Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 24 2005, 01:57 AM
There is a lot about this whole thing that puzzles me. I'm confused by the number of people that contend there was no way to obtain a "blanket" TRO enjoining the DOJ from enforcement efforts of any kind against any entity; that only named plaintiffs could have been covered by a TRO resulting from today's hearing doesn't seem quite right to me.
|
They could have gone for the blanket TRO, that is what was requested. The agreement was made to forego the hearing on the TRO.
My point was that the TRO was not a sure thing, that would have depended on the judge's mood.
The agreement was a sure thing, and covers only the plaintiffs.