Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(173,999 posts)

3. The lawyer for Democracy Forward noted that this Boston (1st Circuit) ruling was more of a technical/procedural issue

Reply to OldBaldy1701E (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 3, 2026, 08:42 AM

Friday

I.e.., the suit was brought by "groups" who couldn't show what "harm" the erasure of history did to them (personally) vs "harm" to individuals.

This type of technicality happened last year with the DOGE mess and the immigrant deportations, where they had to switch tactics and either have individuals sue OR have a class action of many individuals who could show "harm", do the suit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Rhiannon12866

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals court reverses order requiring removed signs to be restored at National Park sites [View all] BumRushDaShow Friday OP

Disappointing. nt SunSeeker Friday #1

So, the courts say that revisionist history is acceptable. OldBaldy1701E Friday #2

The lawyer for Democracy Forward noted that this Boston (1st Circuit) ruling was more of a technical/procedural issue BumRushDaShow Friday #3

It seems like a ridiculous provision. OldBaldy1701E Friday #4

For an "injunction" (or a temporary restraining order, etc) BumRushDaShow Friday #5

Free speech? Democrat-supporting judge claims '8647' threat isn't a threat at all LetMyPeopleVote Friday #6

There's a "6-7" in there too BumRushDaShow Friday #7