|
dwarf74 posted:Oh wow, unanimous ruling too, both Democratic and Republican appointees. Crazy times. It looks like the unanimous stuff wasn't the notion of the ban itself, but the idea that Trump's actions weren't subject to judicial review. I'd be stunned if the SCOTUS doesn't rule unanimously on that too if/when Trump appeals. Ron Jeremy posted:If they were in agreement wouldn't they just deny cert? Or take it to write a ruling with an extra gently caress you? They'd still hear the case in order to strike it down and make Trump start over and ensure that the entire country has to stop trying to enforce this stupid poo poo. Though if Trump's handlers aren't stupid they'll be focusing on writing a new EO, release it, and state "this is a new EO, get hosed judicial branch" in their usual ways. And then hopefully get sued and lose again. Either way you can bet your rear end that if the government can find a way to get their EO legal challenges filtered through the 5th circuit they're going to do so since it's full of the most right wing activist garbage in the country. Writing a new EO and then getting some group in your pocket to challenge it in the 5th circuit would be the smart thing for them to do since they can just ignore the other circuits and ensure the 5th circuit case is the one that gets fast-tracked to the SCOTUS, assuming that none of the conservatives would rule against it since anything that even looks remotely like Korematsu is going to get down in a hurry. Green Crayons posted:As for the Executive, it could, of course, just refuse to comply with court orders. But that's a great way for us to literally doom our country. As in, if Trump disobeyed a court order, either every single senator and congressperson would need to denounce, impeach, and convict, or we will have become a banana republic. If Trump tried to just ignore the courts the GOP would be more than happy to let the hate build up enough so that they can swoop in, impeach, replace with Pence and some establishment VP, and then go down their right wing wish list while the low information voters cheer because finally a sane POTUS is in place. The only reason the GOP has for not ousting Trump if he tries to ignore the courts is the GOP's fear of the white wing literally killing them for betraying Trump (and Bannon).
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:except for Alito, who is absolutely a Republican hack Alito is a hack but he's less of a hack than Scalia was. Thomas isn't a hack but he may as well be since everything that falls outside of his bizarro-world jurisprudence lines up neatly with the Republican agenda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Alito is way more of a hack than Scalia. You could count on both of them to be reliable conservatives, but Scalia's focus on textual interpretations had a noticeable impact on judicial jurisprudence and at least gave Scalia some semblance of consistency, even if he would abandon it if it suited his purpose
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 08:16
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Alito is way more of a hack than Scalia. You could count on both of them to be reliable conservatives, but Scalia's focus on textual interpretations had a noticeable impact on judicial jurisprudence and at least gave Scalia some semblance of consistency, even if he would abandon it if it suited his purpose I think that is the key part, Scalia was no less of a hack than Alito is, Scalia was simply more skilled at his brand of hackery than Alito is at his. That Scalia was so able to abandon his pretense of consistency reveals his jurisprudence for what it was, an illusion and a shield against questions and criticisms.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Alito is way more of a hack than Scalia. You could count on both of them to be reliable conservatives, but Scalia's focus on textual interpretations had a noticeable impact on judicial jurisprudence and at least gave Scalia some semblance of consistency, even if he would abandon it if it suited his purpose Scalia went with Republicans 99% of the time and the 1% where he deviated were cases where Republicans didn't give a poo poo so he could maintain street cred. Alito gave Obamacare a pass. He did it because his philosophy relies heavily on the Apples and oranges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
So last time there was a Republican trifecta in government there was talk about breaking up the ninth circuit, which is really big all things considered. As far as I remember that didn't happen. Should we expect that now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:So last time there was a Republican trifecta in government there was talk about breaking up the ninth circuit, which is really big all things considered. As far as I remember that didn't happen. Would require 60 votes in the Senate, and I see no reason for Democrats to go along with it or for it to be a hill that Senate Republicans would want the filibuster to die on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 09:40
|
|
|
So if this makes it to the SC after Gorsuch gets confirmed, would he be expected to recuse? Like obviously he can't bail out on every single case that challenged an act of the current unified Republican government, but when the issue is a direct edict from the President who put him on the bench? Is there even precedent for an EO being so thoroughly challenged?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Javid posted:So if this makes it to the SC after Gorsuch gets confirmed, would he be expected to recuse? He very clearly shouldn't be. Simply being appointed by the president on the advice of the senate doesn't mean you suddenly can't rule on cases from that particular administration. That's insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 11:37
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Javid posted:So if this makes it to the SC after Gorsuch gets confirmed, would he be expected to recuse? No. Recusals happen when you have a clear conflict like if you ruled on the case as an appeals judge, or if you own stock in a company that is in court. Even then the judge can say "nah, I'm impartial, trust me", so this case definitely wouldn't compel recusal. He's going to be part of cases appealed by Trump's DOJ over 100 times in the next 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
Interesting, Trump's nominee for solicitor general just withdrew his name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Interesting, Trump's nominee for solicitor general just withdrew his name. "gently caress being the lawyer for this box of weasels"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
But man, the stories he'd have for his memoirs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:But man, the stories he'd have for his tribunal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Scalia went with Republicans 99% of the time and the 1% where he deviated were cases where Republicans didn't give a poo poo so he could maintain street cred. alito is more likely to vote with other conservative court members than Scalia (tho not by much) and he is widely seen as a water carrier for whatever conservatives believe at the moment, including dropping his support for executive powers during the Obama admin (this is actually a really good article). And he voted against the ACA, so I dunno what you are talking about, and he wrote the hobby lobby opinion If your argument is that being a conservative = you're a hack, then okay whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Alito is a hack but he's less of a hack than Scalia was. Thomas isn't a hack but he may as well be since everything that falls outside of his bizarro-world jurisprudence lines up neatly with the Republican agenda. Alito is much more of a hack than Scalia was. Alito has no discernible judicial philosophy other than "what the Republican Party currently believes". Scalia certainly defaulted to that, but was much more that he was selected because the principles he does hold tended to line up with Republican ones. Shbobdb posted:Alito gave Obamacare a pass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Interesting, Trump's nominee for solicitor general just withdrew his name. He wasn't nominated. But he was a front-runner to get it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Alito is to Republicans, and Scalia was devoted to Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Scalia went with Republicans 99% of the time and the 1% where he deviated were cases where Republicans didn't give a poo poo so he could maintain street cred. Are we just going with the "everyone who disagrees with me on SCOTUS is a hack" school of thought? Alito is absolutely the hack on the bench.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
