>So the judge is a precise, by-the-book man. That is no cause for celebration. These procedural trivialities will get “fixed” and the regs will stand.
The judge should had said “This is an abomination to all mankind and defies common sense. It hurts and damages the most innocent among us. It protects the tiniest minority imaginable at the expense of the great majority. I will not stand for it in Texas and hereby find it unlawful.”
Then we would have cause for celebration, the judge would have been a real man and a hero
>
IMO, if, and until, the ‘by the books’ include, and START with, the Constitution, there’s no to even give the ‘judge’ a nod of appreciation.
His rational for the ruling begins at step 20, his presumption that steps 1-19 are legitimate to begin.
Good point...if he had cited the Constitution and enumerated, limited powers we could celebrate. But citing regulatory process problems is pure BS.