EDITORIAL: Local judge backs off constitutionally dubious orders
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The coverage treats Judge Jessica Peterson’s retreat as a tidy procedural reset, as if the only story is that a local judge “backed off” and order was restored. That framing skips the more important question: why constitutionally dubious orders were issued in the first place, and why the public should simply move on. When courts test-drive shaky directives, they don’t just inconvenience litigants.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
What was Judge Jessica Peterson thinking?
Original source:
Read at Las-vegas Review JournalHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The coverage treats Judge Jessica Peterson’s retreat as a tidy procedural reset, as if the only story is that a local judge “backed off” and order was restored. That framing skips the more important question: why constitutionally dubious orders were issued in the first place, and why the public should simply move on.
When courts test-drive shaky directives, they don’t just inconvenience litigants. They erode public trust and invite selective enforcement, especially when ordinary citizens are left guessing what the law will be tomorrow. A judge reversing course is better than doubling down, but it is not a full accounting.
Conservatives start with rule of law, not vibes or urgency. Courts are powerful precisely because they are restrained. Due process and constitutional limits are not optional when the headlines get loud.
The principle at stake is simple: institutional stability depends on judges getting it right before orders land on people’s lives.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.