ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Trump travel ban upheld

As if there should have been ANY doubt that it was constitutional:
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of President Donald Trump in Trump v. Hawaii, the controversial case regarding Trump's September order to restrict travel to the U.S. for citizens of several majority Muslim countries.

In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

The case has been central to the Trump administration's immigration policy, presenting a key test of the president's campaign promise to restrict immigration and secure America's borders.
The fact that it was 5-4 instead of 9-0 is the problem. And even if the ban was motivated by religious hostility, so what? The executive branch is, by definition, not the Congress that shall make no law.

Labels:

77 Comments:

Blogger seeingsights June 26, 2018 11:47 AM  

This correct decision was a no brainer.
There are left liberal justices who will rule against Trump on the basis that they don't care for him on a personal level. Their rulings are rationalization of their bias. A biased judge is a menace.

Blogger SidVic June 26, 2018 11:49 AM  

The liberal judges don't even pretend to follow the constitution any more. Purely, arbitrary. Trump, whatever his faults, has really shaken the detritus loose and the enemies are clearer.

Blogger C. S. June 26, 2018 11:52 AM  

But Gorsuch...is pretty damn important.

Blogger tublecane June 26, 2018 11:53 AM  

Did I hear right that they talked as if Korematsu being unlawful in the obiter dictum?

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 26, 2018 11:53 AM  

Gorsuch is, but the anticipation of seeing who Trump will appoint to take Kennedy's place is delicious. I can feel the REEEEEEE now.

Blogger stevev June 26, 2018 11:53 AM  

Read the dissents, if you care to reenter the Slough of Despond. Ai yi yi!

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2018 11:55 AM  

> And even if the ban was motivated by religious hostility, so what? The executive branch is, by definition, not the Congress that shall make no law.

Absolutely. He could ban Islam immigration entirely on the grounds of national security and that would still fall squarely within his Constitutional authority.

Blogger Ceerilan June 26, 2018 11:56 AM  

The fact that it was 5-4 shows how dedicated the supreme Court is to the living Constitution when it favors leftists.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 26, 2018 11:56 AM  

Let's make it 6-3

Blogger Chris Lutz June 26, 2018 11:57 AM  

tublecane wrote:Did I hear right that they talked as if Korematsu being unlawful in the obiter dictum?

Yes. Of course Glenn over at Instapundit was yapping about it as well. No concept of why it was done.

Blogger James Dixon June 26, 2018 11:59 AM  

> Did I hear right that they talked as if Korematsu being unlawful in the obiter dictum?

Some sources seem to think so, yes: http://theweek.com/speedreads/781305/travel-ban-ruling-supreme-court-overturns-korematsu-decision

Blogger seeingsights June 26, 2018 12:06 PM  

From what I understand, the dissenting opinion made an analogy of Trump's travel ban to Korematsu, which the dissenters hold to be a bad decision. The majority on this point replied that while they agree that Korematsu was a terrible decision, the travel ban has nothing to do with Korematsu. The majority called making the linkage rhetoric.

Blogger tublecane June 26, 2018 12:10 PM  

BREAKING: NeverTrumpers bemoan the demise of the Merrick Garland nomination.

Blogger pyrrhus June 26, 2018 12:12 PM  

It's disturbing that Roberts thought he had to address "religious animus" but I suspect he was preemptively addressing the political propaganda issue.

Blogger emx1 June 26, 2018 12:20 PM  

Looking at the ban with the benefit of hindsight, we can see it was clearly an "Iran influence" ban.

Blogger Jack Amok June 26, 2018 12:23 PM  

As if there should have been ANY doubt that it was constitutional

Of course there was never any doubt about that. The doubt was whether the Left could blackmail one of the conservatives on the black-robed Upper Chamber of our unconstitutional unicameral government to vote against his constituents. They failed this time.

Besides, I don't see anywhere in the constitution where a CryptKeeper is authorized to serve on the Supreme Court, yet there she is.

Blogger Looking Glass June 26, 2018 12:25 PM  

It was 5-4 because the Left side of the court didn't want Antifa on their doors. They were virtue signaling, not being serious, because they can. It makes them evil cowards, but what do you expect from Leftists?

