My reading of this article shows the judge issued a temporary injunction saying the evidence suggested looks like the manufacturers will win. That is something a judge should decide.
It’s the wrong decision but we don’t know what was presented or how.
I believe it hinges on “controversial” but how do you give the controversy any credence when it is only manufacturers with a profit motive to disagree with science?
It isn’t a judges job to decide this, that’s why we have public health officials and scientists.
A judges job is to decide if this law violates other laws.
My reading of this article shows the judge issued a temporary injunction saying the evidence suggested looks like the manufacturers will win. That is something a judge should decide.
It’s the wrong decision but we don’t know what was presented or how.
I believe it hinges on “controversial” but how do you give the controversy any credence when it is only manufacturers with a profit motive to disagree with science?