Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 20:24:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 10:18:50 GMT -5
From what I heard on NPR yesterday, this opinion took into very important account, Trump's statements about Muslims during his campaign. The administration's lawyers argued that only the actual EO's language should be considered, but the court apparently wrote pages of why Trump's pre-presidency words should also matter. Fascinating. And sort of bullshit, IMO.
Edit: Actually, this is bugging me more and more. I really hope the SCOTUS takes this on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 11:19:45 GMT -5
Still haven't had a chance to read the opinion. Maybe this weekend. I won't comment until I do.
I will be very interested to see if they take it. If they do, I'll get the popcorn ready to see what they say.
eta:
I will note: a 13 judge panel considered the case, and they ruled 10 to 3. This is not a lone radical yahoo decision.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 26, 2017 12:42:52 GMT -5
From what I heard on NPR yesterday, this opinion took into very important account, Trump's statements about Muslims during his campaign. The administration's lawyers argued that only the actual EO's language should be considered, but the court apparently wrote pages of why Trump's pre-presidency words should also matter. Fascinating. And sort of bullshit, IMO. I think it's reasonable to consider the Constitutionality of an Executive Order in light of what the President has stated he intends to use it for.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on May 26, 2017 12:55:37 GMT -5
From what I heard on NPR yesterday, this opinion took into very important account, Trump's statements about Muslims during his campaign. The administration's lawyers argued that only the actual EO's language should be considered, but the court apparently wrote pages of why Trump's pre-presidency words should also matter. Fascinating. And sort of bullshit, IMO. I think it's reasonable to consider the Constitutionality of an Executive Order in light of what the President has stated he intends to use it for. I agree - when he spoke at length and frequently about this very subject, I think it absolutely should be taken into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 13:17:24 GMT -5
Still haven't had a chance to read the opinion. Maybe this weekend. I won't comment until I do. I will be very interested to see if they take it. If they do, I'll get the popcorn ready to see what they say. eta: I will note: a 13 judge panel considered the case, and they ruled 10 to 3. This is not a lone radical yahoo decision. I read it came down clearly within party lines. And that's concerning for a panel of 10 judges when the reach of this opinion seems excessive. It's like partisan judges are now the legislature. And here we go again with the "Stop Trump at all Cost". And to Angie and Amadan - Trump clearly has changed his tone, and the words in the EO are clearly not a Muslim ban. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 13:24:23 GMT -5
I don't think it was unreasonable to take such a thing into consideration. It is a matter of the context and way in which they did so -- and I am not yet in a position to opine on that. I know the administration's take on this is "Trump can do whatever he likes with regard to this", but that's actually not correct. Also keep in mind what this ruling is and is not (see whole prior discussion re the other court opinions). Unlike other branches of government, courts actually have to provide detailed reasoning and support for their holdings, which are subject to scrutiny. It is difficult for them to simply rule in a totally wrong-headed partisan way, and get away with it. As a lawyer, I don't think the courts are the branch we need to worry about most when it comes to partisanship run amok. (To note: I am not commenting on this opinion one way or the other yet. I don't rely on any analysis but my own. 'cause I'm a lawyer. . But I do dismiss, and completely, claims that our federal judiciary is full of partisans run amok. The screening, vetting, and approval process federal judges go through is daunting as hell, and is not friendly to partisan extremists. Congress and the executive branch? Not so much.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 26, 2017 13:28:35 GMT -5
And to Angie and Amadan - Trump clearly has changed his tone, and the words in the EO are clearly not a Muslim ban. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. I am just fine with setting the precedent that Executive Orders can be challenged in court. I don't think the court read it as a "Muslim ban." Trump never said he was going to just outright ban all Muslims. He has said he intends to make what are essentially arbitrary decisions about who he does and does not want to allow into the country, possibly using such things as religion and nationality. It is certainly, at the very least, a valid question as to whether this is Constitutional, and challenging his authority to do so does not require a Vast Liberal Conspiracy out to STOP TRUMP at all costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 13:45:02 GMT -5
to note, chief judge Gregory, who penned the opinion, was nominated by W and confirmed by a 93 to 1 vote.
I would be extremely wary about trusting partisan sites' characterization of judges and their reasons for issuing the opinions they do. That goes for both sides.
eta:
really have to wrap up some work, but...
FYI, Floyd, who joined the majority, was also appointed by W., and Traxler, who wrote an opinion concurring with the majority decision, was appointed by H.W. Bush.
ETA:
I would also be EXTREMELY wary of characterizations of judicial decisions on very partisan sites -- especially if written by a non-lawyer, and especially if the person writing is a clear partisan.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 14:33:12 GMT -5
Wow, Judge Shedd's dissent is scathing. He thinks the court "abused its discretion". *applause*
|
|
|
Post by celawson on May 26, 2017 14:35:34 GMT -5
And to Angie and Amadan - Trump clearly has changed his tone, and the words in the EO are clearly not a Muslim ban. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. I am just fine with setting the precedent that Executive Orders can be challenged in court. I don't think the court read it as a "Muslim ban." Trump never said he was going to just outright ban all Muslims. He has said he intends to make what are essentially arbitrary decisions about who he does and does not want to allow into the country, possibly using such things as religion and nationality. It is certainly, at the very least, a valid question as to whether this is Constitutional, and challenging his authority to do so does not require a Vast Liberal Conspiracy out to STOP TRUMP at all costs. The precedent I'm talking about is not challenging EOs. It's subjectively interpreting someone's current intent, regardless of the exact legal phrasing in an EO, from prior statements made when one wasn't even POTUS! And the decisions weren't arbitrary. There is some sort of logic and rationale. EDITED to add: And yes I'm reading the opinion - but not all today, it's frickin 205 pages including the dissents. But I have read the entirety of Judge Shedd's dissent. And no I don't only take partisan opinions and regurgitate them here. I actually try to read things myself, too. And when I do read partisan opinions of judicial opinions, I do make sure the person writing them has a strong legal background or I don't give it much weight. I just went through that process this morning before anyone made any suggestions to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 15:01:22 GMT -5
Good on you for reading any of it -- most people won't.
But unless you have read and weighed the majority opinion, you are not really in a position to criticize it -- much less claim it was made for partisan reasons.
I'm not either, not yet. Which is why I have kept to discussing the little I feel I am in a position to opine on.
Otherwise, it is a bit like opining on a scientific study based on an article in BuzzFeed. Maaaaybe they did a good job summarizing the general drift and maybe not, but they have surely left out all the detail and nuance. And in law, the detail and nuance are extremely important. The fact that the Trump administration does or does not like something is not evidence that it is part of a partisan plot to bring them down.
The one thing I will very much stand up for here is that the judiciary is by far the least partisan of our three branches. And that it is damn hard to become a federal judge. I have a couple of friends who have been through the process. It is unfuckingbelievable.
|
|