It would've been nice to keep the rulings on file, but since lower courts were divided anyway, they just said not to use any of them --- for or against --- as precedent. Could've been better, but it's not awful either.
It's not really based on a quick review of this article. You can't get injunctive relief when someone stops doing what you wanted them to stop doing. Based on my cursory review of this article, it looks like Biden Administration stopped the mandate before the court could rule on whether the mandate should be stopped.
A different example would be someone going to court to stop people from blocking traffic in protest of animal cruelty or climate change. If by the time you get to court the protestors are gone, the court has no power to issue an injunction. It's kind of the same thing. The issue isn't "ripe" for adjudication.
It would've been nice to keep the rulings on file, but since lower courts were divided anyway, they just said not to use any of them --- for or against --- as precedent. Could've been better, but it's not awful either.
I just think this is so devastating. It might just be a movie too. Will see.
It's not really based on a quick review of this article. You can't get injunctive relief when someone stops doing what you wanted them to stop doing. Based on my cursory review of this article, it looks like Biden Administration stopped the mandate before the court could rule on whether the mandate should be stopped.
A different example would be someone going to court to stop people from blocking traffic in protest of animal cruelty or climate change. If by the time you get to court the protestors are gone, the court has no power to issue an injunction. It's kind of the same thing. The issue isn't "ripe" for adjudication.
So you mean, problem solved. Don't need to do anything until the next time it pops up?
Still not good, right?
“Devastating”? You sound like a liberal when you use those kind of words. Tone it down a bit.
Thanks.