Thursday, October 5, 2017

Where We Now Stand -- On Muslim Bans 2.0 And 3.0 -- Lyle Denniston Has It All


I won't spend a lot of electrons on this, as within days (perhaps even by tomorrow evening!) I expect the Supremes will dispose of the current challenges, one way or another.

I also expect the lower court losses for Trump will not be wiped off the books, even if the Court holds the dispute now mooted.

If you want a far more complete analysis -- you could scarcely do better than to read the estimable Lyle Denniston, on it -- I'll quote just a bit:
. . . .The opposing sides in the historic controversy over President Trump’s limits on foreign travelers’ entry into the U.S. handed the Supreme Court on Thursday a difficult new question: will the defeats the Administration already suffered in this fight in lower courts remain, or be wiped off the books?

That is a question the Justices probably will take up when they meet in a private conference Friday, to discuss new filings just made in two pending cases, putting the fate of those cases in doubt. . . .

It was the Administration’s own actions that changed the circumstances, and it should not now be allowed to gain what it has been seeking – nullifying the lower court rulings against it – even without a ruling by the Justices on legality, the groups involved in the cases from Hawaii and Maryland contended. . . .

Aside from their dispute over the fate of the lower court rulings issued up to now, the opposing sides in the controversy were sharply at odds over whether the President had made any real change in his approach to foreign travelers between the March 6 version and the new approach announced on September 24. The challengers said the new approach has some or all of the same legal defects as the first. . . .


And here are the various dueling letter briefs -- one from 45's administration, and one from the State of Hawaii. . . and the one from the ACLU.

Late in the day, lawyers for the State of Hawaii advised the Supremes that they were filing in the trial courts in Hawaii to renew the injunctions, this time against Muslim Ban 3.0. And so it goes. Now you know. G'night.

नमस्ते

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

On a different topic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/10/05/members_of_congress_question_a_drug_company_s_deal_with_a_native_american.html

Isn't this our buddy, Brent Saunders, a.k.a son of Hassan?

condor said...

He is nothing — if not tone deaf.

Sort of a reverse version of a patent troll, no?

Always looking to game the system — and then blame someone else, when people take notice of his shenanigans.

Just like his Pfileran inversion fail of two years past.

That acorn didn’t fall very far from the tree, at all. . .

Namaste, Anon. . . do stop back!