Muslim ban already having effect

[Wakeforest22890]

Just read Washington and Minnesota's brief.

It seems to me that the government is going to have trouble (credibly) arguing that 1182(f) gives permission to ban on the basis of national origin since 1152(a) was passed 13 years later than 1182(f). Obviously Congress was aware of what 1182(f) said when it passed 1152(a), but also 1152(a) provides specific exemptions as to when nationality could be taken into account. 1182(f) is not an included exception.

I find this to be a fairly persuasive argument that the government cannot use 1182(f) to ban on the basis of national origin.

 

[dartsndeacs]

Glad the lawyers got involved in this thread

 

[Wakeforest22890]

It's literally a legal issue.

 

[dartsndeacs]

It's literally a legal issue.

And yet it was better without you

 

[Wakeforest22890]

And yet it was better without you

This isn't even good trolling. Step your game up son.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Extreme Vetting. And Numbers has me on ignore but not palma- he's a way bigger troll than me. WTF

 

[ImTheCaptain]

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

We don't like those negative polls. They're fake news.

 

[dartsndeacs]

This isn't even good trolling. Step your game up son.

Not even trolling. Outside of fellow lawyers, every single other person just skips all lawyerspeak posts.

 

[MysteryMen]

Not even trolling. Outside of fellow lawyers, every single other person just skips all lawyerspeak posts.

Well that's pretty dumb when the discussion is about the legality of something.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Ninth Circuit hearing the appeal today at 6 P.M. EST.

 

[MysteryMen]

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

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Now that the TRO is in place, the burden shifts to the government on appeal correct?

 

[BarcaDeac]

Not even trolling. Outside of fellow lawyers, every single other person just skips all lawyerspeak posts.

I actually kinda agree

 

[Wakeforest22890]

So let's just talk about our feelings on the ban and not whether it's actually constitutional or legal on the day that there's an appeal based on...the constitutionality or legality of the ban?

Solid. I eagerly await the day that there's a challenge to the ban based on "how people feel policy-wise about the ban."

 

[BarcaDeac]

I'm just saying I scroll past those posts, like #777 in this thread, for example.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i mean, plama's right that the non-lawyers skip stuff that's indecipherable

 

[MysteryMen]

So let's just talk about our feelings on the ban and not whether it's actually constitutional or legal on the day that there's an appeal based on...the constitutionality or legality of the ban?

Solid. I eagerly await the day that there's a challenge to the ban based on "how people feel policy-wise about the ban."

That's basically Trump's approach. He's going to SCOTUS because "some things are about law and some are about common sense"

 

[Deacsfan27]

Not even trolling. Outside of fellow lawyers, every single other person just skips all lawyerspeak posts.

I actually kinda agree

i mean, plama's right that the non-lawyers skip stuff that's indecipherable

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.

 

[PhDeac]

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

I had to look up what en banc is. Do we need a separate lawyerspeak thread?