I'm not through with it yet but it's hard to disagree with this reader:

A reader wrote, "His clerks made that trial record their bitch, and Judge Walker took that dog for a walk."

To me, reading the opinion, this is a gross understatement.  Judge Walker's opinion reads more like, "Plaintiffs proved all their points and demolished the proponents' witness by showing that he was a mere pundit not an expert.  Proponents failed to do anything substantive."  The subtext reads, "And I [the judge] feel like fining the proponents for the amount of time they made me waste; I am resisting the urge to slap them around."

Once you get done with that, the sheer breadth and weight of the facts assembled make me wonder how in the hell any judge would vote to overturn this case.  Appellate judges can't really overturn facts; they can only point out errors in admissibility or weight given to evidence and order a retrial.  Given the factual record assembled, I cannot fathom that a retrial would result in anything different except giving the plaintiffs more evidence and time to develop their case.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.