Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
> You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>”
No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders.
The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it.
This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years.
Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.