No, it was exactly blocked because of a procedural issue. Despite the fears of many, Trump is not yet a dictator, and the Republican Party is not in total control. Judges rule in ways that they don't like all the time.
This keeps coming up because Trump tries to act like a dictator and just order things to be the way he wants, and it doesn't work that way. There are procedures that the Federal government has to follow; it can't just ignore them and get things done right now. And in fact, the government being forced to follow procedure is a very good thing, even if it's something we want the government to do. It's one of the things standing between where we are and a dictatorship.
I'm afraid I don't really buy that. The court didn't have to seek out this procedural issue. The rules are complex enough to justify any decision you wish. They simply decided by fiat that this case was worth more than $100 million, and overruled the subject matter experts.
It appears that they make their decision, and then justify it. That may not actually be the case -- but if it isn't, the outcome is indistinguishable.
It's true that they're not always favoring the President. But he is increasingly concentrating his power, and it favors him more and more.
The Party sought it out to put before its activist court. At least one recent Supreme Court ruling (gay wedding website) was issued instead of having the case tossed out for lack of standing. If it had been a discrimination case that went the other way, you can bet your ass they would have done the homework to find there's no "there" there.
> But as the case advanced, [the request in dispute] was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.
> "I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I've been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years," said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats.
> Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a "made up case" because Smith wasn't offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.
More than that, it was a good ruling. Judges not rubberstamping non/lowball estimates rather than the mandating max costing, is toward the public good.
This keeps coming up because Trump tries to act like a dictator and just order things to be the way he wants, and it doesn't work that way. There are procedures that the Federal government has to follow; it can't just ignore them and get things done right now. And in fact, the government being forced to follow procedure is a very good thing, even if it's something we want the government to do. It's one of the things standing between where we are and a dictatorship.