The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
***OFFICIAL NINTH CIRCUIT RULING ANALYSIS THREAD***
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:13 PM Author: Frozen motley corner pocket flask Ruling:
Mass D. Ct. for comparison:
http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf
I want to see what xo's TOP MINDS think, particularly on the likelihood of success of the due process claim (pg. 19 of the 9th. circuit ruling, pg. 13 of the D. Ct. ruling) |
 |
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:19 PM Author: offensive black woman gas station lol @ your shit link. link directly to PDF:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457918/Ninth-Circuit-s-Decision-on-Trump-s-Travel-Ban.pdf |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:21 PM Author: Frozen motley corner pocket flask Edited (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585094) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:21 PM Author: offensive black woman gas station ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585100) |
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:14 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585040) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:17 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate Due process seems reasonable at least as to LPRs. You can't give someone a green card and then exclude them from the country with no notice or hearing. The argument that a White House counsel memo can put a gloss on the EO excepting LPRs is absurd. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585059) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:22 PM Author: Cowardly National I thought the TRO was overbroad, and I don't know enough to critique the analysis of due process rights of non-LPR aliens, but I don't think it's crazy to say that an emergency stay is a really high bar and you didn't clear it.
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:14 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce TROs are rarely such that the other way would have been "crazy" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586590) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:28 PM Author: Cowardly National Sure, that's why emergency stays are rarely granted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586700) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:31 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce this was an appeal to the denial of a stay of the TRO, not an appeal of the TRO, so the issuance of the TRO was not at issue, 9th was reviewing whether the stay should've been issued or not; whether to actually revoke the TRO was not before them (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586722) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:51 PM Author: Cowardly National What? The DOJ was explicitly asking the 9th Circuit to stay the TRO. Did you read the opinion? Listen to the oral argument? Anything? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587404) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:25 PM Author: disturbing exhilarant pit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585136) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:28 PM Author: carnelian exciting clown trailer park 5a due process? LOL no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585172) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:29 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate Well you convinced me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585181) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:28 PM Author: Frozen motley corner pocket flask I could see that. I'm wondering about other people though. The Mass court says that there's no property right in a visa, so revoking it doesn't implicate due process concerns unless you deport the person.
The Ninth refers to "potential" claims regarding "possible" due process rights of illegals, nonimmigrant visa holders, and refugees. But what rights? Property interest in the visa? Liberty interest in right to travel? |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:15 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce This is my thinking as well. It also really hits home how retarded the whole thing was, like how the fuck does that get on his desk to sign, who the fuck was dumb enough to think it would pass muster, because they OBVIOUSLY didn't get a lawyer to look at it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586604) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:21 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm "It was reported" --- why is the factual section based on WaPo articles and not e.g. affidavits (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585087) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:19 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce they're not referring to WaPo articles but direct Trump quotes CHECK YOU JUDICIAL NOTICE RULE also this is an appeal of a motion to stay the TRO, the gov't bears the burden of providing evidence here, and based on the decision, the gov't basically didn't do shit and thought saying trump enough would be sufficient, for multiple issues raised the court states that the government provided ZERO supporting evidence of their claims seriously reading this all i can think is what the fuck is up at the DOJ, i'm a RETARD and could do a better job with this than they did |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:21 PM Author: hideous theater stage Even though I'm not a big Dershowitz fan, he is right: how on earth does the State of Washington have standing to bring an action on behalf of this particular aggrieved class? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585092) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:23 PM Author: Cowardly National Because the state universities are directly affected. Lecturers prevented from lecturing. Students prevented from attending. I actually think that is a legit argument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585119) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:29 PM Author: clear lascivious fortuitous meteor newt can you explain further? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585190) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:43 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office art iii standing requires showing of, among other things, actual injury. it is a very low threshold and u can normally make up all sorts of shit to easily satisfy it, esp at pleading stage. saying it hurts their ability to conduct research b/c they cant get lecturers on goat herding from yemen easily satisfies it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585318) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:49 PM Author: hideous theater stage got it, ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585362) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:47 PM Author: Cowardly National The University of Washington is an arm of the State of Washington. The University of Washington will suffer harm from the travel ban, because some of the people it wanted to come lecture/attend the school will not be able to. Therefore, the State of Washington has standing to sue.
The Ninth Circuit actually took a slightly different angle on it (saying the State/University could sue on behalf of "third parties" that were injured, but I think that's unnecessary). |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:05 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch That is necessary. The states dont have a hope in hell of winning on economic arguments. The only argument that might have a hope in hell is a replay of the argument made in Din with the state stepping in for the wife in the hope that the economic + due process argument is sufficiently different from the marriage + due process argument to win. It's utter flame though and would require completely rewriting our understanding of substantive and procedural due process as well as throwing out the rule book on fundamental rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585495) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:32 PM Author: Cowardly National WTF are you talking about? If you take an action and it prevents a customer from purchasing services from me, why wouldn't I have standing?