https://twitter.com/joe_palazzolo/status/830188347918266368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Edit: here's what I said in the trump thread. A bit more articulate. I'm waiting for the SCOTUS thread to comment, but I suspect it's either: 1) Admin got a judge to agree to do this to get a softer, non-unanimous ruling. Or 2) Someone wants to rule on the merits since Admin said they won't pursue further (which they just reversed) (Not a lawyer) Jealous Cow fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Could this mean either a judge wants to give it to trump or rule on merits? From what I can tell it means there is likely at least one trumpkin on the 9th circuit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Could this mean either a judge wants to give it to trump or rule on merits? Either they all feel REALLY strongly about the ruling and want to do it en banc to make it apparent, or at least one of them strongly disagrees with the holding. Probably the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
From my amateur's POV the EO is so shoddily written that any further challenges to it will hopefully make it just look worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Any circuit judge can call for a en banc rehearing sua sponte , which outside the ninth means the entire circuit considers it, and inside the ninth means 11 (I believe) randomly selected judges hear it. Every judge gets a brief from either side on it, and then they all get to vote whether they take it or not. En banc rehearing is pretty rare, an en banc rehearing overturning the panel even more so EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Sounds like Trump is going to try what I was talking about : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/trump-travel-ban-new-policy-japan-shinzo-abe?CMP=fb_gu SCOTUS probably won't get a chance to rule on the last one if he doesn't plan on appealing the restraint. Presumably a new EO won't target already approved green cards/visas/similar situations, and they might try to not make openly discriminatory comments about that specific order like last time. Rational basis is pretty easy to clear as long as you're not a total gently caress-up so it could be bad. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:...no he didn't. Are you thinking of Roberts? Yes. Yes I was. Though the citations by EwokEntourage are awesome. So at least something good came from my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sounds like Trump is going to try what I was talking about : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/trump-travel-ban-new-policy-japan-shinzo-abe?CMP=fb_gu Even if he signs off on something that is still illegal, he could write yet another EO if the new one gets struck down. It's not like the courts could actually tell him "you can't write new EOs on immigration" and be taken seriously by the other two branches.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Even if he signs off on something that is still illegal, he could write yet another EO if the new one gets struck down. It's not like the courts could actually tell him "you can't write new EOs on immigration" and be taken seriously by the other two branches. No, but it would make the challenging process much quicker. Federal judges could rule on it right away as settled law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sounds like Trump is going to try what I was talking about : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/trump-travel-ban-new-policy-japan-shinzo-abe?CMP=fb_gu I think the anti Muslim animus argument will apply to any ban unless they can point to specific risks or harms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
All Trump has to do is ban immigration from every country and he's good
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:All Trump has to do is ban immigration from every country and he's good but then how will he import a new trophywife?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think the anti Muslim animus argument will apply to any ban unless they can point to specific risks or harms. "Sorry but discussing those specific risks would compromise intelligence assets so in the name of national security, we can't." Rational basis review means the law flies if you can think of any hypothetical arrangement of facts that could justify a threat. Is it hypothetically possible for terrorists to attempt to get in through certain countries simultaneously? It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"Sorry but discussing those specific risks would compromise intelligence assets so in the name of national security, we can't." Rational basis review means the law flies if you can think of any hypothetical arrangement of facts that could justify a threat. Is it hypothetically possible for terrorists to attempt to get in through certain countries simultaneously? "We can't tell the court secret things" was discussed in the 9th Circuit decision, and I don't believe something where you can show actual prejudice gets rational basis review.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I wanna believe. And I'd like to think the stupid comments they already made about this order will bias judges against them in the future. But I'm assuming they won't make that same mistake twice... although with Trump, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"We can't tell the court secret things" was discussed in the 9th Circuit decision, and I don't believe something where you can show actual prejudice gets rational basis review. Thinking of Romer v. Evans? There are certainly similarities, but a local ordinance and immigration are pretty distinctive fact patterns, especially given the deference courts have generally given immigration matters to the executive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Thinking of Romer v. Evans? Religion is a protected class, it's not a Romer thing. With evidence it is motivated by religious animus you aren't in rational basis territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Alito is way more of a hack than Scalia. You could count on both of them to be reliable conservatives, but Scalia's focus on textual interpretations had a noticeable impact on judicial jurisprudence and at least gave Scalia some semblance of consistency, even if he would abandon it if it suited his purpose
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Also as the 9th circuit pointed out, there is a procedure to share secret national security information with the appeals court that they can then cite in their decision without having to describe it. Saying "its secret, we can't tell you why you have to rule in our favor" doesn't fly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:47 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:(see also, people who should know better repeating the line that he said it is fine to execute an innocent man.) The one he didn't actually say, or the one he actually did?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
