• Rekhyt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.

    This is exactly how injunctions work. It’s a combination of “how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win” and “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”. It’s the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump’s gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”

      Seeing as how this prevents pollution, they clearly don’t give a shit about this second part.

      • Rekhyt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I don’t disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)