Judicial prudence dictates that courts not decide cases that fail to come to them in the proper form, or in judicial lingo, are not justiciable. The justiciability requirement is a conservative value, and one Freepers should support. Elements of justiciability are standing, mootness, ripeness, political question, and most importantly case and controversy.
This case was dismissed not on the substance of the claim brought forth, but for lack of ripeness. A court cannot render a verdict when the issues have not crystallized, when the issue has not matured to the point that it is appropriate for judicial action. Sometimes that means you must break the law and suffer the consequences before the case is ripe. Sometimes it means something else.
In this case, no one has been arrested for breaking the executive order. The request by the pharmacists was for a remedy under equity law, that someone be stopped before the harm is felt. The judge ruled that this was not the appropriate action by the court. A lawyer from IL will have to tell us if the judge was correct under IL law.
I am opposed to abortion, with the Reagan exception, and my wife is a pharmacist in IL
Well said brother at the bar. If we permit the irrationality of the madding crowd to direct the courts on what is or is not an issue ripe for justicability and who has standing to bring the issue to declaration, then the rules of procedure have no meaning. When the issue is ripe for adjudication, these guys will have their day in court but the rules of emergency equitable relief are clear and have withstood the assaults of time when others felt their issue was so critical that the sky would fall if they were not heard at once even as they avoid the nomal procedural demands. Every controverted, by definition, has at least one other side and most have more than one. All and very interest must be heard and the facts discovered so that the proper decision results. Rush to judgment is not merely a pleasant rubric to be disregarded because their may be a religious component to the dispute. Law and the rationality of its application within the court system trumps even the most desperately and truly held religious beliefs as they may--or may not--affect public policy. The mass of society is more important in the short term than any one person's religious reaction to a public policy.