OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunvalleylaw said:
For those that want to read the order. Pretty good reading, from my perspective. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ravel-Ban.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Click to expand...
I love this part:

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case.
 
This part is interesting:

It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965)


Well, we did just that with Japanese internment. Let's not go back there.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
This part is interesting:

It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.”); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 17 (1965)

`
Well, we did just that with Japanese internment. Let's not go back there.
Click to expand...

those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither. (not exact quote)
 
There are lots of parts I like in that. How the court addresses the POTUS's failure to present any evidence to support its claim of urgency to protect us from terror, the way the court basically states "your arguments suck and you pretty much didn't even read the cases you cited", that "we are not to re-write your ass-clown order, and you can't have your pet lawyer do it after the fact without issuing an amended order either" and other gems like that (reading between the lines). But another really favorite part is this one, in all caps and bold.

DENIED.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
There are lots of parts I like in that. How the court addresses the POTUS's failure to present any evidence to support its claim of urgency to protect us from terror, the way the court basically states "your arguments suck and you pretty much didn't even read the cases you cited", that "we are not to re-write your ass-clown order, and you can't have your pet lawyer do it after the fact without issuing an amended order either" and other gems like that (reading between the lines). But another really favorite part is this one, in all caps and bold.

DENIED.
Click to expand...

again.....it was a virtual slap down.....and.....as i was sayin.....there's no way scotus takes this up after those findings. not without some kind of spectacular compelling reasons.
 
mongooz said:
again.....it was a virtual slap down.....and.....as i was sayin.....there's no way scotus takes this up after those findings. not without some kind of spectacular compelling reasons.
Click to expand...
I, with my touch of superstition, am not willing to rule anything out. And I am no federal constitutional lawyer arguing before SCOTUS. Therefore I refuse to make firm predictions. However, it seems to me if the case is approached how SCOTUS normally does, it will not take it up. But, one never knows. SCOTUS sometimes takes stuff, . . . because it does.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I, with my touch of superstition, am not willing to rule anything out. And I am no federal constitutional lawyer arguing before SCOTUS. Therefore I refuse to make firm predictions. However, it seems to me if the case is approached how SCOTUS normally does, it will not take it up. But, one never knows. SCOTUS sometimes takes stuff, . . . because it does.
Click to expand...
with the current people sitting....the only way i can see scotus taking up this case....is to put it down like a lame horse. the court is split. they would not take up this case knowing that the vote would end up 50/50.....leaving the lower court's ruling in tact. waste of time. with the court not having a tie breaker sitting on the court, they all know that there is no outcome, IF it ended up down "party lines".
 
sunvalleylaw said:
There are lots of parts I like in that. How the court addresses the POTUS's failure to present any evidence to support its claim of urgency to protect us from terror, the way the court basically states "your arguments suck and you pretty much didn't even read the cases you cited", that "we are not to re-write your ass-clown order, and you can't have your pet lawyer do it after the fact without issuing an amended order either" and other gems like that (reading between the lines). But another really favorite part is this one, in all caps and bold.

DENIED.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm
 
c42aea97c2e34c8d9fe7c921ccdb96a1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top