Search results

We agree. The Order was botched. And it would have been possible to draw an Order that would have been well neigh impossible to challenge successfully had they done their homework and taken their time. A carefully drawn the order would limit the basis for challenge to the question of...

Even without the "derivative harm argument," which turned out to be effective, the original Order was prima facie illegal , because it was drawn in a way that it applied to those who had already been granted status as legal immigrants. That alone would be enough to justify a stay. This defect...

We get it! You don't understand the Constitution. Let's move on.

This guys reasoning and prediction turned out to be flawed. What he failed to recognize was that the order was so ham handedly drawn that it could, and was, interpreted to apply to those who had already legally immigrated but happened to be out of the country when Trump signed the order. Thus...

Don't courts routinely settle the meaning of words, the legal meaning, via litigation? But that case was not about the dictionary definition of marriage, though the defendant tried to fall back on the long standing, historical definition of the word "marriage"; it was a weak argument when up...

You raise some interesting points, while neglecting some features of the Obama versus Trump criticisms that should be considered. For example, I don't see anything wrong with the President being critical of the Court when they disagree, but I should not have to put up with an ignoramus as my...

The Trump administration has a simple way of putting this issue to rest. Trump, with the stroke of a pen can rescind his ill thought out, incredibly stupid, absurd executive order and issue a carefully drafted, thoroughly vetted, rational order, prepared in consultation with experts. Such an...

Would any kind of "election" be suitable here, or must the election be democratic?

I think we still do, but despite all the wonderful progress made in the last 60 years or so, it is still not a perfect Constitutional Republic. It's just a very good one. Let's not do anything to screw it up.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution but equal protection is! We do control our borders and the control is tighter than it has ever been. So the case is obviously not about whether the U.S. can control its borders. That's already settled. It can. This case is about something else. I'm...

You've nicely, and quite inadvertently, summarized the ups and downs of democracy -- maybe not your intention, but you've done it nevertheless.. We all know that the defect in democracy is that the majority doesn't always want what's best, but the majority always wants what they think is...

Let's get rid of those damn democrats and the media too! I'm hoping that Trump just comes on TV and gives the finger to the damn appeals court, says "Fuck You so called Judges" and then moons everyone. That would be most appropriate, but it may be slightly too much to ask for. But we can at...

Or unsafe, depending on whether you swallow "alternative facts" or the viewpoint of homeland security experts.

Either you're right or Uncle Milty Friedman is right. You can't both be right. According to Uncle Milty, if there are billions, opps I mean "trillions just sloshing through the system" there will be "ludacris" [sic] inflation. But where is that "ludacris" [sic] inflation??? Will the person...

I agree that we have now a problem of Fake News that can be dangerous. But I have a slightly different take on this problem. The volume and sweep of news is hugely expanded via technology. In the pre-social media era, the bulk of the news passed through editorial review, sometimes including...

It seems all too common these days that paraphrasing misleads and distorts the truth. The article for which you gave a link states : [Robart's] asked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. But that is not the question...

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ see under live streaming at this site. Probably CNN will also carry the arguments, which I understand will be via telephonic communication, as we said back in the watergate era. The hearing is scheduled for 3 pm pacific time, 6 pm Eastern.

with regard to Robart's decision this past Friday this may be of interest to some: I underlined a small part that relates specifically to this Forum and thread. The entire commentary will be of interest to many of you, but I only excerpt here a small portion' From Mark Joseph Stern's article...

If you have a chance listen to the hearing today. I think this will likely clear up some obvious misunderstandings.

If I may answer for Here4Money, that isn't his argument at all. I am puzzled by how you could construe it as such.