More on the 6th Circuit bullshit

More to the 2-1 RULING by a panel of female  6th circuit judges issued Friday:  After the two judges on the "panel" ordered the injunction lifted, the full court voted on whether to hear the case.

The vote was an 8-8 tie, meaning the full court will not hear the case.  And you need to read the "majority opinion," written by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, to really appreciate the logic used:

Moore claimed a hearing by the full court was "unnecessary and impractical."

In a case as important, accelerated, and briefing-filled as this one, gathering all hands on deck would have strained the resources of the sixteen active judges, requiring each of us to review the voluminous record and the relevant underlying legal doctrines. What’s more, it would have done so for no discernable purpose: the case already sits before three thoughtful, independent judges on the panel who have spent the past weeks steeped in this matter.  We properly leave the matter in their hands.

Heaven forbid that we might require a full 16 judges to actually "review the record and relevant legal doctrines" for such a trivial reason, eh?  Might cut into their TV-watching time or something equally crucial. And you have to love the snarky "for no discernable purpose."  Translation:  Democrats like the 2-1 RULING that works for the regime, so we don't see any need to actually study either the record or the "underlying legal doctrines."

I'm sorry, what did you say we were paying you for again, asshole?  This is your entire job, and arguably the most important case you've had a chance to consider in your sheltered life.  Yet you snarkily refuse to bestir yourself to do your damn job.

So f'n typical of liberal Dem judges.

Source.