That may be, but it is really difficult to see how anyone will honestly make a case this was not government overreach, and an arbitrary overreach at that. We'll have to let it play out...

Which part?

Speaking as a lawyer, reading this, it feels like it will be overturned almost immediately, and possibly reassigned to a different judge.

There is very little legal analysis, and a large amount of unnecessary, biased, diatribe.

Appeals courts rarely look kindly on that.

All of it?

I think people of a particular viewpoint have allowed their bias to drown out reason.

To top it all off, it will be very difficult to argue in good faith the mandate was not arbitrary. It quite literally came down to a single dude deciding who he liked better.

Just in this very thread we have people admonishing Adams for "ruining" the mandate, and if he had just been more careful then all these anti-vaxxers would be out of luck... as-if the mandate was a weapon to use against those we don't agree with. That's wrong.

So, while you may assert there isn't much substance to the case, I assert you are very wrong. There is no reality where what happened is legal and there should not be a reality where what happened is legal.

This was the first step in undoing some very great injustices.

I actually have no view on the substance of the case. If the decision went the opposite way I would still give you the same view- legal decisions that are closer to political diatribes than they are well reasoned legal argument do not fair well on appeals.

This is definitely in that category. It reads like an internet argument on Reddit, not a judicial decision