|
mdemone posted:Well, huh. I think I understand now. The 1965 Act said "you can't restrict entry based solely on religion, race, etc." but this part of the code says that you can restrict entry if you find that class (even if it is a whole religion/race/whatever) to be a threat. A class of "religion / race / whatever" would be a problem. A class of "6 countries we think harbor terrorists" would be a lot easier to pull off. A class of "6 countries we think harbor terrorists but which are completely coincidentally all the same religion..."? Read and find out.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
And if you'd like to hear a lawyer explain all this stuff, Opening Arguments talked about it at length several times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:And if you'd like to hear a lawyer explain all this stuff Harsh, man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Harsh, man. Hey, I can't hear your typing! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Harsh, man. Nobody in this thread is a lawyer. Not even the lawyers. A lawyer outside his practice area and without research is just opinions and big words, and if this is your practice area and you've done research, don't give out your advice for free online!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nobody in this thread is a lawyer. Not even the lawyers. A lawyer outside his practice area and without research is just opinions and big words, and if this is your practice area and you've done research, don't give out your advice for free online! We need to send some judges free accounts, get them posting here. edit: I bet RBG just spends all her time in BYOB and FYAD
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
The SCOTUS thread has always been where I've come to hear goon lawyers espouse arguments without being restrained by decorum, punctuation, good taste, etc. And somebody please update the drat thread title. Scalia's not attempting anything these days but the carbon cycle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Scalia attempted to respond on worms behalf
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Just report your posts as pro bono hours
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
SCOTUS Thread 2017: Justice Gorsuch attempted to respond on petitioners behalf
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We need to send some judges free accounts, get them posting here. Judge Dillard of Georgia's Court of Appeals is already on Twitter and citing to Cheers in opinions, so he's at least halfway here: http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/this-judicial-citation-to-cheers-will-make-your-day/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Trump as President has broad powers over immigration, and has been specifically given the power to suspend the entry of "any class of aliens" into the United States by Congress if he finds it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." One question, I guess, is how far the Establishment Clause (or other constitutional protections) even applies to immigration decisions. See, for example, Rajah v. Mukasey, where the Second Circuit took the view that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review." Though it's very questionable whether the travel ban even passes rational basis review (Romer, as you note, suggests that it fails it). More on this line of argument can be found in yesterday's dissent in Washington v. Trump: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3518079/ca9-Travelban-20170315.pdf Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:One question, I guess, is how far the Establishment Clause (or other constitutional protections) even applies to immigration decisions. See, for example, Rajah v. Mukasey, where the Second Circuit took the view that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review." Though it's very questionable whether the travel ban even passes rational basis review. Well, the edits that I just noticed have changed my answer a bit. I was going to say that the Establishment Clause is less important here, I think, than the Equal Protection Claim. Further, I go back to Romer and City of Hialeah in noting that animus is not considered a rational motivating factor. EDIT: the claims by the states themselves make things substantially weirder, I think, because even if you toss everything ex-US as beyond the pale where no laws apply, the states are still here and raising equal protection claims. ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Just report your posts as pro bono hours Surely having to deal with us counts as some form of community service.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
mdemone posted:And somebody please update the drat thread title. Scalia's not attempting anything these days but the carbon cycle. Wasn't it changed to that after he died?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:06
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Wasn't it changed to that after he died? No, before, which made it way more hilarious in light of his death.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
mdemone posted:And somebody please update the drat thread title. Scalia's not attempting anything these days but the carbon cycle. If I recall, the mods decided to keep this title until Scalia's seat was filled. So the title gets a little funnier every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
All Trump needs to do to have his ban upheld is cite specific verifiable dangers which the current vetting process is not catching from those countries. But he's either too stupid or can't find them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Trump could get his EO through the courts just fine if he just kept his mouth shut. But then he wouldn’t be Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The president isn't going to be permanently enjoined from doing his job, but the courts are doing the country a service by ensuring that the job he's doing is constitutional. If Trump blocked all immigration from Poland following a rubella outbreak, for example, it would hold up just fine. Well, sure, if you're going to assume that President Trump takes an action that isn't nakedly racist, corrupt, or otherwise criminal, then no, he won't be permanently enjoined from doing his job through various court orders. That's a hell of a hypothetical though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-scotus-hearing-michael-bennet-cory-gardner-236197 You've got to be loving kidding me...
