Surprised and happy, Trump obey's.

PostmodernProphet said:
sorry Jarod, but again you make a mistake about the law.....no other district judge needs to follow the decision reached by a district judge.....precedent is not established by peers......
Click to expand...
Its rather frightening that the Bar Association admits members as ignorant as Jarod.
 
Jarod said:
Do you contend that Congress or the president are allowed to violate the Constitution?
Click to expand...

And once again you are trying to fall back on what makes you comfortable, by attempting to cover your ass by asking a question instead of answering one.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry Jarod, but again you make a mistake about the law.....no other district judge needs to follow the decision reached by a district judge.....precedent is not established by peers......
Click to expand...

What you say here is true, and it does not contradict what I said.
 
I think the correct answer here to the issues discussed is that the district court may issue the nationwide injunction as long as there is subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, and another court has not ruled otherwise on the same issue. Tease out the issues of stare decisis from the power to make an effectual order as against parties. There seems to be some confusion on that.
 
Micawber said:
I think the correct answer here to the issues discussed is that the district court may issue the nationwide injunction as long as there is subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, and another court has not ruled otherwise on the same issue. Tease out the issues of stare decisis from the power to make an effectual order as against parties. There seems to be some confusion on that.
Click to expand...

stare decisis applies only to the immediate parties to a law suit....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I'm tired of your pseudo-lawyer bullshit.....you know nothing about the law except how to get nurses to hand out your business cards......you've got a degree from some strip-mall law school and bought your way through the bar exam......
Click to expand...

Im not the one seriously misunderstanding and simplifying Stare Decisis.
 
Jarod said:
Your question was?
Click to expand...

You said:
Jarod said:
Many parts, one that comes to mind right away is the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
Click to expand...

And I asked:

Care to point out, in detail, the "many parts"??

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
 
Jarod said:
In case anyone wants to see how stupid the resident Pimp is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Click to expand...

lol.....the pseudo lawyer defines stare decisis by giving you the wiki definition of precedent....

there are perhaps better ways to define it....
Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued
Click to expand...
it is used when a litigant tries to file a new case on facts which have already been litigated between the parties.....
such as when Jarod's clients lose in court and he tries to refile the case in another county....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....the pseudo lawyer defines stare decisis by giving you the wiki definition of precedent....

there are perhaps better ways to define it....

it is used when a litigant tries to file a new case on facts which have already been litigated between the parties.....
such as when Jarod's clients lose in court and he tries to refile the case in another county....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
Click to expand...

You are talking about Res Judicata. Res Judicata and Stare Decisis are two different things.

Sorry, paralegal school did not emphasize the difference for you!
 
Jarod said:
Do you contend that Congress or the president are allowed to violate the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Nobody contends that, they simply argue that this does not violate the constitution and note why. A simple direct line.

The Congress granted a portion of its plenary authority in US Code 1182 to the Executive where they can suspend travel from specific countries.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

It is a relatively straight line.

This E.O. is not in violation of the Constitution. And I predict that eventually the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the restrictions. It may take Gorsuch to be on there because SCOTUS justices often allow politics to color their legal opinions, but eventually this will be upheld.
 
Damocles said:
Nobody contends that, they simply argue that this does not violate the constitution and note why. A simple direct line.

The Congress granted a portion of its plenary authority in US Code 1182 to the Executive where they can suspend travel from specific countries.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

It is a relatively straight line.

This E.O. is not in violation of the Constitution. And I predict that eventually the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the restrictions. It may take Gorsuch to be on there because SCOTUS justices often allow politics to color their legal opinions, but eventually this will be upheld.
Click to expand...

You did! Are you now claiming you did not say the power was ABSOLUTE? Did you not say the analysis was SIMPLE? Did you not call into question my ability to analyse Constitutional Law issues because I pointed out it was NOT simple and that the President could NOT violate the Constitution and that there are Constitutional issues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top