I’ve been following the legal challenge a Detroit mayoral
candidate has been making to get himself on the ballot, and I have to laugh at
the way the Detroit
Free Press is interpreting the appellate court decision denying the
candidate a position on the ballot:
“As much as I respect the judges’ literal
interpretations of the charter language here, I think their rulings run counter
to the inclusive intent of election law in this state. No one should take much
solace in that. And if not in this case, I would hope that sometime soon the
state Supreme Court — which has established precedents that make this kind of
quirky logic stand — will begin to apply the laws more faithfully with their
intent.”
Quirky logic=”literal interpration”
No comments:
Post a Comment