[AndrewC]

What else were they going to say? "We need more time, period" is also not an argument that buys you an injunction, and an injunction was what they needed. Congress granted a de novo review to a dead woman. Yippee. Yay for them.

It is obvious the Constitution requires due process. That is in toto. It does not require the sanctity of an injunction. The injunction must be granted in order to achieve the due process required, required by the Constitution.

[general_re]

Novel argument, but novelty is not a virtue in law. You're basically asking the court to ignore the language of the bill, which plainly makes injunctive relief discretionary, ignore the legislative history, which clearly indicates that Congress was aware of their ability to mandate relief but specifically rejected it, ignore the standards for injunctive relief that have served pretty well for about seventy years now, and instead invent a whole new standard for injunctions that is somehow based on what Congress and/or the Constitution really meant. Right. And this is our new "conservative" judiciary, is it?