Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.

Denied.

It was a clumsy attempt at framing the scale of the impropriety that is a judge up ending stare decisis and ignoring precedent not just from the Supreme Court, but from the appellate court in his own circuit, and instead using regressive injunctive powers to block an action clearly and unequivocally delegated to the President by Congress.

Articles III and VI grant the judiciary the right to review laws. If Trump doesn't like the ruling, he can appeal all the way up to SCOTUS and their ruling will be the law of the land. It's pretty simple.

JLN, stop trying to dogpaddle in deeper,swifter waters than you're rated for

Alabama's motto should read: Bless their hearts and thank God for Mississippi!

I don't know to what you are referring, but thank you for your input.

Your discussion of article 3 is baffling and your discussion of the appropriate standard of review isn't exactly accurate

The importance and continuing applicability of the framework set out in Mandel and applied in Fiallo and Din has been recognized in circumstances remarkably similar to the Executive Order. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney General instituted the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. That program required nonimmigrant alien males (residing in the United States) over the age of sixteen from twenty-five countries—twenty-four Muslim-majority countries plus North Korea—to appear for registration and fingerprinting. One court referred to the program as “enhanced monitoring.” See Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 433–34, 439 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing the program).7 The aliens subject to the program filed a series of suits in federal courts across the United States. They contended that the program unconstitutionally discriminated against them on the basis of “their religion, ethnicity, gender, and race.” Id. at 438. Similar to the claims here, the petitioners argued that the program “was motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims.” Id. at 439. Citing Fiallo and applying the Mandel test, the Second Circuit held that “[t]he most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review.” Id. at 438 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The court then found “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for” the registration requirements because the countries were “selected on the basis of national security criteria.” Id. at 438–39. The court rejected as having “no basis” the petitioners’ claim of religious animus. Id. at 439. The court observed that “one major threat of terrorist attacks comes from radical Islamic groups.” Id. It added:

Muslims from non-specified countries were not subject to registration. Aliens from the designated countries who were qualified to be permanent residents in the United States were exempted whether or not they were Muslims. The program did not target only Muslims: non-Muslims from the designated countries were subject to registration.

Finally, the court refused to review the program for “its effectiveness and wisdom” because the court “ha[d] no way of knowing whether the Program’s enhanced monitoring of aliens ha[d] disrupted or deterred attacks. In any event, such a consideration [was] irrelevant because an ex ante rather than ex post assessment of the Program [was] required under the rational basis test.” Id. The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.”

It's news to you that Article III doesn't specify judicial review? And yes, I am correct in identifying rational basis as the review standard for these kinds of things:



You're just all kinds of wrong in this thread, eh?

A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ...

You have no idea what the Federalist society help you blindly cite means nor how your application of it fits. Hint: it doesn't work in the real world. It really looks like the intellectual acrobatics it really is. And save the specific Article 3 cites, only theoretical conservatives go that crocodile tears route

You have no idea what the Federalist society help you blindly cite means nor how your application of it fits. Hint: it doesn't work in the real world.

A non-lawyer arguing with an actual lawyer ...

Ahh, there is the appeal to authority I've been waiting for. Thank you.

Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole

And completely arguing that the Constitutional Article that creates the federal judiciary essentially confers it impotent.

Jesus you're dumb.

I'm appealing, as you put it, to someone who knows what the bloody hell he's talking about over some 'iamverysmart' wanna-be.

But you tell 'em, horseshit ... you've been on the road.

Is JLN a law student?

He's clearly smarter and more well-informed than a career lawyer.

I wonder if it's also an appeal to authority if I decide to ignore the dry-cleaner's opinion on how to deal with a cough and instead believe the learned opinion of a physician.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I disagree with a good deal of what JLN says, and I'm a big fan of Reader, but I can promise that just "being" a lawyer doesn't automatically mean that that individual is more knowledgeable than an amateur. Same goes for pretty much any profession. Reader happens to come off as a well-informed and thoughtful lawyer, but that's a different argument. I deal on a daily basis with lawyers who are braindead morons. I also talk to them IRL.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

I don't think Robert Shapiro plays hockey.

Weird, I see Dolphin looking in my asshole