But I have a comment on one of your statements about the judiciary.
Injunctions are not just about procedural issues. In order for a judge to grant an injunction, there must be the threat of irreparable harm if the policy is allowed to be enforced AND the side asking for the injunction must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. That means that the judge is actually making an early decision, declaring that the side asking for the injunction is most likely right.
The important thing to understand is that these judges aren't pulling their opinion on the likelihood of success out of thin air. The injunction needs to be based upon solid law or it will be quickly overturned on appeal. That's the problem with complaints about "judicial activism." With few exceptions, the judge is using an array of precedents and laws to impose an injunction.
Great conversation!
But I have a comment on one of your statements about the judiciary.
Injunctions are not just about procedural issues. In order for a judge to grant an injunction, there must be the threat of irreparable harm if the policy is allowed to be enforced AND the side asking for the injunction must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. That means that the judge is actually making an early decision, declaring that the side asking for the injunction is most likely right.
The important thing to understand is that these judges aren't pulling their opinion on the likelihood of success out of thin air. The injunction needs to be based upon solid law or it will be quickly overturned on appeal. That's the problem with complaints about "judicial activism." With few exceptions, the judge is using an array of precedents and laws to impose an injunction.
That's very helpful, Tony, thanks!