morosco

I understand the sentiment, but this law and some other ones you refer to were passed by a democratically-elected legislature. I do think the executive branch of a state has some duty to defend its state's laws. Obviously in this case, the governor shares the views of the legislature, but how would we feel if the executive branch refused to defend a law we agreed with? It's just not their place to do that.

I do think they waste money hiring expensive outside counsel to do this work though. Let the salaried state attorneys handle it.

And at the end of the day, the process worked. The legislature passed a law, the executive branch tried to enforce/defend it, the judiciary shot it down. Now its binding precedent in this state and persuasive authority in others.

You would need a crime - one that actually exists ahead of time - and facts to prove guilt, including the requisite intent and willfullness. Because the U.S. Constitution is actually pretty awesome in a lot ways.

Corporations are not the legal equivalent of people. I know that's a popular line these days, but it's not true. Corporations, as a group, do retain some of the rights of individuals, like free speech. The government can't censor a non-profit whose message they don't like for example. But that doesn't mean corporations are equivalent to individuals in all respects, such as in the criminal justice system.

How much of the verdict money has Hogan (and his attorneys) actually gotten, and is there any hope of them getting more at this point?