Reply With Quote
& until then if you ain't got a "bonafide" connection you ain't gettin' in. The Trump administration will discern that bonafication.
incoherent rambling.
scotus is going to hear the case in october... no decision has been made yet
& until then if you ain't got a "bonafide" connection you ain't gettin' in. The Trump administration will discern that bonafication.
sure thing. they've got that for 90 days.
and then SCOTUS will hear the case. (personally i think it gets upheld, just sayin this isn't anything near a final victory)
Yep. That's why CNNMSNBC are all saying it will be expired by October and SCOTUS is liable to state it moot and refuse to hear it. No way. This will adjudicated come October.sure thing. they've got that for 90 days.
and then SCOTUS will hear the case. (personally i think it gets upheld, just sayin this isn't anything near a final victory)
what the media says is irrelevant when SCOTUS outright said they're going to hear the case
mootness wont apply to a case like this in the same way it didnt apply to pregnancy/abortion cases which become moot in a handful of months
Its a W or L.
Thats all there is to know.
Oh.
And one can lay out their own criteria for either.
Simples.
Cub uses literally the same tactics cheering for teams he is really not a fan of on the NBA forum here in fellating the GOP and Trump. Yet you see so many people arguing it at face value.
About the 2nd time he ignores a well made point to spam "he mopped her ass. . . ." should have been enough.
Don't start your today, Lump. I'm in a good mood & I don't want it spoiled by your happy horse .
What do you mean, Bozo?
I figured that, but, it just annoys me when right away Media tries to wriggle off the losing end of the dirty stick when they've suffered a loss.
See, right there you start that (Bozo) materiel. I've asked you repeatedly not to do that, but, you persist.
Shame on you.
You should find more important things to get annoyed with than some talking heads on the idiot box.
That Stelzer guy on CNN makes me want to scream. That ing grin. They know how to push my buttons. All of 'em. That Kirsten (forget her last name),,,she has that perpetual slight sly grin on her face (no matter what, even if it's not her turn to talk) that makes me want to spank her & in turn have her spank me. I'm in hate & in love at the same time with her.
So you hate CNN but you watch it repeatedly just to fuel your anger. Seems like a very good use of your time.
I think you like being called Bozo and are just too embarrassed to admit it.
I too think clowns have been unfairly maligned by prejudice and propaganda, Bozo, but it does not have to be that way. It's so brave of you to take a stand.
Sure, don't you? Doesn't everybody? I just admit it.
Obviously you have a need to call me Bozo more than I have a need to have you stop. So, I've made peace with it.
So do you use waterproof face paint?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ply-enforcing/
Trump Can Win Travel Ban Case at Supreme Court Simply by Enforcing It
Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction against most of President Donald Trump’s “travel ban” is a major victory — and not just because he will be able to implement the policy, but because the case is only scheduled to be heard in the fall, i.e. in October at the earliest.
Because most of the controversial provisions of the executive order only last 90 days, it could be fully implemented before the Court hears the case.
The Court is prevented from hearing disputes that are already moot. There must be an active case or controversy in order for challenges to the executive order to be heard. The second version of Trump’s executive order suspends travel from six terror-prone countries for 90 days, and suspends the refugee program for 120 days. Both of those deadlines could be reached before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments, and certainly before it issues a decision.
Some of Trump’s supporters might want to have the case heard, in order to clarify the legal principles on which his executive orders were based — namely, that the President of the United States has broad discretion over immigration and that the judiciary must show deference to the executive in matters of national security. They would also like to see the dubious legal reasoning of some lower court decisions — especially the idea that campaign rhetoric can be used to discern the intent behind presidential actions — tossed aside. But the risk of being shot down by the Court may simply not be worth the trouble, given the Court’s recent penchant for inventing bizarre new legal theories.
Trump can “win” simply by following through on the executive order, then declaring it fulfilled before the Court hears the various challenges to the case, cutting the Gordian Knot of legal theories and advancing his policies.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
mootness doctrine doesn't apply if the injury is capable of repe ion yet evading review... or when there is a practical impossibility for there to be adjudication before the claims become moot.
ergo if the order IS found to be uncons utional (not that i'd agree with that finding), trump wouldn't be allowed to continually pump out 90 day bans, because they'd always become moot before reaching SCOTUS.
this is something most commonly seen in abortion cases... since pregnancies would be over before SCOTUS ever heard them. of course, if chris had just read about 15 posts up, he'd know better than to post that trash
the author of that piece went to harvard law, so he should know that... but its more important to say things his audience will like to hear
Bozo is screaming into the void.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
