” First, how do the victims have any standing to enforce a marketing law when they didn’t buy the product and weren’t users of the product?”

Even if they were consumers of the product, why would they have standing? Wouldn’t standing for a lawsuit under an unfair trade practices law require the plaintiff to be a competitor of the defendant?

Asking as a non-lawyer, what do/can you do when the law is clearly ignored by the government???

I wish there was a like button for these comments. You would get one here. I also want to say in the real world among real people your political positions do not matter much. I have great friends that have world views that are wildly different from my own.

In further support, the Scalia-Ginsburg friendship which by all accounts was very real. This relationship was advanced in a hypercharged political environment where they both strongly disagreed with each other.

Also, I don’t know the law in CT but we have never had an appellate judge removed from office at the ballot box in Maryland history.

Regarding the motives of those who wrote the decision–in my view, this doesn’t happen enough.

This decision, on so many levels, is bad. First, how do the victims have any standing to enforce a marketing law when they didn’t buy the product and weren’t users of the product? Second, the exception obviously is to deal with situations where there was a difference between the product as marketed and how it performed.

This is obvious to anyone who looks at it, and the fact that the learned judges didn’t get that either shows that they are obtuse or willful,

I’ve mentioned the oft-summarily reversed Kim McLane Wardlaw. Why isn’t it ok to impugn her motives? Why isn’t it ok for lawyers and the public to ask whether she is qualified to sit on the courts? “Home cooking” is something EVERYONE who does the legal thing has heard about. Many have suffered it. Every state Supreme Court in America knows about it—and do they do thing one to call it out? Not that I’ve ever seen.

This may just be my personal view, but I find “wants to be invited to the right parties” awfully tired as a trope for describing those who endorse legal ideas I disagree with. I think most senior judges have already arranged for whatever social life they may want at this point in their careers and don’t spend a lot of time being jealous about unreceived invitations.

The trope would stand a better chance of being persuasive were it phrased as “are susceptible to social pressure from people who are much like them.” That would capture ways in which even persons who are professionally very secure can sometimes be influenced by their family members, old friends, those with whom they serve in a church or volunteer capacity, and so forth. In Connecticut, that stratum does probably tend to push them in one direction more than another. But all of this is to accept the assumption that the right reaction to a regrettable court ruling is to second-guess the motives of those who signed it.

It’s not about the law. It’s about: (1) re-election, and, (2) continuing to be invited to the right parties.