I love how people keep pointing out too that one of these judges and the Seattle judge was appointed by George W. That's totally irrelevant. Once you sit in a district or circuit that is grossly liberal for that long you tend to move to the left to conform.

Post of the thread.

Yea Trump is so used to fighting with money he doesn't realize it won't work in this case.

I don't see why the supreme court would even bother to hear it. It expires in 120 days and its written so poorly even the White House didn't understand what it meant wrt to green card holders.

Must be all the gay dust blowing in the wind there hey?

Why do all trumpkins state totally made up bull**** as if it's fact? You all get together after the kkk rallies and teach other this rhetorical device?

Time for a new minority leader

My prediction as an attorney and court watcher: The supreme court does not overturn the TRO, and the decision isn't 4-4. I think Kennedy and Roberts go along with the liberals on this one, maybe even Alito. Thomas votes for Trump. Could even be unanimous to just send it back to district court to reach the merits before the supreme court hears it.

um..

*blank stare*

*blink*

*blank stare*

Hey, home movies a great!

stats citation pls

BMOL and semicompetent could apparently benefit from this rather simple post:

But I dunno, get on their level?

EDIT: By the way, that was written before I read the opinion, which states the same thing rather plainly:

"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has 'unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.' The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches - an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. . . Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President's decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy . . . Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the '[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.'"

Complete lunatics are now the President and Vice-President. Both are completely empty suits who would be incapable of managing a drive through, much less the federal government.

The third man in line would snap sign a bill to defund Medicare, should he ever get the chance to take office.

We would need three assassinations to get the country to mildly +EV, and the ensuing chaos of that much carnage at the top would almost certain wreck the country.

As an emotional sentiment I understand, but Trump actually getting killed improves ~0 if Pence takes over, he's obviously on board. If anything the fact that he would be able to push the agenda with less confrontation makes him scarier, imo.

The best weapon against Trump will be his own abrasiveness. It will also be the literal impossibility of making good on his campaign promises regarding tariffs and trade.

The GOP could still try to primary him in 2020. It may be possible, or even necessary to prevent a set back in congress, to test him next go round if the administration enacts any of their trade policies. China, Canada, and Mexico are our three largest trading partners. "Ripping up NAFTA" + ending most favored status for China = bad recession.

If they really give the base what they want on trade they'll kill their own chances in 2020.

The ninth does about 3 or 4 times the volume of other circuits. From 1999 to 2008 it had 12% more cases overturned than the median circuit. It's a high percentage but not because the court is hinky or anything.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

My prediction as a non attorney is that the SCOTUS denies cert on the TRO, tosses the EO eventually 6-2.

Not feeling especially bold, eh?

don't listen to him, hillary! mandela this bitch!

Only posting because of the clown car

You desperately need to google due process.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/sc...-the-circuits/


Data is a little old, but it was the first google result and a reliable souce, so I figured it's a good first take...

Factual Cliffs:

- There is a general bias towards overturning. Every circuit has a greater than 50% reversal rate.

- For the time period studied, 9th circuit was reversed more than average (high 70%), but two other circuits had higher rates.

- 9th Circuit accounts for higher than average volume (25%+).

The article mostly uses % instead of raw numbers, so I guess that that the 9th circuit could have more cases overturned if you were measuring by the number of cases, but, even then, I don't think it would be more than the COMBINED total of the other circuits.

Nice looking country. If the Left Coast wanted to secede the Trumpers in the rest of the country would probably say "good riddance."

@CPHoya Even amongst the non stupids in Trump country no one follows the SC as a hobby. You can get through schooling without ever being asked to articulate the principle of judicial review. Most would get angry or change the subject if you tried to engage them in a conversation about a case.

I'm pretty sure the interviewer peed his pants half way through.

Yeah, Ferguson is a ****ing BOSS

Would be interesting to know how often SCOTUS overturns 9-0 decisions.