21 ms·

The judge is likely interpreting a law that is worded to result in exactly this outcome.

• jaywalk 5y ago
  Exactly. It's ridiculous to jump to the assumption that judges are being paid off when they correctly interpreted the law as written. The law needs to be changed, of course. But that's not up to the judges.
  • matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > But that's not up to the judges. Sure it is. English common law countries place heavy emphasis on precedent. If the judge had refused to take the law literally in this case and done the reasonable thing instead, chances are this precedent would be cited in any future lawsuits of this sort.
• mpalczewski 5y ago
  2 out of 3 judges are interpreting the law this way. This went all the way to an appeals court. There's a strong implication that there is quite a bit of room for the judges to maneuver. The minority opinion judge said > if consumers are deceived by the label, “Product of the U.S.A.,” then that label violates both the FMIA and USDA regulations.