Quote:
Originally Posted by thespaah
The opinion fails on this one point.
The judge opines that since bettors may go to brick and mortar places to make wagers, CDI is not being injured.
The failure is that while the judge recognizes that wagering done on the internet and betting done at brick and mortar are different in scope and regulatory challenges, he treats them as the same in his ruling.
IMO this ruling is a moral opinion rather than a legal opinion.
|
It fails at a few points. The result might be correct -- I'd love to read the briefing on it -- but many of the most important aspects of the opinion are ipse dixit. As I said above, it has all the hallmarks of a judge letting his clerk do 90% of the work on the draft.