[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?

[AndrewC]

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?

Following the clear words of the Constitution is not a novel argument. We have judges for a reason, whenever there is an apparent conflict within the law they should resolve it. As I said due process is required. The sanctity of injunctions are not. There is no inventing of a new right. It is the functioning of the government that must be adjusted to fit the law. That includes the judiciary. They were given a new jurisdiction. TADA. They have to be judges. TADA. They are supposed to use blindfolds and scales. TADA. The Constitution outweighs their damned procedures. TADA. They failed to uphold the Constitution. BRRRRAAAP.