this discussion does not belong on HN, but the Fifth Circuit is the purest concentration of activist Trump-nominated whackjob judges in the entire federal judiciary. Google “fifth circuit overreach”
I mean, just look at the Ninth Circuit for an example on the other side of the aisle. Where bees are fish, and the 2nd Amendment is just a suggestion. If thou ist looking for sanity in the judiciary, abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
So in the case of Trump attempting to ban TikTok [0] (Widely discussed on HN at the time) and was found to have violated the first amendment [1] [2] was news on HN and this isn't? This still warrants a discussion right here instead of trying to suppress it.
This discussion completely belongs on HN as it involves big tech and thus this ruling is totally relevant news on this site not when it suits you or others who disagree and like more government censorship on those who they disagree with.
The ruling actually overturned most of the district court judgement and injunction, pretty much tearing it to pieces. It modified the small remaining piece, which, yes, enjoins 4 parties in a small way (especially compared to the original ruling)
"The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with respect to the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI, and
REVERSED as to all other officials. The preliminary injunction is VACATED except for prohibition number six, which is MODIFIED as set forth herein."
The remaining judgement/injunction is also stayed pending application to SCOTUS.
Despite the news articles, this is almost a complete win for the government relative to where the original ruling was.
The remainder is a case of first impression They retain the possibility of getting a complete win if they wish to appeal to SCOTUS, who would take it for sure
I don’t think it’s a win for anyone when multiple courts are saying that the institutions that underpin our society systematically broke our most fundamental laws and violated our most fundamental rights.
The whole point of a process like this is that it's not final until it's final.
It's like saying "multiple courts agreed bob committed a crime, only the last court did not".
The result is still "bob did not commit a crime", and the intermediate results do not matter.
In this case one court said that the government violated the law.
Another court said "that's mostly wrong".
and now another court may say "the rest is wrong too". They may not!
You are trying to say that something bad happened based on the intermediate results in a system not designed for that.
that is the thing that is not a win for society - sensationalizing every step of a longer multi-step process that is built for checks and balances on itself.
Step past the news driven sensationalism and let the process play out. Once it's final, there will be plenty of time for judgement of the result, good or bad.