That's exactly the position the State is in. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:28 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office the state's standing argument was super easy, the xo prevents them from getting professors/researchers they need (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585174) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:33 PM Author: Hyperventilating gaped hominid The only people qualified are from 7 countries? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585222) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:33 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office the threshold for article iii injury is super low, it is not a strong argument for the gov here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585230) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: hideous theater stage what are the federal cases that made standing a gimme (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585371) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:53 PM Author: Smoky charismatic ladyboy church building IDK I mean what's the limit on standing these days anyway? Lujan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585394) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:55 PM Author: Cowardly National Check the 5th Circuit case cited in the opinion. I have no idea why the Ninth Circuit panel went into "third party" standing, when the states themselves showed injury. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585409) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:50 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm What legally protected interest do states have here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585908) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:23 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce do you think there were zero students at Wash U from those countries who wouldn't be able to come back and keep paying tuition? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586669) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:06 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Idk. There don't seem to be any in the record. And in fact I'm skeptical that the states' revenue collection has been impacted in any way.
Your argument would give any State standing any time the Executive takes action on immigration. I mean, why bother with the University bit, just say the State has an interest in future tax revenues or something. This seems a stretch.
But if what you are saying is that there IS some student or whatever with a concrete and particularized injury, then fine, they're the real party and should be substituted as plaintiff. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:58 PM Author: hideous theater stage i haven't been a practicing legal scholar for years and i've forgotten the few things i knew (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585438) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:13 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office there are a trillion, standing is like one of the first things every walmart biglaw firm argues in a MTD and they almost always lose
. “Injury in fact is a low threshold, which ... need not be capable of sustaining a valid cause of action, but may simply be the fear or anxiety of future harm.” Ross v. Bank of America, 524 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotations omitted)
DoW, 504 U.S. at 562-63 (“[T]he desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing.”
n organization may also establish standing in its own right if it is impaired from providing services or from otherwise carrying out its mission. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982 |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:29 PM Author: vigorous amber mother address lujan itself is literally buy a plane ticket to the kalahari and ur set (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586255) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:37 PM Author: carnelian exciting clown trailer park cr. How do people not remember this? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586319) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: Cowardly National No. But they don't need to show that. They just need to show that they had already arranged for Prof. Mahmoud to come teach this quarter, and Faisal Mohammad to come study and pay tuition this quarter, and now they can't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585365) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:21 PM Author: offensive black woman gas station OH WHAT PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY:
and applicants who have a relationship with a U.S. resident or an institution that might have rights of its own to assert, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); id. at 2142 (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762-65 (1972). |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:24 PM Author: clear lascivious fortuitous meteor newt Mohammed from Syria is FB friends with Kazir Khan. clearly there is a relationship and Mohammed has rights of his own to assert against the US (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585130) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:26 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch They are badly misreading Din. For starters Din was a case where the 9th circuit got PWND by the SCOTUS and reversed precisely for this kind of shitlibbery and now they are citing it for something it doesnt say.
In Din some Taliban whore cunt sued because her Taliban cunt husband was denied entry. The SCOTUS found that her marital interest was horse shit.
"Because Fauzia Din was not deprived of "life, liberty, or property" when the Government denied Kanishka Berashk admission to the United States, there is no process due to her under the Constitution. To the extent that she received any explanation for the Government's decision, this was more than the Due Process Clause required. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."
If a marital interest isnt sufficient interest what fucking interest can TTT Washington state have? Fuck this. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:27 PM Author: clear lascivious fortuitous meteor newt the fact that WA state would be deprived of cultural enrichment? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585167) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:30 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Whatever, bro. They already lost basically this same case at the SCOTUS level twice already. They are going to lose it again. If the legal system wasnt a total shit show these judges would just be removed for sending basically the exact same shit to the SCOTUS three times running. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585201) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:33 PM Author: clear lascivious fortuitous meteor newt if Scalia was alive, he'd put in some scathing remark about the 9th Circuit in the ruling (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585221) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:36 PM Author: deep point liquid oxygen :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585253) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:16 PM Author: Fragrant useless station faggotry (nutty wingnut) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585593) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:02 AM Author: Cowardly National You seem to be conflating two issues: 1) whether anyone's right to due process was violated, and 2) whether Washington has standing.
The way you describe Din, nobody's right to due process was violated.
