Sorry to be late replying. I think the ruling stands or falls to a considerable degree on the validity of the scientific evidence the judge cites and whether he's interpreting that evidence correctly. I lack the expertise to assess this.
The Fifth Circuit has now affirmed the ruling in part and rejected it in part. The Fifth Circuit's decision seems sound to me but, again, I'm not expert enough to say this with confidence.
Prominent Democrats want to Wyden the broad field of those they believe are above the law: Those who cross the border illegally, those who ignore deportation orders, those who Soros-sponsored prosecutors declare are immune from prosecution, regulators who ignore the laws they apply, Democratic candidates for president, and now those who want abortions. Everybody is above the law for Democrats, it seems, other than former presidents of the United States. Jim Dueholm
Oh, yes, the even-handed rule of law, blah, blah, blah.
Speaking of "rule of law," I'm curious as to your opinion of Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling itself.
Sorry to be late replying. I think the ruling stands or falls to a considerable degree on the validity of the scientific evidence the judge cites and whether he's interpreting that evidence correctly. I lack the expertise to assess this.
The Fifth Circuit has now affirmed the ruling in part and rejected it in part. The Fifth Circuit's decision seems sound to me but, again, I'm not expert enough to say this with confidence.
Prominent Democrats want to Wyden the broad field of those they believe are above the law: Those who cross the border illegally, those who ignore deportation orders, those who Soros-sponsored prosecutors declare are immune from prosecution, regulators who ignore the laws they apply, Democratic candidates for president, and now those who want abortions. Everybody is above the law for Democrats, it seems, other than former presidents of the United States. Jim Dueholm