I edited the post and kept only that which I previously had made bold.
Shawnee has been on my ignore list for weeks.

Basically what you have said is that she made a decision, but not a ruling.

Bruce called it semantics. I agreed.

This:

There's no fun in the cure, the fun is in the bitch, or in the sycophantic slurping of ass-kissing.

Happy Monkey, there still wasn't any bold except user titles, was there? :lol:

Boys got a mind like a steel trap, rusty that is.

Remember, he took time to very carefully show he understood the copyright crap, but kept right on doing it. When the Cellar gets sued...can that be ignored as well?

Here's what she quoted, that showed you seemed to have understood this better four days ago:
"on hold" is not the end.
Calling a preliminary injunction and the striking down of a law as unconstitutional semanically equivalent is silly.

Option 1: contested portions of the law can't take effect until both sides have a chance to make their case
Option 2: rule for the plaintiff without hearing the case.

The difference between those options is not semantic.

I stand corrected. My humblest of apologies to you HM.

Option 3: Rule for the defendant without hearing the case.
But since she's part of the power structure, that won't happen.

I wasn't listing all possible options; I was listing the two things that had been called semantically equivalent.

A law delayed is a law denied.

But only if they lose, in which case they should have been denied.

What if they win?

ETA - Would you consider that an injustice?

If they win, then it is not denied.

Consider what an injustice?

The initial denial.

It wasn't denied. It's only denied if they lose.

ok. yeh

A law delayed is a law denied.