In the case of either an LPR or visa holder (who was planning to teach/learn at UW this quarter) being denied entry, there is at least arguable a violation of due process. The question is whether Washington has standing to bring a claim. Because they suffer economic harm from the violation, there is a pretty direct standing argument. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:41 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585827) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:24 PM Author: Mauve hall wagecucks Why doesn't Trump just tweet that in his Daily Brief he was told that there is a nuclear attack being prepared by someone from one of those 7 countries? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585128) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:29 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585188) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:33 PM Author: Racy becky (dick cheney) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585229) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:30 PM Author: vigorous amber mother address (NSC advisor steve bannon)
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:24 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm The claim to standing seems identical to that in Lujan, where it was rejected of course - this ruling would give states standing over literally every dispute
EDIT -- I see from reading above that scholars agree. I'm going to keep reading and fisking |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:27 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Holy shit just finished the standing section. This is truly dogshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585160) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:31 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Like I said. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585205) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:52 PM Author: Cowardly National The Ninth Circuit's analysis seemed shitty, but I think the States have a good standing argument in their own right (i.e., not on behalf of individuals). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585383) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:18 PM Author: Excitant famous landscape painting the states' interest, to the extent it exists, is wholly derivative of the alleged infringement of others' rights. That's a bullshit basis for standing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585607) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:56 PM Author: Cowardly National I don't think that's true. I'm not expert on this, but I don't think you have to show *my* religion has been targeted/disfavored to bring an establishment clause claim, for example. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587443) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:29 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm First off, the first am has special standing doctrines, plausibly because it is textually pitched at "Congress." So that is a misleading example.
More broadly, your analogy fails because you are comparing what you would have to do to bring an independent claim to what a STATE would have to do -- but the states are different critters than citizens or individuals under ARE federalism. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:27 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Oh good point, maybe they can bring a dormant commerce clause claim. (Lawl) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585695) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:49 PM Author: contagious immigrant plaza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585896) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:58 PM Author: Cowardly National I have no idea what point you are making (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587457) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:25 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm The states don't have any legally protected interests here separate from individuals. They are asserting, in essence, derivative claims for violations of individuals' personal rights. States have no stake in the outcome of individual rights suits challenging immigration, and hence no standing, unless you are prepared to grant that States ALWAYS have standing to act as Individual Rights Enforcers -- for it is always possible for a state, as here, to speculate about some revenue interest they have in enjoining federal law.
See this lr article http://cornelllawreview.org/files/2016/05/Grovefinal.pdf
In particular, Bickel commenting that unlimited state standing to challenge fed law would eviscerate art iii's case or controversy requirement and turn the Supreme Court into a COUNCIL OF REVISION
Btw libs would be well advised to shy away from this doctrine - |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:33 AM Author: Vibrant flushed step-uncle's house It's all because of Mass v. EPA, what a fucking abortion. And libs think this is retribution for losing in US v Texas. The standing argument in US v Texas is considerably shittier than here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32588474) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:37 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm This is why I stick to commercial law. :/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32588482) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:29 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm The fact that libs could not find an actual plaintiff with a concrete particularized injury redressable by the courts is a strong indicator they are full of shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585183) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:53 PM Author: Cowardly National They did in EDNY and D. Mass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585391) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:08 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren Both of which were mooted within hours. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585522) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:33 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32588475) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:26 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad I still don't see why you don't just ban those from those countries who aren't legal residents (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585153) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:36 PM Author: Bat shit crazy sex offender Did you not read the opinion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585262) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:25 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce I did. Such an EO would be OK under this ruling. In fact, I don't see why Trump doesn't drop this case and issue a new EO that fixes the probelm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586681) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:33 PM Author: razzle heaven cumskin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32590550) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:27 PM Author: milky university Exhibit A: Trump saying he wants a muslim ban
Exhibit B: Giuliani explaining ON LIVE TV how he helped him make it happen |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:29 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585191) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:30 PM Author: Mauve hall wagecucks Those statements were not under oath and should be presumed lies. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585192) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:31 PM Author: Stimulating international law enforcement agency bawdyhouse lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585206) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:36 PM Author: deep point liquid oxygen (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585258) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:27 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586689) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:33 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch They can say whatever they like but the actual EO they enacted touches just 7 of 40+ muslim countries and impacts less than a quarter of muslims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585219) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:54 PM Author: Cowardly National So? You can look to discriminatory motivation on a facially neutral order. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585404) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:47 PM Author: boyish medicated hunting ground shitlib Oh rook its that self-professed Trumpmo again! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585342) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:54 PM Author: offensive black woman gas station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585402) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:31 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Now on to reviewability. They cite Boumedine, because as we are all aware the Constitution has a clause stating "the due process rights of aliens shall not be suspended" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585214) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:38 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Wtf does this have to do with Chadha
They're basically saying "we get to review this because we get to review this"
I don't see a principled distinction between the EO and mendel. Is the issue that Trump wrote down what he was doing? |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:44 PM Author: hideous theater stage as to reviewability, the 9th Circuit relies most strongly on zadvydas and chadha to reject mandel, but i wonder if mandel was even the move.
i haven't seen the briefs but it would seem the government relied most strongly on mandel to suggest unreviewability where the executive action is at least facially related to national security.