Roberts also dunked on them a bit on the majority opinion. Thomas also dropped a concurring opinion openly question the "nationwide injunction" nonsense. This is a massive win for the Nation, though it never should have been in question.

Blogger Jay Karknee June 26, 2018 12:27 PM  

As for the 4 dissenting "judges", I guess you have to go to Harvard or Yale to not know what the two words "by proclamation" mean. What shameless ideologues they are.

Blogger Looking Glass June 26, 2018 12:27 PM  

@11 & 12:

https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1011624005478989832

"The dissent's reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and - to be clear - "has no place in the law under the Constitution.""

Blogger Robert Divinity June 26, 2018 12:33 PM  

Just completed reading the opinion, concurrences and dissents. The big takeaway is only Justice Thomas hit head on the most pernicious aspect of this case--the ability of a left-wing District Court judge to issue a universal injunction. This needs to be killed, especially as invaders gather at the southern border. Congress could do so tomorrow.

Blogger Looking Glass June 26, 2018 12:33 PM  

@16. Jack Amok

I actually doubt it was ever in question. If there was 1 more Leftist on the bench, it'd have been 7-2 for the government. The Leftists on the court aren't stupid ones, just evil. They're smart enough to know the damage upholding the situation would have caused. Court shopping to injunct against practically every government decision would be unending.

This wasn't like the other social issues cases. The Court is always insanely sensitive to its own Power, which is why they wouldn't cause the consequences for what would have logically happened as a result. Including Trump moving to utterly de-legitimize the Court.

Blogger Jehu June 26, 2018 12:35 PM  

All 4 of the judges on the left are Who..Whom judges. They don't give a rats ass about the Constitution or consistency or anything else other than who is screwing whom. We desperately need some who...whom judges on the right, or even better, on the reactionary side. Judges who care about stare decisis on the right in the presence of a relatively evenly balanced court with who..whom on the left over time create a ratchet effect, or a one-way diode like effect for those more familiar with electronics.

Blogger Long Live The West June 26, 2018 12:35 PM  

Let's pray decisions like this are 7-2 by the time Trump is done with his 8 years.

Stopping Hilary really was the biggest win in decades. Trump has also put in a large number of circuit court judges

Blogger het1 June 26, 2018 12:41 PM  

Ruth Bader Ginsburg promised to depart in New Zealand if Trump will win.
Alas:-((

Blogger Sam June 26, 2018 12:56 PM  

@22
He can just ask for additional judges to be appointed. If he wanted to burn it all down, he'd make all the members of Congress members of the Supreme Court.

Blogger Jack Amok June 26, 2018 1:02 PM  

Court shopping to injunct against practically every government decision would be unending.

It already is, and this decisions doesn't do anything to curb that. If they'd wanted to stop that, they'd have concluded random District Courts can't rule on Presidential EOs, that the challenges would have to come to the DC district or some such.

Blogger Warunicorn June 26, 2018 1:07 PM  

According to SJWs/leftists/other-garden-variety-insects, we can't be a self-governing society, because muh feewings, you...you monsters!

Isn't it hilarious they can find abortion and gay "marriage" right there in the Constitution, but not the right to bear arms? It is to laugh!

Blogger Unknown June 26, 2018 1:10 PM  

I looked up the USC Trump's policy was based on.

Every judge that ruled against it should be tossed out of office on their ear. Trump has the authority to do what he did, period dot, according to black letter law.

The 4 justices that dissented need to be impeached, too, since they can't seem to read United States Code either.

Blogger dh June 26, 2018 1:10 PM  

Roberts could fix the Court shopping by policy at the district level, doesn't require a ruling or anything. Thomas nailed that one for sure.

Blogger RA June 26, 2018 1:10 PM  

@25 court packing was attempted in the 1930's by FDR. Didn't get far iirc

Roberts noted that the ban only affected 8% of the world Muslim population so it couldn't be called a Muslim ban.

The President has final authority on the nation's security, notwithstanding what courts and Congress say. It is hoped of course that the branches cooperate to some extent, but on this particular issue the President has the last word.

Decision was also important for letting the liberal judges know their bs rulings will only go so far when it comes to national border security.

