Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by ndr on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:23PM
(#36620517)
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.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by DannyBee on Thursday July 06, 2023 @03:13PM
(#36621284)
Kinda. 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.
Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by DannyBee on Saturday July 08, 2023 @11:34AM
(#36645377)
FYI - Stay request was filed - 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."
If it was, we wouldn’t need the preliminary in preliminary injunction, the standards for which balance the likelihood of success on the merits with the kinds of impacts the action sougjt to enjoin would have on the situation of the parties, so a greater and/or more difficult to undo impact requires a lesser probability of success to be sufficiently likely to warrant an injunction.