Actually it's a perfectly fair question, because if the presiding judge had ANY kind of personal relationship with a party, he needs to disclose that up front in order to give the parties an opportunity to object. And in the real world, judges know a lot of people. That's how they get elected (or appointed). When I was on the bench it was the rare case when I didn't know one or more of the parties in one capacity or another. Can't be avoided and must be disclosed. And frankly there were any number of judges and former judges I would have been delighted to have had an opportunity to rule against!
That's the problem. Judge Klein apparently did not divulge just how well he knew the Defendants. The whole thing was rigged from the get-go. However, that lack of disclosure would be a good thing to bring up on the appeal and might get the whole ruling overturned. He should have recused himself and now he will have to explain why he did not.
Also Judge Sandstead will have to explain how he made it possible to get the Defendants their restraining order after the Court was closed on a Friday--and in less than 3 hours.
It doesn't look good for either of them.
Plaintiffs, I mean. My bad.
Guess my mind is on the appeal already ;)