9th distinguishes mandel by claiming that, hey, look, mandel related to the single issuance of a visa by an executive official to a single person based on a standard promulgated by congress; here, the president is promulgating a wholly new standard, and it is that promulgation we find reviewable.
perhaps gov't relying on mandel was misplaced, but it would seem to me that gov't could make the argument that whatever reasons could be given for deference to executive judgment in mandel would have to be stronger, or at least not at all weaker, in this case. if, after all, the animating principle here is deference to the executive in matters of national security, the claim for deference unto unreviewability ought to be stronger when the executive action is literally an order from the president directly facially related to national security and instituting a policy related thereto. by contrast, mandel is essentially a question of whether an executive functionary correctly applied a visa policy promulgated by congress.
the problem for the government, though, is that in mandel, the holding is that the executive is empowered to withhold a visa to a foreign alien for a facially valid reason when that valid reason relates to a power afforded the executive under the INA of 1952. under that act and at that time, the power granted the executive by congress related to the exclusion of individuals (in particular, pinkos). here, trump relies on current INA to suspend visas for people from certain countries known to be "countries or areas of concern," but he takes the power from a section of the INA basically empowering him not to admit known terrorists. the link, while obvious to non-shitlibs, is not otherwise obvious.
i'm not saying that this was fatal for the government's argument, but it's something they should have taken account of. and perhaps they did in their briefs. but i would like to see how they accounted for the anticipated distinguishing of mandel and how they would have said, hey look, i know you want to zig and say that mandel related to a single application of an INA power of smaller ambit, and so you owe less deference to an EO dictating a large change in policy because the power is less obviously devolved on the executive, but actually you should zag and give even more deference for that very reason, because what we're dealing with here is far above the judiciary's paygrade as a matter of national security policy and, by its nature of scope, ought to be less reviewable. it is an energetic application of executive authority that doesn't derive from congress, not a niggling application of a power devolved onto the executive from congress. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:02 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Thanks for this. My takeaway is that to do a proper job on this opinion would require far more analysis of separation of powers and the President's traditional power over naturalization. The Ninth just assumed its authority with breezy reference to Chadha, when plausibly the exec here was in McLaughlin Steel territory (Congress plus exec on one side and exercising trad powers) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586018) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:04 PM Author: hideous theater stage but it's the 9th circuit, home of EPAH, so what can we really expect (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586041) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:07 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586067) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:41 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Now to the substance. Aliens' right to travel to a country that does not want them in is now a fundamental liberty interest -- BIG win for shrews (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585303) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:43 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm No notice nor opportunity to respond? Fuck don't they read the newspaper? And isn't a postdeprivation process sufficient? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585317) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm O m f g this thing really goes off the rails
To get around the obvious mootness in light of the authoritative guidance they conjure up nonexistent rights, and then for some reason decline to limit the scope of the injunction.
This is just such fucking fraud. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:52 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch They want to make immigration an implied substantive right. They've been pushing this BS for a long time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585386) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:13 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm Their heads will roll. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586143) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate Mootness SO OBVIOUS the DOJ didn't even need to cite authority! Everyone knows a White House lawyer has the authority to reinterpret an EO and bind the executive branch to that interpretation! The words in the EO are really just guidelines, after all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585516) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:18 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Actually, yes. EO's are often general guidelines with agencies given or more accurately just plain taking broad rule making authority under them. Agencies and DOJ lawyers have broad discretion in applying them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585609) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:21 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate This EO is not a grant or delegation of rulemaking authority you disingenuous hack.
"I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order" |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:50 PM Author: carnelian exciting clown trailer park Implementation guidance is often subject to agency interpretation too. EOs often get interpreted in fucktarded ways, same as laws and constitutional provisions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586424) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:58 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate "When the President wrote "suspend entry," he actually meant "do not suspend entry!"
(Trump's DOJ) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:12 PM Author: carnelian exciting clown trailer park You would be surprised at how much deference is given to agency custom when agencies push back against onerous EOs. Sure, the president could insist that agencies hew to one interpretation, but what if the President is Obama and the EO was issued by Reagan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587077) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:40 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm What about when it was argued by the president's agents (doj lawyers) in open court. Still an OMG DANGER justifying emergency relief? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585822) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:31 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce yes because the DOJ does not have authority to supersede the plain language of an EO you fake conservative (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586716) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 7:32 AM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm ?
