just looked this opinion over and it is amazing; the state of Hawaii has standing because it interferes with tourism? Because some students or scholars can't come in ? Because it stigmatizes all muslims? Didn't burning down Atlanta stigmatize all southerners? How about bombing Berlin? I think that stigmatized all Germans. If a federal district judge can enjoin the executive branch from exercising its foreign policy powers, why not its war making powers? Most bizarre was the discussion of the Establishment Clause. How is limiting visits from countries with horrible terrorism problems a violation of the clause which forbids establishing religions? How much is Trump paying these guys to make him look almost legitamate?
It really was remarkable. The issues of national security and the power to control immigration were almost completely ignored. Basically, the rationale was, "Trump obviously doesn't like Muslims, so his order must be motivated by religious discrimination, and that's bad."
'Politifact' says entering in the country illegally is not a crime http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...bishops/being-united-states-unlawfully-crime/ edit: per my sphincter admirer
Coulter: "....Why don’t we believe what these migrants say? They come to countries. They rape women. They’re having a very difficult time learning not to rape women, even if they’re infidel whores and have short skirts. What other immigrant group could not stop itself from raping masses of women?"
The SCOTUS ripped the 9th Circuit injunction in a one page order (signed by Kennedy). They made it clear that the limted version of Trump's Executive Order can be enforced immediately (with a full hearing slated for Oct) They have also done their best, more than once now, to send the 9th Cir a clear signal on how to proceed in the future to avoid another major emabrassment (but the 9C wont take the hint, of course) One other item of note is that six of the seven nations included in the travel ban forbid visas/entry to citizens from various nations based on nationality – including Israel, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
With a revised set of administration rules on visas and expiration Sunday of the previously argued 'travel ban’ guidelines, SCOTUS cancelled oral arguments. The new ban affects 8 counties (and has no expiration date). Those countries are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Chad, North Korea and Venezuela were not covered by the earlier ban. Sidenote -- Maduro called not allowing him to get a visa to the US is a form of “psychological terrorism.”
There's no reason to be surprised. Ginsberg and Sotomayor don't vote cases based on the merits -- they vote for the liberal position to win. In contrast, while Breyer and Kagan certainly have a liberal slant, they have enough intelligence and integrity to resolve cases on their merits. This ruling is consistent with what I wrote this Spring:
which was probably pre-coordinated ... or at least shows just how fouled-up Obama was WRT the Constitutionality of his proposals/actions. If those 3 voted against an Obama proposal ... klaxon soundings should have been heard, but weren't (by enough, and certainly not by media)
Let us hope that is not the case. The reality is Obama lost about 55% of all of his SCOTUS cases. That is the worst record for the last 100 years, maybe longer. For comparison, Reagan won 75% of his. Even oddball Jimmy Carter won 68% of his SCOTUS cases. (I would someday be interested to see an FDR-Obama comparison as FDR also lost a ton of cases). It gets even worse for Obama if you break it down by Justice. I dont have the final numbers, but Obama had at least 44 unanimous losses (usually meaning 9-0, but some may have been 8-0). Meaning his own appointees (Sotomayor/Kagan) started voting against him as soon as they were sworn in. This is also a modern record for Presidents as well. Obama may have been the worst ever President in this regard. What all those unanimous rulings show is that Obama's record losing streak was not the result of a Republican-packed Court. What they show is that Obama's behavior was so out of bounds that it was offensive even to his own people. I feel pretty certain those were not happy votes for these women. So, as I see it, the main problem for Obama was not who was on the Court but rather his lack of respect for the Constitution, Separation of Powers and the notion of judicial restraint. Obama basically had the idea that being President meant he could do whatever he wanted without restraint. Amazingly enough, Harvard was supposed to have this guy teaching a course in Constitutional Law. What a joke. One last thing, you can bet today that Obama is suddenly a huge fan of "the Constitution, Separation of Powers and the notion of judicial restraint."
While I think you take the point way too far, I largely agree with you on this. Obama had many flaws as president, but his biggest by far was a propensity to overreach.
Yet the nutjobs on twitter are complaining that Trump is destroying the constitution while ignoring Obama’s overreach and the multiple unanimous rulings against him.
Clearly two things we need to bulk up in public school curriculum are: (a) The Constitution; and (b) Socialism kills
This is the fairly rare appeal directly from the District Court to the Supremes Bypassing the 9th Cir completely
This is the Supreme Court being embarrassed on behalf of the country for these stupid judges, who bend to virtue signaling like all the other leftists.
I worked at the Circuit Ct level for awhile. They generally do not enjoy reversals. And if it's ever the same court, same judge, then its just embarrassing all around. But sometimes it just cannot be avoided. Plus, I dont think this judge cares. He was out to make a point. The much more interesting question to me is the forum shopping. I hope some day hackers are able to reveal the process and all those involved in it. This needed to happen 30 years ago.
I don't think there's much mystery to it. You've got a lawsuit that literally has millions of potential plaintiffs with standing. It wouldn't be hard to forum shop to make sure you're in front of a favorable judge. There's a reason why these cases are almost always successful at the district court level. The plaintiffs are undoubtedly finding the most partisan judges in the country. And of course, if you can get the case on the West Coast or Hawaii, you can also have an appellate court dominated by partisan liberals.
The why is obvious. I am interested in the how and who. While plaintiffs can pick their court, IMHO at least, they should not get to pick their own personal judge. What I really would like to find out is if their were ex parte communications with that judge or anyone in that judge's close circle prior to filing. If so, by whom. How is this done. What are the mechanics of it. I want it exposed and brought to light. I have spent quite a bit of time in federal courts and the Chief Judges I've known were all no-nonsense, very busy and played it straight. IIRC, all of them used a type of lottery system.
Officially, they don't get to pick their own personal judge. However, consider the DACA case - where a judge actually ruled that Trump couldn't get rid of DACA. That was filed in the Northern District of California. I think only about 3 out of 22 of their judges are Republicans, so even if it's truly assigned randomly, the odds are pretty high that it's going to a liberal judge. Furthermore, we know the normal rules of judge assignment have exceptions for "specialty," location, etc. That may be the general rule, but when a high profile case arises, I notice that the normal rules tend to get set aside. Perhaps there are ex parte communications between the plaintiffs and the court, but I doubt there needs to be.
From my perspective, it does look like plaintiffs are picking their own judge. I do not believe that these cases were randomly assigned.