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-scotus-hearing-michael-bennet-cory-gardner-236197 I think they should get Cory Booker to introduce him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Why are people being dumb about following a stupid tradition. It's not like he's said he's gonna vote for him or something, there's just a tradition of the home-state senators introducing them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Why are people being dumb about following a stupid tradition. It's not like he's said he's gonna vote for him or something, there's just a tradition of the home-state senators introducing them. It's participating is a blatantly illegitimate process that is going to result in the theft of a SCOTUS seat. gently caress tradition. I hope his primary opponent uses the video in ads against him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-scotus-hearing-michael-bennet-cory-gardner-236197 "A Western perspective"...but not too far West!, no, stop at the Rockies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Should probably wait to hear what he says before casting judgment
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Why are people being dumb about following a stupid tradition. It's not like he's said he's gonna vote for him or something, there's just a tradition of the home-state senators introducing them. Because we've already broken quite a few traditions wrt this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's participating is a blatantly illegitimate process that is going to result in the theft of a SCOTUS seat. gently caress tradition. I hope his primary opponent uses the video in ads against him. "Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced then-nominee Samuel Alito before the Judiciary Committee in 2006, but ultimately voted to filibuster him." Let's not make more of this than it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
"The president shalll, with the consent of the Senate..." Senate doesn't consent. "Illegitimate!" Like, what the Republicans did was nakedly political for sure. Don't overstate it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:33
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Kalman posted:"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced then-nominee Samuel Alito before the Judiciary Committee in 2006, but ultimately voted to filibuster him." Alito was not filling an illegitimate stolen seat. Democrats should not be participating in the process at all and Bennett should pay a price for his actions as well as any "Yes" votes on cloture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Alito was not filling an illegitimate stolen seat. Democrats should not be participating in the process at all and Bennett should pay a price for his actions as well as any "Yes" votes on cloture. He's not going to vote yes on cloture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:"The president shalll, with the consent of the Senate..." The Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t consent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t consent. We don't know that, they never took a vote since the head of the committee refused to meet with the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
The senate has the power to make their own rules. They didn't consent. It was bullshit political scorched earth move, but it wasn't illegitimate. The place for the public to make the republicans pay for it was on Election Day. And they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
As a tide over until we get some hearing juiciness: Man opens the door and get shot by a cop, 11th circuit says the victims family can't sue because he's a cop http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/17/appeals_court_rules_officer_who_killed_man_in_his_own_home_cannot_be_sued.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:As a tide over until we get some hearing juiciness: Man opens the door and get shot by a cop, 11th circuit says the victims family can't sue because he's a cop They cannot sue the officer individually. That doesn't preclude a suit against the city/state I believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They cannot sue the officer individually. That doesn't preclude a suit against the city/state I believe. I think you're wrong. The opinion shows dismissal against the sheriff (Borders) in his official capacity, and a 1983 suit has to be brought against a state officer rather than the state entity to avoid sovereign immunity claims.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
I probably am. I don't know poo poo about qualified immunity and just read the article that said they could not sue the officer individually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The senate has the power to make their own rules. They didn't consent. It was bullshit political scorched earth move, but it wasn't illegitimate. The place for the public to make the republicans pay for it was on Election Day. And they didn't. Norms matter though. Not everything legal is legitimate. Like impeaching the President unless he does a silly little dance would be technically legal under the Constitution, but not a legitimate exercise of that power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Norms matter though. The only people playing by the norms now are the loser senate democrats. Garland was the thing that make senate norms a joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:17
|
|