When I get up and speak in court, as a lawyer, I have the power to moot issues that were previously live. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:34 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce you're being disingenuous, the opinion says PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND NON-IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS have the fundamental liberty interest in freely leaving and coming back and are entitled to DP before that is revoked seriously Trump should drop this and just issue a new EO that's specifically about non-resident non-citizens bc he'd win with a better-crafted EO in a heartbeat |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:41 PM Author: spectacular khaki pervert It seems from reading the case they could just drop the lawsuit and amend the executive order to not apply to LPRs or people currently with visas. Doesn't that get pretty far? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585305) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:46 PM Author: Infuriating double fault chapel Cq (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585337) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:50 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch The order already doesnt apply to LPRs and visa holders. That's a misreading of the order and the DOJ said so. They have no intention of applying it to LPRs and visa holders so if that's the issue it's moot and this case is done. But that's not what they are saying. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585363) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:58 PM Author: Cowardly National I think the court makes a good point that the order on its face does not exempt LPRs, and the white house counsel saying otherwise doesn't mean LPRs might not be affected in the future. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585435) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:06 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Horse fucking shit, but the whole decision is horse fucking shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585505) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:09 PM Author: Kink-friendly parlor Shouldn't they need an LPR who's been affected in order to have standing on its application to LPRs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585533) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:13 AM Author: Cowardly National Not given my standing understanding (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587560) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:48 PM Author: Odious Sandwich Stage Yes. White house counsel is SHIT. Trump needs to hold him accountable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586864) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:52 PM Author: Big burgundy mexican market It's like the WH should hire some lawyers and not just ask Oscar the Grouch what he thinks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585384) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:53 PM Author: Smoky charismatic ladyboy church building (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585399) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:53 PM Author: carnelian exciting clown trailer park Nonzero chance certain lawyers at DOJ are deliberately fumbling the ball. Look at that commie bitch acting AG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586451) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: shivering internet-worthy dopamine jap (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585517) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:21 PM Author: slate bateful nibblets cuckold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585629) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:31 PM Author: Angry Rigpig Mood (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585737) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:53 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad Real talk - Obama's ban is 100% unconstitutional under this ruling yes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585397) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:57 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office facially neutrally, no tweets or rudy guiliani saying it was muslim ban, and security rationale for it was really strong & based on specific threats (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585434) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:59 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad muslim ban is irrelevant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585448) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:01 PM Author: Cowardly National Not when you've got a presidential advisor saying "this is how we did it."
I mean, if you say "let's fuck people of a certain religion, but in a legal way." And your friend says, "well, if we fuck a few countries that have lots of those assholes, at least we'll be fucking a lot of them, right?" That's pretty good evidence of discriminatory intent. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:03 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad i mean with respect to the legal opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585478) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:05 PM Author: Cowardly National Well, the Ninth Circuit opinion says there are "serious questions" but doesn't make a call either way on that front. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585494) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:22 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office no it was directly relevant and discussed in the likelihood of success analysis, and giuliani came up in oral arg. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585641) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:23 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad but not in the ruling. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585659) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:28 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office it's in the ruling (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585702) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:51 PM Author: Chest-beating Rambunctious Resort have you actually read the ruling? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585912) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:37 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce the ruling almost literally says "this is an interesting issue but we're not going to talk about it until briefed on the merits" page 26
The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the Government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, we reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed. |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:43 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office the court discusses the merits at length above, the standard doesnt require them to decide it, only whether likelihood of success. that is why they discuss comments re muslim ban re relevant b/c goes to discriminatory intent. saying merits was bullshit/irrelevant isnt accurate since on motion to stay tro court must always weigh likelihood of success vs irrep harm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32590621) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:58 PM Author: Cowardly National What ban are you talking about?
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 7:59 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad whenever he prevented iraqis from coming into the US or whatever the fuck he did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585453) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:04 PM Author: Cowardly National The Ninth Circuit ruling is a little wishy-washy on which aliens have due process rights and when they might be violated, so not sure if that would violate the explicit or implied basis for this ruling.
They pretty much held the DOJ to a really high bar and said "you didn't prove the EO won't violate anybody's rights, so you get no emergency stay."
