Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[rekcusdo]

"So which is it? Either way can be construed as Sweeney involving herself in this election."

If she makes a decision based on the election, then she is involved in the election. If she makes a decision based on the case, she is not involved in the election. It doesn't really matter how it is "construed" by outsiders. You will always have people accusing judges of pretty much everything under the sun. In the end, all that matters is what is "reasonable".

"all comes down to Sweeney's interpretation and decision about who she feels would be harmed more."

Yes...exactly. Sweeney must interpret who she believes would be harmed more and rule in their favor when it comes to procedural issues like an extension. The election should not come into the decision. In the end, it was argued that the plaintiff is barely harmed by a 31 day extension where the defense would be gravely harmed without it. Sweeney agreed.

"This is an unprecedented case and an unprecedented election."

Both statements are true...though unrelated (at least if you believe in the Constitution).