[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standup Comedy it was! Audio of 9th Circuit oral arguments in re Donald Trump's attempt to revive #MuslimBan

From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>

"You aren't telling me anything I didn't know."

The problem is not what you know.  The problem is what you "know" that ain't so.   Mark Twain.  https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain109624.html   ×

>Thanks for the elaboration and the speculation on where the lower court went 'wrong' but the DOJ is going to lose their appeal for an emergency stay.

That's an interesting prediction.

>"U.S. 9th Circuit judges appear to agree that states have standing to challenge travel ban"  
> A panel of U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges pushed back on the notion that the state of Washington should not be allowed to sue on behalf of its resident immigrants to block President Trump's travel ban.
>They noted that the Supreme Court recently recognized that a wife could sue on behalf of her husband, an Afghan who was denied a visa to join her in the United States.
>"His wife was allowed to sue,” said Judge William Canby, referring to the case Kerry vs. Din.
>The exchange strongly suggests the judges believe the legal claim filed by Washington state lawyers will not be thrown out on standing.

The person who wrote that (Maura Dolan) demonstrated her cluelessness about law.  She is apparently not a lawyer, nor has had legal training. http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-maura-dolan-staff.html  

  "Third-party standing" does indeed exist, under some circumstances.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_standing     But that fact does not mean that every conceivable third-party (for existence, everyone on Earth) can sue, for any reason at all.  The above text merely indicates a case where one party (the wife) who has that third-party standing, in a different case.  It does not say that any other person has third-party standing.  To believe that this exchange "strongly suggests the judges believe the legal claim filed by Washington state lawyers will not be thrown out on standing grounds" shows Dolan's foolish misunderstanding of the relevance of that discussion.  

Try again.
             Jim Bell



On 02/07/2017 06:12 PM, jim bell wrote:

From: Razer <g2s AT riseup.net>

>Judge Clifton asks how many federal offenses committed by people from these countries, answers own question: "None." DOJ lawyer mentions >Somali al-shabaab, that's never committed any attack on US soil anywhere.
>"Are you really arguing we can't even ask if you have evidence?" DOJ lawyer cites 9/11 attacks. Judge Clifton... "That's pretty abstract!"

Chances are, you (and most other non-lawyers) haven't a clue about what lawyers call "procedural issues".
The hearing with the 9th Circuit should have had NOTHING to do with the merits of the complainants' case. (Or, at least, it shouldn't have.)   That's simple procedure.
The issue they were considering was:  Should the lower court have granted the injunction against enforcement of the government's order, and should it be overturned?  

The error the lower court (Federal District Court) judge made was this:  It granted the injunction (a prohibition on the government's Order, temporarily) based (presumably) on the conclusion that the plaintiffs (the states) were likely to win the case, and so were entitled to that injunction.  The problem with that conclusion is:

1.  The plaintiffs (the State of Washington) had no "legal standing" to bring the suit, at all, because it was not an "injured party".  There may have been injured parties, but they did not bring this case.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)  ×

2.  The government order was not, per se, violating statutory law nor the U.S. Constitution.  In fact, the relevant law specifically allowed the President to bring and enforce such orders.  

If the district court had done the right thing, it would never have issued the injunction.  If the appeals panel does the right thing, it will overturn the lower-court injunction, possibly allowing the government to continue to enforce the government order at least until the merits themselves are decided at the lower-court level.  However, the appeals court panel should probably declare that the plaintiffs don't have standing, and thus order the lower court to throw out the case, at least until plaintiffs with standing appear.
            Jim Bell

From the Wikipedia article I cited above:

"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law."

Shadowproof's analysis: Justice Department Attorney Blunders Through Appeals Court Hearing On Muslim Ban https://shadowproof.com/2017/02/07/justice-department-attorney-blunders-appeals-court-hearing-muslim-ban/

Ps. There WAS a "Bowling Green Massacre"! White settlers slaughtered 110 indigenous people there in 1643.