what does that have to do with the travel ban?
The refugee's are more in legal question -there are a couple of laws that need to be looked at.
But that would not involve state AG's ( no standing)
Judge grants TRO vacating Trump immigrant ban executive order
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
The refugee's are more in legal question -there are a couple of laws that need to be looked at.
But that would not involve state AG's ( no standing)
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what constitutional premise did it violate?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
one reason it might not be so cited is that one of the other District Court judges disagrees with his decision.......this is actually highly likely......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
but wasn't the "right to asylum" (which doesn't actually exist under any law by the way) granted by Obama's executive order increasing the number of refugees.....
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
He is a BLM supporter. Nuff said
You understand nothing, asswipe. My post had nothing to do with either of your imbecilic questions. It was an observation of Orangetweet's comments.
Do us a favor and get the fuck off this forum. The collective IQ will improve.
Another good point.
Angry ant
" merely persuasive authority " M #16
I wouldn't use that term to describe Stare Decisis, which I think you have underestimated here.
Judges may have broad discretion. But they are all at least technically bound by the law.
To ignore this precedent, they'd have to find a plausible contribution to the following "fill in the blank":
- Yeah, I know, but this case is different because ______________________________ .
Meanwhile before noon, I heard an updated news report that immigration has resumed, with the caveat that it may again be suspended on short notice.
I wouldn't use that term to describe Stare Decisis, which I think you have underestimated here.
Judges may have broad discretion. But they are all at least technically bound by the law.
To ignore this precedent, they'd have to find a plausible contribution to the following "fill in the blank":
- Yeah, I know, but this case is different because ______________________________ .
Meanwhile before noon, I heard an updated news report that immigration has resumed, with the caveat that it may again be suspended on short notice.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
This was GWB appointee too! This was back when the Republicans were conservatives, and not fascists. Liberalism is dead, but conservatism is dead too.
Respectfully disagree. No other district is required to follow this opinion at all in any case before it, even on the exact same facts. It can be cited as persuasive authority, and reasonable minds being reasonable, they tend to agree on identical facts. But no, no federal trial level court must fill in that blank you suggested, although it helps if they do. To my mind, law as far as precedent is concerned appellate law, not a district trial judge's order. In fact this judge isn't looking at district court opinions when he is deciding the instant case, he is looking and citing appellate decisions of similar prior cases, hopefully within the 9th. I see he cited something from Texas though. I was surprised his district has an identical test for a TRO and a Preliminary Injuction. Begs the question, why even have both. Just issue both, cuz its a fait accompli. Maybe new facts could change the result.
I agree. Sloppy. They do enjoy rights provided by the immigration laws that are to be drafted and implemented in an impartial way, not arbitrarily, as between themselves. But yes, there is no right to be admitted. So the claim is derivative in a sense.
Back then I thought Bush Jr was nearly fascist. This guy is beyond the pale. A real twit.
Because home schooled jebusland slack jawed yokels lack the education and ability to perform high pay technical jobs due to Republican policies opposed to education spending.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
So you are saying these Syrians have the skills?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
at ANYONE that usurps their constitutional authority
M #31 opines:
" No other district is required to follow this opinion at all in any case" M #31
Here's an excerpt from a legal source, on the meaning and application of our long-standing legal standard of Stare Decisis:
Stare decisis is a Latin term. It means 'to stand by things decided.' Stare decisis is a doctrine used in all court cases and with all legal issues. A doctrine is simply a principle, or an instruction, but it's not necessarily a rule that cannot ever be broken.
The doctrine of stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. The past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle or rule that is created by a court decision. This decision becomes an example, or authority, for judges deciding similar issues later. Stare decisis is the doctrine that obligates courts to look to precedent when making their decisions. These two principles allow American law to build case-by-case, and make our legal system a common law system.
much more @ http://study.com/academy/lesson/stare-decisis-doctrine-definition-example-cases.html
It's not in the least clear to me why you would assert Stare Decisis doesn't apply in our law courts.
That's PRECISELY both where and how it applies.
Please don't attempt a squabble with me. Your issue is with http://study.com/academy/lesson/stare-decisis-doctrine-definition-example-cases.html & http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=stare decisis&type=3 and other respected legal sources.
" No other district is required to follow this opinion at all in any case" M #31
Here's an excerpt from a legal source, on the meaning and application of our long-standing legal standard of Stare Decisis:
Stare decisis is a Latin term. It means 'to stand by things decided.' Stare decisis is a doctrine used in all court cases and with all legal issues. A doctrine is simply a principle, or an instruction, but it's not necessarily a rule that cannot ever be broken.
The doctrine of stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. The past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle or rule that is created by a court decision. This decision becomes an example, or authority, for judges deciding similar issues later. Stare decisis is the doctrine that obligates courts to look to precedent when making their decisions. These two principles allow American law to build case-by-case, and make our legal system a common law system.
much more @ http://study.com/academy/lesson/stare-decisis-doctrine-definition-example-cases.html
It's not in the least clear to me why you would assert Stare Decisis doesn't apply in our law courts.
That's PRECISELY both where and how it applies.
Please don't attempt a squabble with me. Your issue is with http://study.com/academy/lesson/stare-decisis-doctrine-definition-example-cases.html & http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=stare decisis&type=3 and other respected legal sources.
It's both.
What I said is inarguable fact. What I said also lives comfortably with what you posted. Providing a definition of stare decisis doesn't change the precedential relative value of a district court decision as binding authority on other districts or any appellate court, or state court in matters of state law where the fed court has exercised ancillary jurisdiction over a state law claim or in cases of diversity, etc.
Just a head's up, there is little I don't know. I'm here to instruct, not squabble. Your choice whether to sit attentively to my profundities or not.