Return to regular programming
This is now a week and a half old, but I see little chatter over it. I will have to defer to the legal beagles to explain what the difference is between the latest request by the county to delay the assessment litigation and its previous request which the state supreme court denied outright. 91 pages no less, but sure seems to be making the same argument as before.
I wonder: Do lawyers ever strategize beyond the legalisms? ...like maybe there is a point where it may make sense to cut your losses and not continue to prod the only judge the case has had for more than a decade. You almost have to consider if the intent is to try and incite the judge to do something with some hope of being appealable.
I had thought I would be insightful and ask if the county's recent budget proposal has set aside any money for an assessment in any form. The PG editorial board is ahead of me. Anyone want to place odds that fact will be pointed out to the Judge at the next hearing over all of this. County has a bind in that sense. If they budget money for an assessment they don't want to do, then they are tacitly acknowledging making plans for it. If they don't budget for it, they are all but telling the judge they are not even planning on complying with his intent if not his outright orders.
I said this before, but just observing all of this I can't get this scene out of my head. That's the best reference I can find. If anyone can find an embeddable clip of that I'd love to see it.