Moderator: Dux
Turdacious wrote:That was the most hilarious 2 minutes I've seen in years.DrDonkeyLove wrote:Enjoy this professor demanding that the NYPD "kick the asses" of innocents starting at 10:18. The much maligned Tea Party was a tea party compared to this.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzFS1qLlULc[/youtube]
That probably depends on the agency.nafod wrote:The 2 out/1 in on federal regulations is a good idea
I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? HahahahahababBlaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
So, here is the Fed Order from the Judge in the 9th Circuit (ell oh ell). It offers no reasoning. I wonder what any atty's think of the propriety of that? Issuing a nationwide ban on executive action absent legal reasoning or authority? Would you accept this in a TRO issued against a client?Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
Do you liberals understand that the basis for Washington's suit is that Trump's EO will hurt employers ability to pay low wages?bennyonesix wrote:I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? HahahahahababBlaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg
bennyonesix wrote:Do you liberals understand that the basis for Washington's suit is that Trump's EO will hurt employers ability to pay low wages?bennyonesix wrote:I am curious what you think of Washington State's standing? HahahahahababBlaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
C38nD3PXUAAPI2c.jpg
Fascinating weekend. The Seattle judge's ruling was weak even by the NYT and WSJ standard, who both called it thinly reasoned. But when a Federal judge argues that the rights of a university or company are infringed when they can't import workers and those rights supersede the Presidents authority to control the border, well you just have to let it move up the appeal chain. The 9th Circus is a non issue.Blaidd Drwg wrote:Any news from Court on how this EO is fairing?
"Anti-corporatists" now want corporate interests to outweigh the most basic federal powers.Microsoft, Amazon...Starbucks....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/nationwide- ... ral-courtsThe executive branch—whether headed by Trump or previous presidents more supportive of the rule of law—often does not like it when lower federal courts, especially single district court judges, purport to bind the executive nationwide with respect to parties not before the court. The Obama administration, for example, asked the Supreme Court to overturn the nationwide injunction halting the DAPA program (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents). The nationwide injunction was issued by a single district court judge in Texas, at the behest of Texas and other states, and approved 2-1 by a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The 2-1 decision approving the injunction was affirmed when the Supreme Court, minus Justice Scalia (and also minus Merrick Garland), deadlocked 4-4.
Critics of nationwide injunctions by the lower federal courts cite the strong incentive of plaintiffs to forum shop (which clearly occurred in the DAPA case and many other instances); the unfairness of a single district judge blocking nationwide a statute or executive policy for up to several years while litigation and appeals drag on; the possibility of conflicting decisions if other lower courts don’t heed the injunction and reach a different result; and, as Amanda Frost puts it, the problem of arresting the development of the law if other lower courts do not weigh in on the issue addressed by a single court, “a problem that should particularly concern the Supreme Court, which prefers to hear and decide cases after they have percolated in the lower courts.” The government often argues that “comity between circuits” should lead lower courts to refrain from issuing nationwide injunctions—the idea being the each federal court should stick within its limited territorial area out of respect for its fellow federal courts in other parts of the country.
Despite these criticisms, lower federal courts have frequently issued nationwide injunctions in recent years—for instance, blocking the Obama Education Department’s bathroom policy for transgender students and enjoining the Obama Department of Labor’s new overtime pay rules. A new paper by Professor Samuel Bray notes that this is a relatively recent phenomena, and one that conflicts with a number of settled doctrines and conceptions about the relationship among courts themselves and between courts, parties, and non-parties.
Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
Thanks for the PSA on why people shouldn't eat paint chips.bennyonesix wrote:This is irrelevant and your usual false nuance. I bet your teachers loved you. Fed judges have the right to pass such injunctions. The problem as I and others have been arguing is that in this case there is no standing or legal foundation for the lower court's injunction.
Your argument, if there is one, is that "we'll you just never know what SCOTUS and the Judiciary will do because they now consider themselves unbound by anything other than their own policy preferences".
But let's add up the judges and their policy preferences then:
Neoliberal: kagan, soto, rbg, breyer
Fascist: alito, thomas
Blackmailed: Roberts
Emotional Addle-pated Fag Hag: Kennedy
Tragically and as it has been for decades now, the law is what Tony Kennedy says it is. And he is a dumb cowardly emotional man. There is no way he stands up to the harridans on the court. They will make him cry and then bake him cookies after he knuckles under.
what is in america's interest?powerlifter54 wrote: American's interest. . . .
Forty-two percent of office visits in rural America are with foreign-born physicians, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. . . .
Across the United States, more than 15,000 doctors are from the seven Muslim-majority countries covered by the travel ban, according to The Medicus Firm, a firm that recruits doctors for hard-to-fill jobs. That includes almost 9,000 from Iran, almost 3,500 from Syria and more than 1,500 from Iraq.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
You should really make some normative argument. You claim to be up to speed on the case and have read the relevant pleadings but you aren't moving the ball forward with your comments. They are devoid of any legal argumentation as to this specific case or Judicial Comity or even Constitutional Law in general. People who follow SCOTUS know they are capable of arguing any personal policy preference no matter how free from legal justification (roe, obergefell etc). You could at least offer something as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Or even some analysis as to how the ideologies of SCOTUS might condition a ruling. Or even some analysis as to the standing or statutory construction issues. Or maybe you could explain your last gnomic sentence...Blaidd Drwg wrote:Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.
Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.
the facts, according to forbes:bennyonesix wrote:Are you seriously arguing that we can't provide enough doctors from US citizens? This is preposterous post hoc rationalization. Equivalent to "whites won't do x job".
I don't want some god damned arab or paki or indian doctor. Fuck that. And you wonder why the quality of health care has plummeted.
Answer this question if you can: why is there a single foreign trained or foreign born MD working in the US?
and then there is this (again, forbes):Current estimates suggest that the United States will face a shortage of 46,100 to 90,400 physicians by 2025. The current shortage is no surprise, however, as it was predicted as far back as 1990
Currently, more than one-quarter of physicians and surgeons in the United States are foreign-born. In addition to physicians, roughly one-fifth of nurses and home health and psychiatric aides were foreign born in 2010.
apparently you're going to die, which saddens turdA study recently published in journal BMJ . . . showi[ed] that Medicare patients treated by doctors from foreign medical schools had a 5% lower chance of dying than those treated by U.S. medical graduates
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Bitch please.bennyonesix wrote:You should really make some normative argument. You claim to be up to speed on the case and have read the relevant pleadings but you aren't moving the ball forward with your comments. They are devoid of any legal argumentation as to this specific case or Judicial Comity or even Constitutional Law in general. People who follow SCOTUS know they are capable of arguing any personal policy preference no matter how free from legal justification (roe, obergefell etc). You could at least offer something as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Or even some analysis as to how the ideologies of SCOTUS might condition a ruling. Or even some analysis as to the standing or statutory construction issues. Or maybe you could explain your last gnomic sentence...Blaidd Drwg wrote:Really? Like Roe V Wade?...or are you just confident that in THIS case, your view of the law will prevail?powerlifter54 wrote:In the end the Constitution, case law, and Precedent will prevail.
You could be right. I don't know yet. But I'd really like to see if you're capable of being so sanguine when you disagree with the outcome.
Consider the possibility, that our binary identity politics is an insufficient lens to describe the reality of the American Experience.
