In dissenting from the Supreme Court's unexplained stay of a district court injunction, Justice Alito correctly focused on the importance of "irreparable harm"—and then mis-analyzed it.
The objective analysis of Alito's dissent is appreciated.
The end of Alito's dissent does make me somewhat dubious it was actually objective:
"At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."
He also framed the facts in a way that suggests the people joining the opinion are at least sympathetic if not in agreement with the challengers. Gorsuch's former statements back that up.
But, that's just an additional comment. The analysis is appreciated.
The objective analysis of Alito's dissent is appreciated.
The end of Alito's dissent does make me somewhat dubious it was actually objective:
"At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate."
He also framed the facts in a way that suggests the people joining the opinion are at least sympathetic if not in agreement with the challengers. Gorsuch's former statements back that up.
But, that's just an additional comment. The analysis is appreciated.