The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why don't False flag trumpmos challenge his actions in comservative jurisdiction
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 21st, 2017 11:47 AM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor Honest question? It would give some Tuscaloosa conservative judge the chance to get ahead of Hawaii and Washington and say "ya this is okay nationwide. Go get em."
Sorry for typos. I'm poasting on a train from my phone. |
 |
Date: March 21st, 2017 1:05 PM Author: Boyish outnumbered lodge roast beef i asked this question a few days ago. this is how gay marriage got up to scotus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32881038) |
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:10 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880616) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:24 PM Author: insane bearded keepsake machete 1) there are liberal federal judges in red states. When you file a complaint it gets "placed on the wheel" which means a judge is randomly assigned.
2) Even if a conservative judge denies plaintiff's relief, it won't necessarily bind another district court
|
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:34 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor But it would preempt the libs playing the numbers game and going to a liberal district in a liberal court of appeals. If you know the challenge is coming, it would be a good move to get the numbers on your side I think. That's why all the state AGs filed Obama challenges in the southern district of Texas. They wanted the better odds from that area.
On the second point, the rulings against the travel ban so far have been nationwide injunctions. At the very least, a ruling upholding the ban in Alabama would be a good reason for a liberal judge to limit a ruling against the ban to just the district at issue. And there's a chance that a republican judge overreaches and says his ruling is nationwide just like the lib ones. |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:35 PM Author: Diverse cordovan school cafeteria giraffe There were judges who upheld (or mostly upheld) the first ban before the WA judge issued a nationwide injunction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880772) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:36 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor No shit? That's pretty galling then that another district judge would be like haha fuck that other co-equal judge's ruling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880778) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:36 PM Author: startling prole ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880780) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:37 PM Author: Unhinged fluffy azn trust fund A judge appointed by Dubya struck down the first ban. It's not at all a given that a conservative will be okay with the executive branch doing whatever it wants. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880790) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:40 PM Author: Fragrant theatre why would dubya appoint that smarmy bowtie wearing cuck? is that the guy you're talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880806) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:43 PM Author: Diverse cordovan school cafeteria giraffe district court judges are (or were, back in the 00s) really appointed by the senators of the state where the district is located. The Pres nominates them formally but there ends up being a lot of cross-party district court nominations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880818) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:43 PM Author: insane bearded keepsake machete I agree with that too. The case is not at all a slam dunk and it's not just evil liberal judges sticking it to Trump. I said it way before even the first decision was released and noted that my friend who worked at DoJ's immigration division mentioned how the office was pissed at how the EO would inevitably create new case law on the issuance and revocation of visas that would actually make it much harder for them in the future. Anyway, the board is just a few steps above a freeper echo chamber. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880820) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:47 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor I get that. It seems like playing the odds to file in a more favorable district would be a good move for a trumpmo. I'm not saying I'd endorse it or that it's failsafe. But if I had a dog in the fight I'd be trying for any advantage I could get. Ie making sure Reinhardt can't get his hands on my case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880852) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 4:42 PM Author: Dun black woman public bath It absolutely should be a slam dunk case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32882750) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:39 PM Author: tan idiotic hell death wish Related: Can libs just keep filing suits until they find a judge that bans it nationwide? Seems ridiculous to essentially require every district to sign off on it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880797) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:40 PM Author: yellow razzle voyeur (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880801) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 1:01 PM Author: tan idiotic hell death wish Is there an answer to this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32881004) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 1:07 PM Author: startling prole ratface in your heart, you know the answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32881057) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:51 PM Author: iridescent clown sex offender The fact it is even necessary to consider a theory like this just highlights how completely fucking absurd it is for district court judges to be deciding national security policy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880882) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 12:54 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor Great moniker by the way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32880919) |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 1:09 PM Author: rambunctious deer antler parlour I don't think it works that way. There isnt a reverse nationwide injunction is there?
A bunch of Obama stuff got blocked like this too because they brought it courts in Texas. The overtime rule being one that comes to mind. |
|
Date: March 21st, 2017 1:13 PM Author: Transparent Coiffed Private Investor The premise I was starting from was if a distict judge in Wisconsin or whatever said it was cool, then a subsequent judge would be less likely to essentially overrule the previous decision and apply a nationwide injunction. I figured they'd just say "can't do it in NDCA but I can't control orher districts in light of the previous ruling from my brother in Wisconsin." Obese Jamaal says judges still issue nationwide injunctions in that case. Which seems galling but in any event undermines my premise. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3559728&forum_id=2#32881120) |