Pages

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

NY Times Editorial board...

By October, the ban will have expired and the review should be complete. And by then Mr. Trump might conceivably have developed a factual basis for a policy that continues to bar people from certain countries, which would trigger a whole new round of litigation.
Sounds to me that if there was a factual basis for a constitutionally sound executive order... that such litigation would be unnecessary? So the question I have to ask is "why" would it trigger a whole new round of litigation in that case?

Would it be, simply because of which person is actually the President?  

17 comments:

opie said...

Sounds to me that if there was a factual basis for a constitutionally sound executive order...

Sounds to me like another CH excuse.....seems the SCOTUS will review order after it expires and only refugees will be the ones currently banned, IOW, no one wins.

Loretta said...

"Would it be, simply because of which person is actually the President? "

Yes.

C.H. Truth said...

IOW, no one wins

But people lose... explicitly those that called the travel ban discriminatory or without merit, including the fourth and ninth circuit courts.

If the ban was unconstitutional based on equal protection or had a requirement to show the courts "merit" - then the entire thing would need to be struck down.

You do not allow an unconstitutional order to even be "partially" enforced.

opie said...

You do not allow an unconstitutional order to even be "partially" enforced.

Gee, I didn't know they ruled yet CH. Aren't you ejaculating a little early????? LOLOL

caliphate4vr said...

Don't worry we are assured here frequently, this doesn't happen

Student headed to prison for registering dead voters for Democrats

Loretta said...

They wouldn't have left the ban in place if it were unconstitutional....

C.H. Truth said...

Gee, I didn't know they ruled yet CH.

They reversed the lower court decisions to block the travel ban, did they not? They ordered that the ban could be reinstated, albeit with the "bona fide relationship" exception.

These are tangible actions that could have been replaced by two other options:

1) That they agreed to hear the case, but left the 4th and 9th circuit court orders in place. (Providing deference to the lower court decisions).

2) That they simply refused to hear the case, leaving the 4th and 9th circuit court orders in place permanently (effectively ruling against Trump).

While neither of us are constitutional legal experts, most (if not all) of the objective legal experts I have read in regards to yesterday's order... are in agreement that it means the Justices are predisposed to agree with the Administration as a fundamental matter of principal, but are in some disagreement with how to handle the details. Heck, Thomas's opinion specifically states that the Justices are predisposed to the Government argument ("likely to succeed" was his exact words).

But what does Clarence Thomas know?

I am sure you know better than that legal hack?

opie said...

Student headed to prison for registering dead voters for Democrats

Let me see....any illegal votes cast from this fake news headline, pauline? Answer....NO!!!!!! Nice try, loser.

opie said...

They reversed the lower court decisions to block the travel ban,

Nice try. Now answer the question premature ejaculator. Did they rule yet on the order whether it is constitutional yet. Let me help you since you won't be honest. FUCKING NO!!!!!!!! The rest of your posted guano was BS and I will ignore it like you did to my question. I'll let the scotus rule, unlike your BS.

opie said...

I am sure you know better than that legal hack?

LOL. I agree clarence is nothing more than a legal hack. Thanx for clarifying clarence for me. LOLOLOL

C.H. Truth said...

Did they rule yet on the order whether it is constitutional yet

Nope... but numerous federal judge orders, as well as the fourth and ninth circuit court rulings that it was "unconstitutional" are no longer being enforced... and the President's EO is fundamentally back in place.

If you are half as smart as you claim to be, then you would understand that this action alone is tangible. They effectively "overruled" how many justices with one order?

If you are half as smart as you claim to be, then this should a pretty good harbinger as to how the USSC is going to rule when the time comes.

opie said...

Nope... but numerous federal judge orders

Still trying to prove nothing CH. Who gives a crap what numerous judges have said, they don't count until scotus rules. EVEN YOU KNOW THAT!!!!! LOLOLOL What I do know, CH, you hate being showed up and will go through all this BS to prove nothing other than you were wrong, Food for thought, ease up, and realize what's happening.

C.H. Truth said...

Opie...

The President's executive order barring travel and refugees from the countries in question is currently back in place... and with one exception, completely as it was written. It will remain in place till the 90 day order has expired.

You seem to be in denial about how that happened.

Loretta said...

Lordy.

wphamilton said...

The implication is that a new round of litigation would be required to attack the factual basis, rather than whatever it was in the 9th and 4th Circuits. Innuendo and imagine what he really meant basis I guess it was. When the innuendo basis and the factual basis of litigation comes up short, it will require a new round of litigation to attack based on a creative legal basis.

IMO the goals are one, a power grab by those Federal judges and two, attacking Trump to keep him too weak to cause more extensive damage.

rrb said...



When the innuendo basis and the factual basis of litigation comes up short, it will require a new round of litigation to attack based on a creative legal basis.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


i thought the basis the ACLU lawyer had presented was a real gem:


trump proposed travel ban bad because trump.

hillary proposed identical travel ban good because hillary.


i mean, sound legal reasoning and jurisprudence doesn't get any better than that, does it?



Commonsense said...

IMO the goals are one, a power grab by those Federal judges and two, attacking Trump to keep him too weak to cause more extensive damage.

There's a term for that. It's called a coup.