Reply With Quote
Home of the redskins, bullets, and 92% Democratic vote. The worst hole in the entire US, even worse than dogtown Detroit
Home of the redskins, bullets, and 92% Democratic vote. The worst hole in the entire US, even worse than dogtown Detroit
It was a judge appointed by Bush
nvm, WA state. Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver areas. Another liberal hole.It was a judge appointed by Bush
bob ferguson
i wonder where they'll hold the viewing.
Anyone know what the legal reasoning was?
discrimination
Its a retraining order, not a final ruling (because there's irreparable harm), though they only grant the TRO if the judge rules there's a substantial chance for plaintiff to prevail on the merits.
Actual case should be interesting, as national security has typically been considered a compelling government interest that holds up even against strict scrutiny...
How does a non citizen not on US soil have US citizen rights?
Judge ruled the families (who are in the US) had standing
What makes you think that's the basis for this case?
Also you don't have to be a citizen to have cons utional protections. The big one, the 14th amendment, is for all persons
I think the basis is that there cannot be a religious test for immigration, at least from the excerpts we've heard so far. So the question would center on the actual cons utionality of the EO.
Interesting
seems like a pretty weak theory.
Cons utionally controlling our borders and deciding who can and can't come in is clearly up to the Federal Government .
That appears most likely. I wonder how they will balance the federal governments asserted national security interest.
Yup, plus the US has a long history of applying it's laws supra-nationally on non US citizens. IE, see: Kim Dotcom
That's not the theory behind the merits of the case, it's just why the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Standing is usually a big issue in environmental suits too.
hmmm...funny the 14th specifically says those born in the USA.
Not saying I totally agree with how it was implemented but the executive clearly has jurisdiction on how VISA's to enter the US are issued.
That's referring to the fact that all people born here are automatically citizens. Read past that one clause tbh...
Up to 100,000 people got their visas revoked without warning.
Government can actually plead natsec directly, but judges can overrule (although the vast majority of the time, especially in cases of surveillance, they do defer to the government).
The administration will probably look to find an amicable court to certify the cons utionality of the EO, thus likely creating colliding rulings, and ignore the restraining order, while it escalates the case.
The case itself centers both on campaign and public statements to the effect of this being a religion-based ban. A hearsay defense might just be enough to make it go away, although the probative value seems to outweight prejudice in this case.
I feel safer already tbh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
