Thanks for the further explanation. I did get the point.
Actually I think the court is largely responsible for the current limbo we seem to in at the moment. Isn't it customary in making their case to the court that lawyers provide the remedy they are seeking for their particular grievance, and the court then considers the remedy sought when coming to their ruling? If that happened, then it would appear the court did not agree with the proposed remedy and just didn't come up with anything to take it's place except for the BPA to discontinue doing it the way they had been. That's the part that's troubling to me. It seems like a non decision type of decision.
I agree. It seems like the judges were afraid to make a real stand on the issue. I don't watch Court TV but I've never heard of another decision without more specific remedies.
the law is clear, then the court doesn't really need to proscribe the specific remedy; the burden is on BPA to simply implement it.
In other words, it's like getting a building permit. It isn't the job of the building inspector to engineer your project, it's only his responsibility to determine if your plans comply with the rules.
BPA threw out a settlement which in the view of the PUD doesn't comply with existing law. If I were the judge, I'd order damages against the BPA for failing to make a good faith effort to comply with it.
Previous Topic
Index
