|
Post by markesq on Feb 9, 2017 20:34:10 GMT -5
I post too rarely but do come here and keep an eye on you all. I knew this would be a hot topic, and as an immigrant of sorts I'm fascinated by Trump's EO and the anger it's inspired. And as a lawyer I'm drawn to the nuts and bolts as much as than the emotional arguments.
Ergo, I read the opinion, pretending I was back in law school getting ready to be drilled by a grumpy professor. Overall, I feel like it was written with great care and a certain amount of caution. I also think it's a very well-constructed opinion, designed to deal with the important legal issues. I know some people have been concerned about both standing and scope, and I think those matters were addressed.
It occurs to me that Trump's "you don't get to review my order" was the wrong approach and, frankly, any court would bristle at the idea an executive decision was beyond review. Quite rightly, in my opinion.
I'm also pleased that it was a per curiam opinion, nice to have a spot of unity somewhere...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 21:21:15 GMT -5
Thanks for weighing in, Mark. I'm glad to hear you opine that it's well-done. I want the decision to be a solid one, and yes, awesome that it's per curiam.
Maybe I need to pull it up now and read it before bed.
God, can it only have been two weeks? Can things possibly continue like this for four years?
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Feb 9, 2017 23:13:29 GMT -5
Just wait until he pulls out the Courier font.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 23:22:22 GMT -5
well, now, if he pulled out the courier font, I might just start to take him seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 10, 2017 0:15:10 GMT -5
Trump is obviously a Comic Sans guy.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Feb 10, 2017 0:55:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 7:33:48 GMT -5
This is awesome. Removing the combover is an especially fine touch.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 7:35:43 GMT -5
I post too rarely but do come here and keep an eye on you all. I knew this would be a hot topic, and as an immigrant of sorts I'm fascinated by Trump's EO and the anger it's inspired. And as a lawyer I'm drawn to the nuts and bolts as much as than the emotional arguments. Ergo, I read the opinion, pretending I was back in law school getting ready to be drilled by a grumpy professor. Overall, I feel like it was written with great care and a certain amount of caution. I also think it's a very well-constructed opinion, designed to deal with the important legal issues. I know some people have been concerned about both standing and scope, and I think those matters were addressed. It occurs to me that Trump's "you don't get to review my order" was the wrong approach and, frankly, any court would bristle at the idea an executive decision was beyond review. Quite rightly, in my opinion. I'm also pleased that it was a per curiam opinion, nice to have a spot of unity somewhere... I agree that it was written carefully and with caution. And I agree that the government overstated--by a country mile--the freedom from court review that EO's possess. I also think the ruling did a good job of reminding the government that this was a finding on a TRO, only, that a full review remains. The government would be well served to get its shit together, then proceed with the process, rather than trying to go past the Ninth Circuit right now. That means going back to Washington State and making its case in full. That said, I disagree with the idea that the States would likely prevail on the merits. I think that's ridiculous. Bad EOs--like bad laws--aren't always such because they violate the Constitution. More importantly, laws and EOs are not the same thing, which the opinion seems to recognize only with regard to making an "even so" argument. As to standing, the argument there strikes me as a form of "Yes we do! No you don't! Yes we do, so there!" No one has made a strong case one way or the other, imo. But this all needs to slow down, imo. And that's something Trump or someone close to him needs to recognize. "Speed court" rarely gets the best arguments from anyone and there are--imo--critical issues here, with regard to the extent of power for all three branches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 7:44:04 GMT -5
By the way, I agree with Mark -- a well-done decision. I don't see Trump getting five Supreme Court justices to overturn it.
If Trump and his gang have any brains, they'll trash this order and write something that will stand in court.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 7:45:27 GMT -5
Oh, and on the pur curiam...come one! It's the Ninth Circuit...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 9:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2017 9:11:25 GMT -5
But this all needs to slow down, imo. And that's something Trump or someone close to him needs to recognize. "Speed court" rarely gets the best arguments from anyone and there are--imo--critical issues here, with regard to the extent of power for all three branches. This, right here -- absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 9:20:26 GMT -5
FWIW, Krauthammer is arguing that the smart play is for the government to cut its losses and let it go, even though the Court is wrong. Lol, fat chance of that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2017 9:34:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 7, 2017 8:41:33 GMT -5
|
|