Blogger NO GOOGLES June 26, 2018 1:16 PM  

@23
And yet, all the Bill Kristols and Max Boots of the world would still have you believe that we would be better off if Clinton was elected.

I wonder if they've realized how telling it is when they are still trying to make the argument that Clinton would be better than Trump when everyone else who voted Trump is practically cheering for the near constant wins he's giving us. I would call these people traitors but traitors technically need to actually have loyalty before they can betray it.

Blogger Looking Glass June 26, 2018 1:18 PM  

In related news, court watchers look for it to be Alito writing the Janus ruling, which mostly means the Unions are about to lose their automatic dues for all government unions. 2020 is going to be a bloodbath for the Dems, which is why they were trying to engineer 2018 election so much.

Blogger Joshua_D June 26, 2018 1:21 PM  

GORSUCH FTW

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira June 26, 2018 1:24 PM  

5-4 is way too close

Blogger OGRE June 26, 2018 1:33 PM  

@20 Robert Divinity

My thoughts exactly. The universal injunction has greatly expanded the equitable powers of the district courts far beyond any historical precedent, even while we've spent the last two hundred years narrowing them down. They should start teaching Thomas' concurrence in law schools now even just for its explanation of the history of equity. It seems most lawyers have little knowledge of the subject aside from certain actions "sounding in equity", and I don't recall even a single mention in law school of the distinction between law and equity.

Blogger Ledford Ledford June 26, 2018 1:36 PM  

Moldbug was right, at least at the time he wrote it, that the Federalist Society was the most successful conservative organization.

Blogger The Remnant June 26, 2018 1:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Remnant June 26, 2018 1:39 PM  

Indeed, it's offensive that the decision was so close and that the majority presumes it can invalidate an immigration law that is based on race or religion. NO FOREIGNER is entitled to immigrate here. Immigration is a benefit, not a right, so it may be granted or withheld for any reason whatsoever.

Blogger TM Lutas June 26, 2018 1:46 PM  

I don't think that the travel ban depends on religious animus and that as religious animus it's incredibly incompetent. At the same time the President is charged to faithfully uphold the laws, not to wink and nod so that some are treated better than others. That applies to religion too.

I'm a big believer in the American value of equal protection under the law. That's something we should all agree on.

Blogger Ingot9455 June 26, 2018 2:06 PM  

While I agree that immigration is a benefit and so on, there is a relatively recent addition to some immigration law that states that immigration decisions can't be discriminatory on the basis of race/religion. That's what they were trying to pin their hopes on.

They failed but it took way too long.

I think that little addendum to the law is stupid and unconstitutional but that wasn't at issue.

Blogger Argus Bacchus June 26, 2018 2:06 PM  

Y'all are tryin' to keep us in da dark about wut really happened in this ruling:

https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/1011622797309874176

TROOF!

Blogger Thanks, J. June 26, 2018 2:12 PM  

Huge shitlib Matthew Yglesias says,
"The theft of Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat is legitimately the greatest heist in world history".

Imagine Trump appointing non-libs and the MAGA agenda truly underway after winning a second term...

Blogger Thanks, J. June 26, 2018 2:14 PM  

Some are predicting mainstream shitlibs advocating assassinations, violence against Trump supporters, etc. (Yeah, yeah some examples already - but you ain't seen nothin'.)

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother June 26, 2018 2:19 PM  

They can all be rounded up and charged. Make em work on a chain gang.

Blogger Jonathan June 26, 2018 2:20 PM  

There needs to be some punishment for judges who are overturned.

Blogger Mr Darcy June 26, 2018 2:21 PM  

Just a tad OT, but still related ...

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/islamic-migratory-onslaught-in-the-balkans/

Blogger Warunicorn June 26, 2018 2:25 PM  

Thanks, J. wrote:Some are predicting mainstream shitlibs advocating assassinations, violence against Trump supporters, etc. (Yeah, yeah some examples already - but you ain't seen nothin'.)

They have no idea what they're asking for.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd June 26, 2018 2:29 PM  

Thanks, J. wrote:Some are predicting mainstream shitlibs advocating assassinations, violence against Trump supporters, etc. (Yeah, yeah some examples already - but you ain't seen nothin'.)

Is it time for the Right Wing Death Squads yet?

