[Mr. Lucky]

Frankly, I think the Article IV argument is a good one, but shouldn't the injunction have been issued against the State Supreme Court? They are the ones who have usurped the republican form of government.

[TheAngryClam]

There's two suits- one against the state supreme court for issuing the ruling, and one against the legislature to prevent them from acting upon it.

The injunction is to keep the legislature from doing anything about the state supreme court ruling.

What good would an injunction do for an already issued decision? The only worthwhile injunction is on enforcing it, which is what we have here.

[Dont Mention the War]

Frankly, I think the Article IV argument is a good one, but shouldn't the injunction have been issued against the State Supreme Court? They are the ones who have usurped the republican form of government.

Well, like I've said, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm guessing there's some legal technicality as to why the injunction was issued as it was. Perhaps they're going on the argument that what the SCONEV ordered is irrelevant since it's illegal, and the real immediate problem is that the Legislature is attempting to cause horrific damage to the public by following an unconstitutional order.