Telling them to restore the information that was already there temporarily is hardly telling the president what to put on an agency site.
It’s a temporary injunction. Extremely common legal procedure pending a real decision in the case.
Removing the info, at least much of it, was a crap decision. But this feels like a massive win for Trump.
You're essentially saying the executive should have no checks on it.
No, a judge is undoing an executive order from a federal agency that did not pass judicial scrutinty for legalitybased on 200+ years of judicial framework and precidence. Nothing to do with information, politics, etc.
this is exactly what the framework of the constitution allows for and happens dozens of times a day every day in every locale.
Additionally, you performed mental gymnastics to use the the terms "Agency Site" in place of the term "Agency Operating under the Executive Privilege of the Federal Government" and "private party" in place of the "The United States".
This is IMO very cut and dry, will get very little media coverage, and I struggle to think how one falls on "This looks good for person X".
"private party" in their comment likely refers to the plaintiff in the case, "Doctors for America", which is a private party.
But I agree with you, though: of course the plaintiff is a private party. Who else would it be, when the government is violating the Constitution? Is upthread expecting the government to sue itself?