He was enjoined, with a TRO at the DC trial level, and late Friday night, was told -- by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals -- that it in turn had no jurisdiction. . . since TROs are not "final" orders -- they are. . . wait for it! T E M P O R A R Y.
Yes. Judicial review takes a lil' time. Deal with it. Again, we remind the readership that we Democrats waited over two years to stop his 1.0 version of a "dead hand" border provision, in Texas -- also clearly beyond his remit.
So -- do read this. . . and smile -- as the Supremes will tell Tangerine the same, later this week:
. . .[Team Tangerine 2.0, here "the government"] fails the Cheney test at every step. First, the government obviously has other adequate means to attain the relief it seeks -- it can attempt to persuade the district court to deny the preliminary-injunction motion and allow the President to remove Dellinger during the pendency of the case; and if the government fails in that attempt, it is entitled to appeal the district court’s ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
As noted, the legal standard governing the issuance of preliminary injunctions is identical to that governing the entry of TROs. Thus, a premature appeal of the TRO ruling would unduly impinge on the district court’s ability to resolve the preliminary-injunction motion that is presently before it. In Flynn, we noted that we were unaware of any precedent in which “our Court, or any court, issued the writ to compel a district court to decide an undecided motion in a particular way -- i.e., when the district court might yet decide the motion in that way on its own.” Flynn, 973 F.3d at 79. . . .
[The reference to Flynn here, is priceless -- since that was also a Trump 1.0 case.] I guess it is fair then, to say Tangerine 2.0 is now. . . one-for-23. It is. . . amazingly obvious, then, that his theories on executive power. . . are (and I am being charitable, here). . . bunk.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment