“This judge should be doxxed and hounded ....”
I don’t know about that.
Her punishment was not that she opened her salon early, but her contempt of a temporary injunction that she close her business. In other words, she was going to get her day in court to plead her case.
Since her case commenced close in time to when the restrictions are starting to end, her case would eventually become a moot, and whatever citations she received probably would have been dropped. While many of these restrictions could have been challenged, at least to develop and test the limits of the law, it is surprising in a nation of nearly a million lawyers, there were so few cases.
Based on the comments I have seen here, I am going to be in the minority. There is the rule of law. The salon owner was in contempt of court; judge did what he had to do. (Too bad other judges don’t mete out justice to the left at times, like the leftist vandals destroy public property). She is willing to pay the price for it, so be it. Too bad she did not make her challenge over a month ago so her case had a chance of being heard without getting caught up in a contempt of court issue.
An unlawful edict cannot be used as the basis of a contempt charge. I was involved in a case in my jurisdiction where an individual was arrested in a city, for a crime allegedly committed in another province. The local police had no jurisdiction to arrest him, but the judge who arraigned him imposed an order requiring him to deliver his guns to the police. He refused and was cited in contempt. On appeal, the higher court dismissed the initial charges and also the contempt ruling. The order seizing his firearms was invalid, as it was based on his unlawful arrest. The lower court judge had no right to issue a contempt citation on an order that had been unlawfully made. She is 100% right and all conservatives should support her in this fight against political and judicial tyranny.
You make being in contempt of court sound like a bad thing.
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.