[Wally_Kalbacken]

A judge is not required to actually read an amicus brief. In this order the judge is simply trying to reduce the judicial resources (i.e., staff time) managing the inflow of documents which may be stamped and filed in the case, but which will likely have absolutely no effect. You see this more frequently at the SCOTUS level, but the media attention this is getting is drawing every two-bit public interest law firm and "public interest" center/institute/foundation, and they will likely be inundated. It's done not so much as to truly influence the court - but rather to allow the center/institute/foundation to be able to issue a press release announcing their participation, thus "blowing their own horn."

[Cyber Liberty]

A judge is not required to actually read an amicus brief.

What you say is technically true, but from the article:

But Bolton also says there's an interest in having the court hear views of interested parties that file briefs of reasonable length.

IOW, Bolton is saying she intends to read every one. She's a liberal judge in the Clinton tradition (she's lying), and she can be counted upon to read the views from the left. The beauty of this is we'll never know what she read or didn't read.

I'll say it again, though: My money is on her issuing an injunction before the 29th, then tossing the law. She may just toss the law before the 29th. Either way, there won't be any enforcement of this law...Bolton and Obama stand in the doorway.