The Antifragile Chaos Monkey
The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the travel ban. They've just agreed to hear the case. In the meantime, they are letting part of the ban go into effect.
Yes, "passed muster" in that they didn't let the lower court ruling stand.
9-0 to overturn the lower courts. And an explicit rejection of the lower court's use of campaign speeches.
Ken B, I've read the court's order and it doesn't say what you claim.
Alright Josiah, how about "an implicit but complete" rejection? I'm willing to bet. My bet is the USSC will reject the reliance on campaign rhetoric in its final ruling. What odds will you offer?
My view has always been that the travel ban is unlikely to be struck down based on the campaign rhetoric. Doing so would have far reaching consequences that I doubt the Court will want to have to deal with. As such, it hardly makes sense for me to take your bet.
"Doing so would have far reaching consequences that I doubt the Court will want to have to deal with."What would those be?
No, the court hasn't decided whether to let the ruling stand. The stay has to do with what happens in the meantime until they decide.
Right. But they *could* have decided to let it stand by refusing to hear the case. So my statement that they "didn't let it stand" is absolutely correct, and your "no" is petulant and annoying.My family is like half lawyers Josiah. I understand what happened!
The ticket taker isn't sure if Joe's ticket is a forgery, and tells Joe to wait outside while he investigates.Gene: The ticket taker did not let Joe in the arena.Josiah: No, no, the ticket taker just hasn't *decided* if Joe can come in the arena!Gene: Right, and in the meantime, where is Joe? And who kept him out there?
Okay, if your family is half lawyers, ask them: does the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case mean they didn't let the lower court ruling stand?
Josiah, you are flipping around what I am saying. I am *not* claiming they overturned the ruling: I am saying the could have *affirmed* the ruling by refusing to hear the case. Maybe I'm using the wrong phrase to describe this, but look at my ticket taker analogy above, and please address what I am actually claiming, rather than your distortion of what I am claiming.
Gene, I used the same words you did. I didn't flip anything around. If you want you can show your lawyer family members this post with the exchange in the comments.
”Maybe I'm using the wrong phrase to describe this…"You didn't get into any law stuff when you were a libertarian?
"I used the same words you did."So what? You flipped around the *sense* of what I was saying. But perhaps your TDS is so bad you actually can't see this.
The problem with dismissing what I'm saying as TDS is that I'm not against Trump. Nor have I said anything critical about either him or the executive order in this entire exchange.
Ok, but then I am very puzzled as to why you keep misinterpreting what I am claiming! Because you do: I *know* what I am claiming, and you are disputing something I am *not* claiming!
"The problem with dismissing what I'm saying as TDS is that I'm not against Trump."I propose that Gene has TDSDS: Trump derangement syndrome derangement syndrome.Cackle, cackle.
For example, suppose I sue you and the trial court awards me a million dollars. You appeal, and the appeals court says "Okay, until the appeal is settled you don't have to pay him the million dollars yet." That would be different from the appeals court saying that the trial court decision didn't pass muster or whatever.
I get it. But the higher court could refuse to hear the appeal. If they don't they think the appeal has some merit. To that extent it "passed muster" with them.
They took the extra step of refuting part of the ruling. And they could have granted cert without voiding the stay too I think.
Let me address the ticket taker analogy down here. The Supreme Court did two things here. One is they decided to hear the case. Just deciding to hear the case does not alter the effect of the lower court ruling. If I'm convicted of murder and then I appeal, the fact that I've appealed doesn't necessarily mean that I won't go to prison in the meantime. So per your ticket taker analogy, it would be like saying "I'm not sure if this ticket is fake, but you can go in while I investigate." In this case the Supreme Court not only agreed to hear the appeal, they modified the lower court's injunction. Basically they reasoned that even if the lower court decision was correct, the injunction should have been more limited. In terms of the analogy, this would be like if two guys approach the ticket taker with one ticket. He let's the first guy in while he decides to investigate, but says to the other "Sorry, you can't get it based on someone else having a ticket."
Fair enough. Still they could have "let the ruling stand" definitively by refusing to hear the appeal! And that's all I have been trying to say, although perhaps I have worded what I meant badly.