Judge grants TRO vacating Trump immigrant ban executive order

+ said:
he said religious minorities, not christians. typically it makes sense that oppressed groups be given dibs for refugee status.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning. Political refugees need to make a showing on an individual particularized basis of fear of harm. There is not group minority presumption, at least such as is facially codified in religious terms. That showing is not supplied by presuming it exists first
 
+ said:
he said religious minorities, not christians. typically it makes sense that oppressed groups be given dibs for refugee status.
Click to expand...

He said Christians.

(CNN) President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

Speaking with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said that it had been "impossible, or at least very tough" for Syrian Christians to enter the United States.

"If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair -- everybody was persecuted, in all fairness -- but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians. And I thought it was very, very unfair. So we are going to help them."
 
#40

Reductio ad absurdum:

This court rules one way,
a peer court rule the opposite.

In what way is that standing by things decided?

Stare Decisis is about uniformity of law.
When in the past after a court precedent is set peer courts take a contrary position, superior courts often rule on which standard will prevail. And if the conflict continues, it can end up @SCOTUS.

Not clear to me why you would think one federal standard could be applied in one jurisdiction, the opposite standard could be applied in another jurisdiction, and that double-standard would be allowed to prevail / continue.

That's PRECISELY what stare decisis is intended to prevent. Not to enshrine double-standards, but to minimize them.
 
sear said:
When in the past after a court precedent is set peer courts take a contrary position, superior courts often rule on which standard will prevail. And if the conflict continues, it can end up @SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

that's why stare decisis doesn't apply until a court with higher authority makes the decision....quit wasting time on the issue at this stage.....
 
sear said:
#40

Reductio ad absurdum:

This court rules one way,
a peer court rule the opposite.

In what way is that standing by things decided?

Stare Decisis is about uniformity of law.
When in the past after a court precedent is set peer courts take a contrary position, superior courts often rule on which standard will prevail. And if the conflict continues, it can end up @SCOTUS.

Not clear to me why you would think one federal standard could be applied in one jurisdiction, the opposite standard could be applied in another jurisdiction, and that double-standard would be allowed to prevail / continue.

That's PRECISELY what stare decisis is intended to prevent. Not to enshrine double-standards, but to minimize them.
Click to expand...

That logical fallacy was inapplicable.

I'm not posting about the way you or I think things ought to be, I am posting facts about American jurisprudence.

Trial court opinions mean next to dick in jurisprudence. Appellate court opinions matter. Especially those certified and published. Check out any statutory regime you can name and you will observe conflicting opinions and orders. One job of the appellate courts is to correct errors of law, another task is, in doing so, to attempt to harmonize them. I never said I favored disharmony in laws. A court of equal level will use the reasoning or follow another opinion if it believes it is correct, it will decline to follow if it believes the other decision is unpersuasive and incorrect. By the way, cases are really only law as to the holding. The rest may be dicta, or rationale, or reasoning but not the law. I just say that in passing because so many attorneys and laity cut and paste just about anything they think favors their argument, but most of it is not "the law" any more than an informative treatise might be.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that's why stare decisis doesn't apply until a court with higher authority makes the decision....quit wasting time on the issue at this stage.....
Click to expand...

The block of the goon's EO stands nationally ...
The biggest twitter shit storm in the world can not reverse it...
Your orange racist hero has proved that, Pimples...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What do you intend to do, when the Judge is overruled?
Click to expand...

The order will no doubt go back and forth several times
probably go the SC...
...and it won't go 4 to 4...
By doubling down on this unconstitutional bigoted EO, Trump is compounding the damage he is doing to himself...
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
The order will no doubt go back and forth several times
probably go the SC...
...and it won't go 4 to 4...
By doubling down on this unconstitutional bigoted EO, Trump is compounding the damage he is doing to himself...
Click to expand...

By the time it gets to the SC; it will be shot down 5-4.

:evilnod:
 
"I'm not posting about the way you or I think things ought to be" M #49

You think I am?

"I am posting facts about American jurisprudence."

You think I haven't?
 
PS

Update:

At 6:AM/ET Superbowl Sunday BBC News reports Trump's restrictions remain suspended, and that the administration has until Monday to offer better argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top