Posted by
Message
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2008
70773 posts

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

The system worked in the Trump admins favor?


Well, the point I'm making is that Tiguar effectively "overruled" a superior court that had just overruled him which in itself is fricking absurd.

But, there was an assertion made in this thread that Tiguar just did what the 9th intended him to do as they "winked" at him with their decision.

Clearly, that ain't the case.


cwill
Member since Jan 2005
41947 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Well, the point I'm making is that Tiguar effectively "overruled" a superior court that had just overruled him which in itself is fricking absurd.

But, there was an assertion made in this thread that Tiguar just did what the 9th intended him to do as they "winked" at him with their decision.

Clearly, that ain't the case.


The 9th definitely left an opening:



Call it a "wink" or what have you, but it's clear they left it to the district court to develop additional evidence. LINK

Frankly, what's going on now appears to be a temporary stay pending additional arguments being submitted by each litigant by the 13th. LINK

The District Judge was not out of line in allowing plaintiffs to supplement and reimpose the nationwide. He did not act contrary to or buck a higher court.

This post was edited on 9/11 at 12:44 pm


dukkbill
Auburn Fan
Member since Aug 2012
206 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Clearly, that ain't the case.


Yes, round 2 will be next week. Both parties can file new briefs based on this "new evidence".

You have also been correct that the balance of this system has not been ordinary practice. We went about 150 years without any national injunctions. Specifically considered the practice abherent in cases, and really didn't start to see them at all until the 1960s. You get a couple in the late 90s, and then we start exploding after 2015. Prof. Bray traces this history quite nicely. LINK This isn't the system, and is indeed a stain on the system.

The Supremes started to stamp this out with TC Heartland when patent lawyers tried to forum shop their patent cases. They didn't get rid of nationwide injunctions on these civil matters, but they did address forum shopping by changing where patent cases need to be heard. Hopefully, they will address this practice too because it is not good government.

ETC link
This post was edited on 9/11 at 3:44 pm


cwill
Member since Jan 2005
41947 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Prof. Bray traces this history quite nicely. [link=LINK ]


Bad link, can you fix?


AggieHank86
Texas A&M Fan
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
13371 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Can I just point out that the 9th Circuit IMMEDIATELY telling Tiguar to frick himself kinda guts the theory that the 9th "winked" at Tiguar and wanted him to do what he did.
Hard to tell. You may well be right, but I can’t determine whether it was the same panel of judges.

Further, this ruling seems to be a very temporary Band-Aid, given that additional proceedings are set in just a few days.

We will see.
This post was edited on 9/11 at 1:15 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
12
oogabooga68
Member since Nov 2018
5830 posts

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Well, the point I'm making is that Tiguar effectively "overruled" a superior court that had just overruled him which in itself is fricking absurd.


Given the state of todays' Judicial Industrial Complex, do you really find that surprising?


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors
Advertisement
ShortyRob
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2008
70773 posts

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

Call it a "wink" or what have you, but it's clear they left it to the district court to develop additional evidence. LINK

Well. Not for nothing. But, the 9th in your quoted language said the lower court needed to develop their justification and THEN, the lower used the fact that the 9th's decision left the injunction in place in only California as its "new" justification to re-install the injunction.

That's just fricking asinine on its face.


dukkbill
Auburn Fan
Member since Aug 2012
206 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
Fixed


cwill
Member since Jan 2005
41947 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
Thx


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
01
cwill
Member since Jan 2005
41947 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
quote:

the lower used the fact that the 9th's decision left the injunction in place in only California as its "new" justification to re-install the injunction.


Can you link? I've read the motion to supplement, which was granted, and I've read the opinion which generally acknowledges additional evidence then explains and cites evidence explaining the harm expected without a national injunction.


dukkbill
Auburn Fan
Member since Aug 2012
206 posts
 Online 

re: Judge Tigar defies federal appeals court, reinstates injunction against asylum ban
I don't want to speak for Short, but an alternative way to state a similar point is:

"While the court left open the possibility for additional evidence that would allow an enlargement of the injunction, they clearly meant substantive evidence that discussed new and unclear harms. There would not be anything unusual about such a ruling. Should the court have completely closed the door on ever enlarging the injunction, then they would be precluding the justice system from establishing reasonable and justicable review of the complaint. By way of example, if the organizations would show that such a limitation would enjoin the rights of existing persons that had completed the asylum process and were merely waiting for the grant of asylee status, then that might be a depravation of their rights to due process. If a judge had been convinced on lesser evidence, the litigants may not have ever even had a chance to make such a devestating argument. Instead, the court made a mockery of what is a common caveat to an appeals court ruling on an preliminary injunction. Although its not clear what evidence was heard, the judge merely cited a basis for renewing the objection merely because the plaintiff would have to divert its resources because its a national organization. Such jurisprudence would allow any litigant the opportunity to have a direct impact on executive action merely because they have cross circuit business operations. Such a holding would be a mockery of our justice system, and I'm sure Jon Tigar's renowned father is face palming at this very moment. Instead of hearing evidence, Tigar merely drafted a pleading to the district court in hopes they would agree with his desired policy implementation. Such types of shenigans don't belong in our legal system"

I certainly can read Shorty in that manner.
This post was edited on 9/11 at 4:26 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
Jump to page
Page First 10 11 12
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 12next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram