7953
Comments (1182)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
65
Brellin 65 points ago +66 / -1

allegedly it's because the first order was issued incorrectly. the first order enjoined the state from messing with the machines, but it's not the state that maintains custody and control over the machines, it's the individual counties, so the judge had to rescind the previous order in order to push forward a new order that addresses the correct individuals (ie: one that enjoins the counties specifically, not the state).

That is my understanding as of the current situation, though obviously this is still developing.

25
BillBarrsSkelatons 25 points ago +26 / -1

I heard that too, but when he revoked his order he should have made a new one. He did not.

30
Brellin 30 points ago +31 / -1

there apparently is a second order that has just come out

10
Djpele12 10 points ago +11 / -1

Link?