| > The plaintiffs/petitioners presented only a tenuous case that their records were actually collected, which reduced their perceived likelihood of success on the ultimate merits of the case enough that they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. So let's see.. Because a person can't prove to the government that the government is violating its own rules, the government decides that the person doesn't actually have a case, even though everyone knows the government is spying on everyone, and thus violating its own rules. Rright. So even if the government decided the case against itself, i.e. forbade itself from spying on everyone, why would anyone think they'd actually curtail their spying activities? If a wolf had been eating sheep left and right, and suddenly declared he'll stop doing that because eating sheep is Ba-a-a-ad, would the sheep have reason to believe he'd actually stop? Eating sheep is in the wolf's nature, and he's never had a problem with it before, so why would he stop? It would serve the wolf's interests to distract/placate the sheep though, so that they'd be easier to eat! |