I wasn't addressing the ruling by the judge, only the poster commenting on a state law, suggesting it's applicability here.

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.

> They’re federal agents

It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.

> A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job.

If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.

The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order.

Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.

Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.

I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.