Below in blue are the high points -- but Mr. Bannon continues to kill Mr. Trump's efforts, here. Actually, that may be a tad unfair, since it is not so much the inept, and ultimately transparently dishonest drafting of Mr. Bannon -- as it is the odious religious animus of Mr. Trump -- openly tweeted -- that has doomed him, in the Supreme Court.
. . . .The government’s insistence on implementing the ban even in these circumstances [Ed. Note: That would be the hastily slapped together Presidential memo of June 14, 2017 -- decoupling the effective dates for any review from the ban's effective dates] is inconsistent with the purposes stated in the Order and in the government’s papers — but is consistent with the President’s clearly and repeatedly stated goal of preventing Muslims from entering the United States. . . .
[T]he President's June 14 memorandum decouples the bans from the vetting upgrade they allegedly facilitate. . . . Because there is no remaining facially legitimate secular rationale for the Order, the Government can no longer dispute what has always been obvious: the travel and refugee bans represent an unconstitutional effort by the President to fulfill his campaign promise to enact a Muslim ban. . . .
[The courts below have not disagreed (on the outcome, or the substance, really) at all -- ALL have held that Muslim Ban 2.0 cannot pass muster, each just on slightly differing analytical grounds. . . . so there is no real split among the circuits, that needs resolving, here. . .] [A]s the lower courts have repeatedly observed, the case is truly unique. App. 61a-62a; 252a. . . .
No case in our history involves an even remotely similar factual record, and the court of appeals’ decision applying this Court’s precedent to this unique set of facts does not restrict this or any future President’s legitimate exercise of his or her extensive national security powers in any way. See Opp. Cert. 15, 20-29. There is no reason for this Court to grant certiorari. . . .
[Footnote:]. . .Should the Court grant the petitions for certiorari in this case and the Hawaii case, the respondents concur with the government that the cases should be heard in tandem, rather than consolidated. . . .
Now, in truth -- I still think the Supremes aim to take this case -- and rule, issuing some truly towering Hamiltonian language. But there is nearly no chance the Ban will survive. Condor predicts: Nine-to-Nuthin' -- upholding the various TROs and preliminary injunctions entered below. See 'ya, 45.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment