Reply #138: well congratulations

[iverglas]

You appear to have got the date right, while so misrepresenting the decision itself as to represent it as saying the precise opposite of what it said.

It is perfectly acceptable to say that one prefers a dissenting judge's reasons, particularly when the judgment is of a court below the court of last resort. Of course, it's to be expected that one would be able to defend that choice.

Over time, it may even happen that dissenting reasons become more persuasive, as a society changes. (That's why I referred to the recent nature of the judgment; had it been more antique, there might have been better reason to prefer the dissent.)

But really, to say that a court said the precise opposite of what it said ... was that a retraction I heard?

Or maybe it was just crickets.

.