3 ms·
It's still rooted in evidence, and that evidence doesn't need to be conclusive. This was to say the injunction is not completely on a whim, agreed on everythin
by ndr 3y ago
It's still rooted in evidence, and that evidence doesn't need to be conclusive.
This was to say the injunction is not completely on a whim, agreed on everything else you wrote.
- DannyBee 3y agoKinda. It depends on whether you mean the legal definition of admissible evidence or just "stuff" It is mostly meta evidence - statements about what evidence will show at trial. Which assumes it's valid and admissible and actually shows that and .... In this case, this isn't on a whim but I wouldn't say it's on the evidence either - especially given the consistent misquotes.
- DannyBee 3y agoFYI - Stay request was filed - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.297.1_1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18... They were not particularly diplomatic on the evidence part: "Additionally, the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims fails to properly apply state-action doctrine and ignores the voluminous evidence presented by Defendants that contradicts Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations."