If Tariffs are an executive power, why?

[Damocles]

Last week, sure it was stayed, as always when there is an appeal in such a case.

That is not "always" the case and you know it, sometimes they allow the ruling to be in effect while it is appealed. In this case they did not. Pretending that I am somehow "missing" what is happening is silly. Your claim that they are "always" stayed while there is an appeal is simply your own conjecture.

 

[Jarod]

That is not "always" the case and you know it, sometimes they allow the ruling to be in effect while it is appealed. In this case they did not. Pretending that I am somehow "missing" what is happening is silly. Your claim that they are "always" stayed while there is an appeal is simply your own conjecture.

the stay is not based on the merits of the case, your presumption is incorrect. In this type of instance, if the president asks for a stay, it would be very irregular for a court to deny it.

 

[Damocles]

the stay is not based on the merits of the case, your presumption is incorrect. In this type of instance, if the president asks for a stay, it would be very irregular for a court to deny it.

*sigh*

Point to where I said it was based on the "merits of the case", you are creating a crappy stick figure strawman and arguing "against" what you want me to have said rather than responding to what I actually stated. We watched the appeals court refuse a stay in May, you know last month, less than 30 days ago... You act like what I said was somehow wrong or that it was because of an opinion you assign to me instead of listening to what I've stated. More evidence that you should never, and I do mean never, be considered for a judge position you simply cannot take your opinion out of even simple conversation, let alone make me believe you could consider both sides of any argument.

You believe you know my opinion before it is ever stated, and fail to listen every. single. time.

 

[Jarod]

*sigh*

Point to where I said it was based on the "merits of the case", you are creating a crappy stick figure strawman and arguing "against" what you want me to have said rather than responding to what I actually stated. We watched the appeals court refuse a stay in May, you know last month, less than 30 days ago... You act like what I said was somehow wrong or that it was because of an opinion you assign to me instead of listening to what I've stated. More evidence that you should never, and I do mean never, be considered for a judge position you simply cannot take your opinion out of even simple conversation, let alone make me believe you could consider both sides of any argument.

You believe you know my opinion before it is ever stated, and fail to listen every. single. time.

Then why is the stay relevant?

 

[Damocles]

Then why is the stay relevant?

You said it was something that "always" happens, I point out that you are often wrong, give you information opposite it, then you ask me why it was important?

You thought it was relevant when you thought it was something you could just "dismiss" because it "always happens", and we'd all nod because you are Jarod the Attorney... but it just doesn't, and nobody was nodding. Your argument is just you spewing an opinion all over other people without regard to actual information.

 

[Jarod]

You said it was something that "always" happens, I point out that you are often wrong, give you information opposite it, then you ask me why it was important?

You thought it was relevant when you thought it was something you could just "dismiss" because it "always happens", and we'd all nod because you are Jarod the Attorney... but it just doesn't, and nobody was nodding. Your argument is just you spewing an opinion all over other people without regard to actual information.

So what is the relevance of the stay?

What does it mean to you?

 

[Damocles]

So what is the relevance of the stay?

What does it mean to you?

You were the one that said it was something that should be dismissed because it "always happens", the relevance to this discussion is because you continue to bring it up in an attempt to confirm your bias.

What do we know about stays? Several times courts have rejected a stay request from the President, yet you say that they "always" do stays when the President asks for it. Why is it important to you that I agree with the nonsense you spew on this? "Always", total garbage.

 

[Jarod]

You were the one that said it was something that should be dismissed because it "always happens", the relevance to this discussion is because you continue to bring it up in an attempt to confirm your bias.

What do we know about stays? Several times courts have rejected a stay request from the President, yet you say that they "always" do stays when the President asks for it. Why is it important to you that I agree with the nonsense you spew on this? "Always", total garbage.

Once a policy is already in place, the court is extremely reluctant to change the status quo while an appeal is pending. In such a circumstance, almost always the state is granted. You can look into it.

 

[Damocles]

Once a policy is already in place, the court is extremely reluctant to change the status quo while an appeal is pending. In such a circumstance, almost always the state is granted. You can look into it.

Yet, they ruled to kill policy then didn't stay it in a case less than one month ago.

You are just saying BS. This is just you, trying to maintain some "expertise" that you do not display because you think your friends think you are smart and will believe you.

We have evidence that this doesn't "always happen" and you just double down on "always happens". I get that you don't like being wrong, but you can just stop saying things in a thread when you are wrong rather than continuing to embarrass yourself, or you can change what you said to meet reality. In this case, you simply chose to continue telling me it "always happens" when we know it doesn't.

We watched as a lower court decided on a case it should not, and that was not stayed, but it was ruled by the SCOTUS that they shouldn't have been making decisions on prisoners held in Texas when they were in the Great North... Stay, didn't happen... But hey, to Jarod, it "always" happens, but especially so when the case against it is "bad" and they "have no chance".

 

[Jarod]

Yet, they ruled to kill policy then didn't stay it in a case less than one month ago.

You are just saying BS. This is just you, trying to maintain some "expertise" that you do not display because you think your friends think you are smart and will believe you.

We have evidence that this doesn't "always happen" and you just double down on "always happens". I get that you don't like being wrong, but you can just stop saying things in a thread when you are wrong rather than continuing to embarrass yourself, or you can change what you said to meet reality. In this case, you simply chose to continue telling me it "always happens" when we know it doesn't.

We watched as a lower court decided on a case it should not, and that was not stayed, but it was ruled by the SCOTUS that they shouldn't have been making decisions on prisoners held in Texas when they were in the Great North... Stay, didn't happen... But hey, to Jarod, it "always" happens, but especially so when the case against it is "bad" and they "have no chance".

Ok, you believe what you want, the current case presents one which a stay was very very likely.

Other cases, stays are less likely. I am glad they issued the stay, and it is silly to use it as a way of claiming the ruling was likely incorrect.