• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

Ah, I agree non-lawyers skip it (seems like that's a #fact based on this thread), I disagree that the conversation shouldn't occur just because some people don't read it or don't want to read it.

I also wonder what non-lawyers think about in these situations or how they form an opinion on the legality/constitutionality of something if they just skip the legal part of it. Do they just form opinions on the policy and then think that should be the law or do they just not care what the legal reasoning is until they see the outcome? No judgment, just curious.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
This is why Trump won.

Why discuss legality of a legal issue before the legal hearing when we can just skip it and talk about how it makes us feel.
Click to expand...

I mean it's good in the real world for lawyers to figure out the legality, but this is a sprots message board and a lot of the intended audience aren't lawyers
 
PhDeac said:
I had to look up what en banc is. Do we need a separate lawyerspeak thread?
Click to expand...

I mean that's fair. I'm happy to clarify things like that if you ask. It's easy to forget what what things aren't common knowledge to the non-law folks

For those who don't know what en banc is, it would be rehearing of the issue by more than three judges of the court. For most courts this would be all of the judges, but because the Ninth Circuit has too many judges, they do an en banc panel of 11 judges (the chief judge + 10 randomly drawn). It would take a vote of the majority of the court's active judges to hear a case en banc--I'm somewhat skeptical that they'd have the votes on this.

The Trump administration doesn't have to try to have the case reheard en banc--they could go straight to SCOTUS. But, given SCOTUS still has 8 justices, if they lose before the panel today, their best shot of winning might be to get the en banc Ninth Circuit to overturn the panel
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
Ah, I agree non-lawyers skip it (seems like that's a #fact based on this thread), I disagree that the conversation shouldn't occur just because some people don't read it or don't want to read it.

I also wonder what non-lawyers think about in these situations or how they form an opinion on the legality/constitutionality of something if they just skip the legal part of it. Do they just form opinions on the policy and then think that should be the law or do they just not care what the legal reasoning is until they see the outcome? No judgment, just curious.
Click to expand...

I try to read sources that try to break down something's legality for the layperson (like, say, the WaPo). I don't read law journals that are full of jargon I don't understand, which is how some of these lawyerspeak posts come off.
 
BarcaDeac said:
I mean it's good in the real world for lawyers to figure out the legality, but this is a sprots message board and a lot of the intended audience aren't lawyers
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, there's just not always a great way for legal discussion over specific statutes where the language really matters (and the language of case law matters) to be distilled down to "plain speak."

I actually think this is one area where it was/would be pretty easy to do though, so to the extent I contributed to that I'll apologize.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Ah, I agree non-lawyers skip it (seems like that's a #fact based on this thread), I disagree that the conversation shouldn't occur just because some people don't read it or don't want to read it.

I also wonder what non-lawyers think about in these situations or how they form an opinion on the legality/constitutionality of something if they just skip the legal part of it. Do they just form opinions on the policy and then think that should be the law or do they just not care what the legal reasoning is until they see the outcome? No judgment, just curious.
Click to expand...

Most people are dumb as shit and they don't care/even know this is occurring. They either hate people of color or don't care about people of color coming into the country. That's what the entire public opinion is based on as it pertains to this Executive Order.

Americans are dumb.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Most people are dumb as shit and they don't care/even know this is occurring. They either hate people of color or don't care about people of color coming into the country. That's what the entire public opinion is based on as it pertains to this Executive Order.

Americans are dumb.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this, but was really curious about how most on here (like Palma, Barca, and ITC who I would consider informed/educated) handle it
 
I assume they do what I do. Read the media articles on it that outlines it in layman terms and go from there.
 
En Banc - In law, an en banc session (French for "in bench") is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court (before the entire bench) rather than by a panel of judges selected from them. The equivalent terms in banc, in banco or in bank are also sometimes seen.
 
BarcaDeac said:
I try to read sources that try to break down something's legality for the layperson (like, say, the WaPo). I don't read law journals that are full of jargon I don't understand, which is how some of these lawyerspeak posts come off.
Click to expand...

I understand why you do this, but a lot of media reporting of court cases/decisions is actually pretty horrible and misses a lot of nuance that, in many cases, is crucially important.
 
I hope the lawyers don't censor themselves. I don't always follow their posts, but I sometimes try and sometimes do glean something from them. Wake has a law school. Lawyers going to lawyer. Post freely. Scrolling down posts you don't like or understand is part of being in a message board community.

But yes, breaking things down to layman's terms is always appreciated.
 
MysteryMen said:
Word on the street is that the conservative Ninth Circuit judges are already prepping to try to en banc this if the motions panel upholds the TRO/injunction
Click to expand...

If this is true, then some clerks are fucking up. I can't imagine this is leaking from anywhere else.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Most people are dumb as shit and they don't care/even know this is occurring. They either hate people of color or don't care about people of color coming into the country. That's what the entire public opinion is based on as it pertains to this Executive Order.

Americans are dumb.
Click to expand...

The liberal autopsy on why they lost
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top