Immigration Ban Hearing

[Gelston]

Assuming SCOTUS even bothers taking the case. I'm not super familiar with the current Court's case history on State standing in immigration cases- which is the most likely point of contention between the Courts.

The other piece they may hit is the refugee provisions in the EO- those are a bit less clear-cut. I genuinely don't know to what extent- if any- the Immigration and Naturalization Act's prohibition on national origin impacts this. And I think the rational basis test may be a bit more favorable to the Trump administration on that one.

They are guaranteed to take it, regardless of the outcome. Creating a precedence on this is something they'll want to do.

[Tgo01]

Excellent Tgo-style unwillingness to handle ambiguity.

Uh, what? Why are you being ambiguous on purpose? What an odd defense.

Hey guys, I was just being ambiguous, learn to deal with my ambiguity! Did I mention I used to teach logic?!

[Gelston]

Uh, what? Why are you being ambiguous on purpose? What an odd defense.

Hey guys, I was just being ambiguous, learn to deal with my ambiguity! Did I mention I used to teach logic?!

It is okay, she is just stupid.

[ClydeR]

I hate to spoil it for you, but if this court rules against Trump, then the Supreme Court will definitely take the case and will definitely rule in Trump's favor. It's just common sense that the President should be able to stop immigration temporarily from a country when he deems it to be dangerous, and it's equally common sense that the courts are not qualified to second guess his decisions.

[Gelston]

I hate to spoil it for you, but if this court rules against Trump, then the Supreme Court will definitely take the case and will definitely rule in Trump's favor. It's just common sense that the President should be able to stop immigration temporarily from a country when he deems it to be dangerous, and it's equally common sense that the courts are not qualified to second guess his decisions.

does your mom know you're gay?

[time4fun]

I hate to spoil it for you, but if this court rules against Trump, then the Supreme Court will definitely take the case and will definitely rule in Trump's favor. It's just common sense that the President should be able to stop immigration temporarily from a country when he deems it to be dangerous, and it's equally common sense that the courts are not qualified to second guess his decisions.

Erm. "Common sense" is not a legal argument.

[time4fun]

It is okay, she is just stupid.

Might not want to have posted that right after talking about legal "precedence".

Your mastery of the English language is about as impressive as your understanding of jurisprudence.

[Gelston]

Might not want to have posted that right after talking about legal "precedence".

Your mastery of the English language is about as impressive as your understanding of jurisprudence.

Sorry, precedent.

At least I know how elections work.

[Parkbandit]

No, but I'll agree that you have no concept of the notion of case law. The different Circuits all have their history of legal decisions. 9th Circuit's relationship with Immigration law, Standing, and Executive Power is very different from, say, that of the 5th Circuit.

Excellent Tgo-style unwillingness to handle ambiguity.

You are as familiar with case law as you are election law.

Which is only what you read on motherjones.com

[Parkbandit]

With the possibility of a 4-4 split though, it's possible the 9th Circuit's judgment is the one that will count.

Thanks to Dirty Harry Reid, we won't have to worry about the 4-4 split. It'll be 5-4 upheld in favor of the Trump Administration.