I'm fine with that, but I think Judge Robart should have applied a higher bar for the initial TRO. I would not be surprised for him to modify the scope whenever he issues his preliminary injunction order. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad then why even get into this bullshit on the merits. To dump an emergency stay you can just rule that the government did not prove irreparable harm right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585513) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:10 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Cause it's politics. No shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585538) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:09 PM Author: Overrated Tan Cuckoldry Crotch Is there even going to be a PIO? How was this order subject to interlocutory appeal if there was a hearing date on an injunction in the TRO? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585532) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:18 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate (guy who didn't read the opinion but has started 6 threads about it)
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:34 PM Author: Slippery startling set digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585769) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:59 PM Author: Mind-boggling bbw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585992) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:16 AM Author: Cowardly National Seriously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587602) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:00 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad That said if this is really a just a ruling about an emergency stay, wouldn't it be enough to rule that the government did not prove irreparable harm was likely? Which it didn't even try to do? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585460) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:07 PM Author: cerebral soggy juggernaut nah as movant you need to establish standing and your legal basis for asking for the TRO to begin with before that. irrep harm is like, an affirmative defense (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585511) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:08 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad the court was ruling on the emergency stay, not the TRO right? Or am I getting my procedures fucked up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585521) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:17 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office an emergency stay of the tro, which requires showing of likelihood on merits, this xo loses on the merits anyway (perhaps all part of trump's grand plan) but they could have crafted and rolled out something that withstood scrutiny (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585597) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:18 PM Author: passionate onyx institution chad did you read the fucking ruling? the merits part of the analysis is bullshit.
If you cannot prove irreparable harm, are you precluded from a emergency stay, period? |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:25 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office how is it bullshit?
Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay
yes u have to show all 4 factors, however if the likelihood of success is super high, the irreprable harm showing can be minimial
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:12 PM Author: shimmering fiercely-loyal stag film turdskin I'm a huge TRUMPmo, I think the EO will ultimately be upheld on the merits, and I think the 9th's ruling was suspect.
But it was a smartly written opinion (if you assume they went in knowing the result they wanted). Respectful and minimalist in tone, and repeatedly couched its substantive conclusions -- which were really more just observations -- in terms of the multiple arcane layers of procedural deference. (This is a motion for [1] a stay [2] of a TRO [3] entered by a factfinder [4] under circumstances where limiting the TRO would necessitate rewriting the EO from the bench.) I was worried they'd overplay their hand and get all showboat-y about the Constitution and TRUMP needing to respect the Rule of Law and shit. But I think someone went through the opinion before it went out and neutered any line that could conceivably be pulled out of context and quoted on CNN. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:13 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren Holy hell that opinion sucks. I mean on the one hand I admire them for doing the best to twist the law to the desired outcome, but the stretch on a number of the points: standing, over breadth of the stay order, and whose actually has due process rights is staggering. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585568) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:36 PM Author: Slippery startling set digit ratio I always lol when T25 bros are like, "those Yalies and former SCOTUS clerks are obviously morans!!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585793) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:49 PM Author: hideous theater stage you have never, ever, once, ever, ever evidenced any kind of legal intelligence on xo, ever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585895) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:54 PM Author: Slippery startling set digit ratio (certified retard, famous on board of losers and rejects) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585941) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:58 PM Author: hideous theater stage i'm pretty sure no one, other than, say, you, julia, WLMAS, bluesmoke, JJC, and other clear winners in life, would agree (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585978) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:14 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren I gave them their due for writing a good opinion insofar as it twists case law and minimizes the weaknesses. And I never said the Yalies and SCOTUS clerks were stupid, just wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586148) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:07 PM Author: shimmering fiercely-loyal stag film turdskin It's the era of test prep, bro. Plenty are of middling intelligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587015) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:02 PM Author: Mewling chestnut quadroon business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586025) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:42 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce their identification of DP rights is spot on, they're very explicit that the EO deprives permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders of property and liberty interests, and additionally refugee and asylum seekers a property interest in a statutory right afforded them by Congress (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586825) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:13 PM Author: appetizing library pozpig Personally i dont trust any legal analysis until a grocery store clerk weighs in (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585571) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:22 PM Author: slate bateful nibblets cuckold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585651) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:29 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Why didn't Evan apply to be an intervener in these proceedings (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585717) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:56 PM Author: contagious immigrant plaza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585955) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:25 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Exhibit # 6 billion that law is complete flame (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585678) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:31 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate A bunch of hysterical reptiles screeching out arguments like "LOLNO" and "this is bullshit" is quite persuasive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585734) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:37 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Just do rule that alien adherents to an extremist death cult have a constitutional right to come here until proven otherwise because the court's leftist ideology precludes it from limiting the TRO in any way for no stated reason (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585803) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:38 PM Author: Kink-friendly parlor jfc, libs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585813) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:43 PM Author: Slippery startling set digit ratio did you read the opinion, man? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585845) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:46 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story I skimmed a bit of it. This thing is getting reversed by scotus so come back and talk to me about how good the ruling was after that happens (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585866) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:49 PM Author: light forum this isn't getting reversed.
the EO may ultimately be found constitutional, but the standard of review for this particular ruling is significant. the DOJ has to show that the country is irreparably harmed by the district court's order, and there's nothing in the record to support that. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:53 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story No they didn't have to show that at all. That's not even what the decision said (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585929) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:55 PM Author: clear lascivious fortuitous meteor newt Wtf, who's right here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585948) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:58 PM Author: light forum "The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury." Pg 26. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:59 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Now link to where they say the government has to show that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585995) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:01 PM Author: light forum What distinction exactly are you making here?
The Government has not *shown* that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury.
That is the standard for getting a stay. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:02 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Did you even read the decision bro? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586021) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:03 PM Author: light forum Yup. What is it about those words that makes you think the government doesn't have the burden here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586030) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:02 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office The Government moves to stay the district court’s order pending this appeal. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)
Our decision is guided by four questions: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Lair v. Bullock, |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:14 AM Author: Cowardly National ur pwned here dude (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587583) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:46 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office it's just an order denying a stay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585862) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:53 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Which has the effect that I stated (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585939) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:05 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office it's "not until proven otherwise," just the opportunity to respond and show why they shouldn't be deporte (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586049) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:35 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce "Just do rule that alien adherents to an extremist death cult have a constitutional right to come here until proven otherwise because the court's leftist ideology precludes it from limiting the TRO in any way for no stated reason "
that's not what this decision says you 90 IQ reactionary, it REPEATEDLY specifies permanent residents and non-immigrant visa holders (plus refugees and asylum seekers under statute), not visa applicants |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:31 PM Author: Kink-friendly parlor Ok, I haven't read the ruling, but I gather that the court noted that some aliens have due process rights, and they ruled that the EO could be found unconstitutional because it violates those aliens' due process rights? Which aliens have these due process rights, and if the order is not actually being applied to those aliens then how is there standing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585740) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:52 PM Author: cerebral soggy juggernaut "order is not actually being applied to those aliens then how is there standing"
court just looking at text of EO, rather than practice |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:53 PM Author: light forum and also how it was applied for a day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585932) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:24 PM Author: Kink-friendly parlor They should need a person this is actually being wrongfully applied against. The early application against such people is moot. Anyway, if necessary just rewrite it to not apply to those aliens, and problem solved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586225) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:52 PM Author: Chest-beating Rambunctious Resort this will obviously get overruled right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585921) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:53 PM Author: light forum Nope. DOJ has to show they will be irreparably harmed by the district court's order. They cant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585938) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 8:56 PM Author: Chest-beating Rambunctious Resort what do you mean by they "can't"? you seem excessively sure of yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32585962) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:00 PM Author: light forum I mean the DOJ didn't put any evidence of that in the record. They could have introduced an affidavit in the district court saying "we have intel someone from one of those countries is planning to harm the US" or even "we have intel that there is a breakdown in screening." But they didn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586004) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:03 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story Hint: there's a reason for that. It wasn't necessary to succeed on the appeal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586029) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:05 PM Author: light forum sorry dude, you're just wrong. The party seeking the stay has the burden of showing harm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586054) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:07 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office i think his argument if im interpreting it correctly is that the executive order should be unreviewable and for that reason they need not show irreparable harm (or any other factor for a stay) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586078) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:10 PM Author: light forum I don't think pinning your argument on reviewability obviates the need to show harm.
Why should that make a difference?
The only thing that gets you outside the framework is jurisdiction (standing). |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:40 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office i think that is what the gov was trying to argue, we dont need to show irreparable harm (in the sense of like a pending terrorist attack or some other tangible harm), all they need to show is that the president said its necessary so to stop terrorism and in that sense it cant be reviewed
i dont tihnk it is a strong argument but that is what i gathered the gov was arguing |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:12 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate He's actually just confused and thinks today's order resolved the appeal of the district court's order and not the government's motion to stay.
But he will never admit this. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:06 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office is your argument that the executive order is unreviewable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586057) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:11 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story My argument is that if they showed they were likely to succeed on the merits and thereby satisfied the court that the district court judge erred on that issue that would significantly lessen the burden of proving the impossible by showing that there would be irreparable harm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586119) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:12 PM Author: light forum when there is a list of 4 requirements connected by the word "and" what's the significance, in your view, of the word "and" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586136) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:21 PM Author: Metal crusty sound barrier background story A 4 factor test doesn't mean one party is required to prove all the factors are in its favor. If a party is unlikely to succeed on the merits, it has no entitlement to a preliminary injunction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586197) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:23 PM Author: light forum but this isn't an appeal of a preliminary injunction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586214) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:45 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office it's a sliding scale between merits and harm, so actually if they had shown some irreparable harm (like submitted classified evidence of some terrorist threat, or that the vetting standards of these 7 countries was super terrible) they could have gotten away with a showing a "substantial case on the merits" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586386) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:16 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren So what is the DOJ's best play? Take it to SCOTUS now? Or fight through the PI to build a record and then litigate that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586164) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:22 PM Author: aromatic laser beams roommate Appeal a denial of a motion to stay a TRO to SCOTUS? That seems like the absolute worst procedural posture to put this issue before the Court.
