You aND the law and this judge regard this woman and her ability to support herself and her family as being NOTHING. A mere technical aspect in a narrow legal question.
This question grew out of an unprecedented theft of constitutional right. Presently in Texas the law is what bureaucrats say it is.
This judge might have tried to figure out a way to acknowledge that “compexity” leftists are always pointing to and exercise some of that “compassion” they are always wrapping themselves in, often and even in the case of judges DISMISSING the law as they please.
But he didnt. This isn’t about a temporary injunction. It is the state asserting that her right to life liberty and the persuit of happyness don’t exist at all. Hence her contempt now for Law.
This is not a personal selfish contempt; the contempt of the thief or the meth-head. Rather it is a moral contempt. The contempt of a supporter and producer and contributor. A contempt that should frighten the judge if he had any brains.
“You aND the law and this judge regard this woman and her ability to support herself and her family as being NOTHING. A mere technical aspect in a narrow legal question.”
You are assuming things about me, misinterpreting my position that I am disregarding the woman’s ability to support herself and family, or the unconstitutionality of the law. The injunction did not decide the merits of her case.
My guess is the judge did not find that continued closure of her business would cause her irreparable harm at that point in time. Media pictures of her do not give the appearance that she is in great distress presently. The state restrictions are about to begin lifting. Is she paying a price (lost income) for the closure? No doubt. Not enough apparently for the judge to order her to keep her business open while her case proceeds through the court.