“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.
You argued THE LAW. Technically you’re right.
If the law were respcted by its custodians and administrators, generally, because that’s the best you can expect of flawed people, I’d agree. But I don’t belive this judge believes in the law any more than Hillary Clinton does, or the deepstate coup plotters do, or the judges who aid and assist illegal invaders in evading the law, or Governors who dismiss the law in aid of illegal invaders, or prosecutors who ignore the law and prosecute according to political belief, or FBI heads who dismiss law to take down a duly elected president, or etc etc etc.
At the point that I, generally, no longer feel protected in the fair, unbiased application of the law I am against peoplw like this judge. Completely. Absolutely. And it is because THEY only will use law AGAINST me. I haven’t looked into this guy but I don’t doubt that he often wipes his ass with the law when he feels like it. One hint is all the fawning praise and awards rained down upon him by all of the usual suspects.
You are arguing like it’s 1965. And, anyway, you’re right. But it isn’t 1965 anymore and people like this judge no longer fear us.