DOJ needs to get its shit together and make a strong record at the PI hearing and take that up. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:42 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586362) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:28 PM Author: Kink-friendly parlor Rewrite the order to exclude green card holders and try again? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586246) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:34 PM Author: hideous theater stage maybe just instruct INS, DHS, etc. to enforce? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586293) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:44 PM Author: light forum I think that would have worked if DHS had never enforced against LPRs.
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 9:47 PM Author: Comical hyperactive scourge upon the earth office that might work but the "muslim ban" statements from giuiliani and the president etc are all out there forever, so it will always be subject to much higher scrutiny, even if they re-issue a new XO (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586406) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:34 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren Double down. This time actual Muslim ban. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586748) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:07 PM Author: ruby dragon As someone who has very few trump supporters in their life, none that I would classify as intelligent or young, what the fuck is going on with this law - as in why is he pushing so fucking hard for it? Does he actually believe some bad dudes are coming from those countries? I'm asking seriously. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586546) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:09 PM Author: Soul-stirring Space Feces no i don't think so, i think he is just appealing to the wisconsin factory workers and forcing DEMS to triple down on the open borders stuff. He can now tell people that the dems care more about musbros than "real" americans (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586560) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:11 PM Author: light forum CR.
Also he could have made some inconsequential tweaks to vetting procedures, and then claimed credit for keeping the country safe.
Edit: I think Bannon might view this as a sensible first step to decreasing all immigration, but I see no evidence Trump himself has adopted that policy. |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:15 PM Author: Sapphire Depressive What's with festering libs like yourself who continue to cover your ears when you hear about rape reports from Sweden and Germany? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586606) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:43 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce i'm assuming what's with them is that conservatives don't seem to give a fuck about the constitution lately dude i'm conservative as FUCK and think this EO was a festering, unconstitutional shitpile |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:14 PM Author: violent thriller indian lodge community account twist: they do (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586597) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:15 PM Author: Sapphire Depressive (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586608) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:21 AM Author: ruby dragon Is there any real chance that he is doing this, knowing that it will get shut down, then knowing a terrorist attack is inevitable at some point, allowing him to blame the courts and either usurp power, or, more likely, exculpatory himself and scapegoat others? Either seems incredibly fucked up as a moderate here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587643) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:12 PM Author: Sapphire Depressive Did you hear about the Swedish police officer than went viral?
http://www.thelocal.se/20170208/swedish-police-officer-causes-controversy-with-facebook-post
https://www.rt.com/news/376582-sweden-cop-immigrant-crime/
"Here we go; this is what I've handled from Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment," he wrote.
"Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, Mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again. Christopher... what, is it true? Yes, a Swedish name snuck in on the edges of a drug crime. Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again," he added.
"Countries representing all the crimes this week: Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown, unknown country, Sweden. Half of the suspects, we can't be sure because they don't have any valid papers. Which in itself usually means that they're lying about their nationality and identity." |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:16 PM Author: narrow-minded box office the potential to? yes
it's the DHS list some of them have barely functioning governments |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:42 PM Author: yellow school cafeteria brethren Because his supporters don't want terrorists in the US. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586821) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:42 PM Author: sooty razzmatazz home gay wizard Did the court confirm it was 3-0 or does the media (wrongly) just assume that's what per curiam means? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586826) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:44 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce the latter, fake news as per usual (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586840) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:47 PM Author: light forum (XO 2017)
|
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:49 PM Author: cheese-eating green lettuce stfu (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586874) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 10:54 PM Author: sooty razzmatazz home gay wizard If a judge didn't agree, tho, wouldn't he have written a dissent or at least noted it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586923) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:01 PM Author: vigorous amber mother address (literally xo 2017) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32586974) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:09 AM Author: trip maniacal organic girlfriend (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589208) |
|
Date: February 9th, 2017 11:15 PM Author: frisky bisexual prole Trump should just issue a new executive order every day saying the same thing. It will take more than a day to get each one enjoined. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587105) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:16 AM Author: frisky bisexual prole No takers? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589262) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 12:22 AM Author: Dun electric abode cuck test (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32587651) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:05 AM Author: frisky bisexual prole ROGER THAHS A GOOD COPY PAPA BEAR! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589162) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:09 AM Author: crawly ratface all this is for naught unless it plants a seed in the minds of white america--that the judiciary is against the white working class and always has been...the first step in the emancipation of the white race is ridding our nation of the elite vermin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589200) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:11 AM Author: frisky bisexual prole Abolish the courts? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589227) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:13 AM Author: crawly ratface yeah...lots of nations just ignore the courts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589239) |
|
Date: February 10th, 2017 10:15 AM Author: frisky bisexual prole I'm listening...... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3521307&forum_id=2#32589260) |