vzqq
Yeah, sort of. Basically the guy that is bringing the action has to show that the entity being sued is causing irreparable harm in order to get the judge to say “stop doing that until we can have a trial”.
But on appeal, the roles are reversed. The other entity had to show that the lower court prohibiting him from doing the thing he was doing is causing him irreparable harm.
It’s quite possible for both parties to be able show that this is the case. It’s not (always, necessarily) a partisan issue.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, and all I know about American federal law is from following the news)
Maybe I’m just getting old, but it gets harder and harder to tell.
It’s always projection
Except that you’re dead wrong about the actual literal text of the article.
But arguing with pompous ideologues is boring, so welcome to the block list.
All cops are bolsheviks, didn’t you hear ;)
I went into the section about “environmental factors” with a lot of trepidation, but it was surprisingly good!
There should be some embarrassment in this thread alright.
First of all, the reporting is the evidence. That’s how journalism works.
Second, there are attributed quotes and named sources.
Third, it references events that one (you?) could chase down.
I mean, I get being the skeptic counterculture internet tough guy, but you have to put WAY more effort into it if you want to be taken seriously.
10/10 No notes
I’m more of a “more crap” and “Copy (4) of New Folder” kind of guy.