the quality of that "blather".
Bolton arrived in the courtroom with her decision (whether on her own initiative, or on orders issued by :others"), and then she had to make up some blather about why her decision was "correct".
Of course the fix was in; the AG would not have filed the case if it had not already been fixed.
Let us repeat that, the case would not have been filed in that court by the US Attornay General if the decision had not already been ascertained. This by virtue of that particular Judge, and prearranged argument.
Sad how many accept this, even here on FR, how many legal decisions in the US today are not prearranged agenda.
There is also a much more insidious connection which virtually no one wants to talk about. Susan Bolton is from Philadelphia, research her.