Practically speaking, you may wind up correct. However, based on those rulings, I see no point in even having a review. If it truly states “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” as the prevailing philosophy, it is hard to envision a scenario where the court would rule against an EO.

That said, I believe one could reasonably argue that this classification is based on religion or race. The administration has provided no real reason (to my knowledge) that shows these countries to pose a more significant threat than any other group of countries. You could take any country in the world and point to atrocities committed by its citizens.

Practically speaking, you may wind up correct. However, based on those rulings, I see no point in even having a review. If it truly states “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” as the prevailing philosophy, it is hard to envision a scenario where the court would rule against an EO.

That said, I believe one could reasonably argue that this classification is based on religion or race. The administration has provided no real reason (to my knowledge) that shows these countries to pose a more significant threat than any other group of countries. You could take any country in the world and point to atrocities committed by its citizens.

Really, this is all just jerking off, because at the end of the day, the courts will (or can) kick this issue around until it winds up in front of the Supremes, and they can just decide to write new law in whichever way they please (one of the reasons I think people need to stop thinking an activist judiciary is a punchline). And onward goes, this thing of ours.

If President Trump loses this can be really really bad for the country.
What I mean by that is,If this is upheld then every single person who was ever denied entrance as a refugee or asylum or immigrant will have the right to take the United States to court and sue for loss of that status as well as any and all monetary benefits deriving from that status.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

No, it doesn't.

So Trump is going to lose?

Like I've said, that depends on which court gets its hand on this, with "which" meaning geographically, demographically, and politically.

Practically, I think the case has been sufficiently made that this would survive rational basis review by an oroginalist/textualist judge or panel of justices.

That is not my thought but the thought of a former Us District atty.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

That is not my thought but the thought of a former Us District atty.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You seem to be backtracking.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

You seem to be backtracking.

I'm still not sure if you think his current EO will stand.

Why does this matter so much to you?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You two should get it over with and scissor each other.

Jealous?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You two should get it over with and scissor each other.

You have half the posts on this thread and I don't know your ultimate point.

That is not my thought but the thought of a former Us District atty.

Yes you do.

He is rewriting it. Sorry JLN.

One of the things the 9th Circuit said is that the White House telling their attorney to disregard the contested sections of the order would have changed some aspects of their review for the TRO, but that the attorney serves in no official capacity and his suggestions are not binding on immigration officials. They were basically telling him to re-write it, because they (the courts) cannot argue with the fact that: (1) this kind of order is expressly the purview of the President and (2) that courts must show extreme deference to the powers of the Executive Branch when reviewing orders like this.

the court process could take forever. he "re-wrote" it so it would take effect immediately.

1) If he thought he could win in court he wouldn't be rewriting it.