In fact, I’d say that the left is about creating a utopia. And the right, at least in the US, is about maintaining the tradition of rule of law.

Utopia requires a plan, and hence, planners who can impose their will. This can’t be a rule of law system, because the planners, who are men, have to be able to impose their will.

The American tradition was a rule of law society with a government with limited powers, particularly on the national level. This isn’t a planned society, it is a society with fixed rules (with some method of changing the rules, but requiring a considerable level of consent). It is a free society. All this prevents the planners from implementing plans.

All the left’s claims of rule of law, or any respect for the Constitution, is false. The Constitution (if followed) and rule of law would prevent the leftist utopia.

Yes, it is. Thanks for posting.

…. Judge Doughty holds them in contempt? Will he send US Marshals to arrest them? Will they be clapped in irons and kept in custody of his court?”

That, or those, are the questions of the hour, and not at all of slight importance.

“Enforcement” may take multiple forms, each, or any, of which I eagerly await. More importantly, I await “actual compliance with” the ruling to see what form it takes.

And, unasked so far is the question of “how much responsibility is to be shared by the government’s willing accomplices in the media – which is “damn near all of them” – who so strongly aided and abetted the crime and who also deserve “enforcement” and “compliance with” levied against them.

I suspect that, in the end, “enforcement” and “compliance with” will fall to the citizens’ responsibility, a quite reasonable responsibility in that under the Constitution it is the citizens who are – or, at least, should be – in control of the Republic. In what form it is delivered remains to be seen, but I have doubts as to punishment adequately matching the severity of the committed offense.

Am I wrong? Maybe there would be some leeway in wartime, as the Court has often fudged the Bill of Rights in wartime. But this isn’t wartime. Neither was COVID. And so much of the COVID “disinformation” has turned out to just be facts that are inconvenient to the government. How does the government have an intellectual leg to stand on, let alone a legal case?

And where did Democrats get this crazy idea that their desire to fight “disinformation” trumps the 1st Amendment? Why do so many of them fervently believe it?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf#page=9

Three cheers for these heroic lawyers.

https://notthebee.com/article/judge-bans-biden-administration-officials-from-continuing-to-pressure-social-media-companies-into-censoring-free-speech

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/just-biden-regime-files-notice-appeal-missouri-v/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=just-biden-regime-files-notice-appeal-missouri-v