- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fed. Appeals Court Upholds Travel Ban Block
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:23 pm to mmcgrath
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:23 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Unlikely SCOTUS hears it before November at this point. The first question will be whether the admin finished their studies that were only supposed to take 90 days.
The Hawaii injunction blocked them from conducting the studies as to those countries.
0
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:23 pm to NC_Tigah
Ain't dis some shite.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:24 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
cited Trump's comments as evidence that the executive order is a realization of Trump's repeated promise to bar Muslims from entering the country.
I thought the judge was supposed to actually rule on the Constitutionality of the order itself, not the comments or supposed feelings of an individual.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:27 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Why would you think that? If they are going to affirm, it will be after full briefing an argument. They don't affirm in summary per curiams.
I did not know that. Then of course it will not be a per curiam opinion. I think they will try to go for a unanimous decision, but if it's not a per curiam there's no way Thomas and possibly Alito at a minimum won't dissent. So I am wrong.
Do you think it's possible they would deny cert on the injunction issue?
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:29 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
You really think there's even a chance they don't get Alito?
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:29 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
And why would you think they would decide a hugely important establishment clause issue in a summary opinion?
Its that obvious.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:31 pm to Iosh
How many refugees or other Muslim immigrants are currently staying at your place, losh?
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:31 pm to NC_Tigah
A quick around the regressive left's blocking at every turn would be just to say you allow all to come in but have to pass a strict getting process. Naturally those countries like the 7 named wouldn't qualify and therefore a ban would be in place.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:32 pm to Iosh
quote:
You really think there's even a chance they don't get Alito?
I think there's a chance. I really think they'll want a unanimous court. But everyone knows Thomas is going to be Thomas. So a 8-1 is almost like a unanimous decision in this court.
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:35 pm to NC_Tigah
Little girls still in danger
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:38 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Why would they have to dissent? Kennedy wrote Kerry v. Din, which is what the government argues controls the outcome in this case (along with Mandel).
I can count to five upholding the ban on statutory grounds without resort to the constitutional issue.
I can count to five upholding the ban on statutory grounds without resort to the constitutional issue.
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:40 pm to FalseProphet
The Ashwander doctrine of constitutional avoidance. I like your style. I think you have it right.
So what is the procedure now since the lower courts haven't ruled on the merits of the case?
So what is the procedure now since the lower courts haven't ruled on the merits of the case?
This post was edited on 5/25/17 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:41 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
I think there's a chance. I really think they'll want a unanimous court. But everyone knows Thomas is going to be Thomas. So a 8-1 is almost like a unanimous decision in this court.
You're really confusing me on this. If Mandel provides the rule of decision in this case, the establishment clause issue never comes up, because they can't look to the alleged purpose of the order.
They can only look to what it says, and it says nothing about religion.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:42 pm to NC_Tigah
Going to the Supreme Court to be settled once and for all. Precedent needs to be set. Key to Trump's next 8 years; the Dems will be far more friendly if they know he can act on EO.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:43 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
If Mandel provides the rule of decision in this case, the establishment clause issue never comes up, because they can't look to the alleged purpose of the order.
No, I think you're right. I hadn't taken the doctrine of constitutional avoidance into account. I don't know the Mandel case.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:46 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
So what is the procedure now since the lower courts haven't ruled on the merits of the case?
So, this is coming up on the grant of an injunction, which means the lower courts (with little to no evidence) have determined that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
If the Supreme Court reverses, it pretty much dooms the Plaintiffs' case. If they reverse, it will be because they find Mandel controlling, that the order is facially legitimate, that they can't review anything besides the text of the order, and that Congress appropriately delegated the power to make such decisions to the President.
10 page opinion, 5 justice majority. 90 page dissent from the liberal quartet analyzing it the same way the lower courts did.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:47 pm to NC_Tigah
If supreme's uphold this stupid ruling could Trump have better success with:
1. Stop ALL immigration and visa issues. Everything, tourists, students and H1B work visas?
2. Can Trump just instruct the Department of state to not issue any Visas and no longer allow non citizens entry into the United states without Presidential approval?
1. Stop ALL immigration and visa issues. Everything, tourists, students and H1B work visas?
2. Can Trump just instruct the Department of state to not issue any Visas and no longer allow non citizens entry into the United states without Presidential approval?
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:48 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
The holding from Kleindenst v. Mandel:
quote:
In the exercise of Congress' plenary power to exclude aliens or prescribe the conditions for their entry into this country, Congress in 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive Branch. When the Attorney General decides for a legitimate and bona fide reason not to waive the statutory exclusion of an alien, courts will not look behind his decision or weigh it against the First Amendment interests of those who would personally communicate with the alien.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:49 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Unfortunately, SCOTUS is going to hold the ban violates the establishment clause in a per curiam. Book it.
How the frick can anyone argue with a straight face that the 1st amendment applies to people who have never set foot on American soil? I cannot believe we are at a point in America where people are seriously arguing this.
Posted on 5/25/17 at 1:53 pm to AUstar
That's not truly the argument.
That argument goes that by banning Muslims, the President is establishing a national religious preference in the United States.
That argument goes that by banning Muslims, the President is establishing a national religious preference in the United States.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News