Blogger Mr Darcy June 26, 2018 2:32 PM  

@44 said:
They can all be rounded up and charged. Make em work on a chain gang.

@44:

This. The (admittedly outrageous) PATRIOT Act gives the president the lawful authority to just round 'em up and ship 'em off to Gitmo, never to be seen or heard from again. From Schumer and Pelosi to Graham and McCain, ship 'em off. The all have to go.

Blogger Ken June 26, 2018 2:36 PM  

In 1907 Theodore Roosevelt banned anyone who practiced or believed in polygamy. Excellent report by Daniel Greenfield in Frontpagemag. Sorry I haven't figured out how to copy link on my Kindle. Check it out.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants June 26, 2018 2:56 PM  

Let the record reflect-this was the ONE ballsy, decent decision made by Mitch McConnell that I can ever remember.
Does anyone else have another example?
Usually it's just he & his mail order Asian wife taking graft & torpeoding actual right wing, independent, populist/nationalist candidates and pushing bills for the Chamber of Commerce.

Blogger Edgar Abbey June 26, 2018 3:16 PM  

I never believe the breakdown of voting. Once a Justice sees which side is going to win, I’m sure some switch their vote to provide some comfort to their political side, even though they know deep down the other side is correct.

Blogger DJT June 26, 2018 3:46 PM  

The big takeaway is only Justice Thomas hit head on the most pernicious aspect of this case--the ability of a left-wing District Court judge to issue a universal injunction.

If Congress were to ban that practice, I am afraid the Supreme Court would strike it down because of "muh equal protection". We are to a point where a law or ruling can only apply nationwide.

Blogger Looking Glass June 26, 2018 3:59 PM  

Thanks, J. wrote:Some are predicting mainstream shitlibs advocating assassinations, violence against Trump supporters, etc. (Yeah, yeah some examples already - but you ain't seen nothin'.)

They haven't stopped since 2015, they ain't stopping now. Though their attempts to mainstream it clearly got some very nasty phone calls, as there was going to be pushback this time.

@48 Ominous Cowherd

Twitter has informed me it's "Right-wing Loli Death Squads". Because they bring the kawaii to to the killing. Twitter was both a mistake & a godsend.

@51 Zeroh Tollrants

It seems to have been mostly Grassley, as it wasn't just the SCOTUS pick. The Senate Judiciary Committee slow-rolled the entire court appointments since 2015. Remember, the "Jeb!" presidency was supposed to be a thing. It's a Bi-Factional Ruling Party, but one side still has to do the work to win. Otherwise they lose legitimacy, which means they all die. A lot of DC is corrupt, but they're not in this as a suicide pact. This is also why killing the money flows is so important. (Basically a Swords to Plowshares move from a lot of the corrupt.)

Blogger Robert Divinity June 26, 2018 4:03 PM  

@53:

Congress could ban the practice before the end of the week. Of course it won't.



Another positive aspect of this ruling and the fierce reaction from the SJWs is that if Trump gets to appoint a couple of more justices, the Left earnestly will begin secession in California and parts of the Northeast. This cannot be encouraged enough and probably is the only way to save any semblance of the historic American nation at this point. The cancer will excise itself.

Blogger Sam June 26, 2018 4:29 PM  

@30
The Supreme Court originally had 5. The Court will break before the Republic does.

@39
Equal protection under the law is a farce. The only version that makes sense is the right to petition to redress to a higher authority; everything else simply doesn't work when it runs into sex/racial/power differences.

Blogger Akulkis June 26, 2018 4:30 PM  

@TM Lutus

Islam is incompatible with U.S. Law, the U. S. ConstiyConst, and the Constitutions of all 50 states. Any Moslem who applied for naturalization is lying through his teeth (taqqiyah) when he swears to abode by and uphold our Constitution.

Blogger Akulkis June 26, 2018 4:41 PM  

McConnell's wife has to go back.

Orientals are nothing but graft and corruption from high to low.

Blogger DonReynolds June 26, 2018 4:48 PM  

Where is the mystery?
Does Donald Trump hold the same powers and authority exercised by virtually every previous president?....including Obama, including Bush, including Clinton? Yes, of course. So why the delay or question?

These constant challenges to Trump's use of Federal authority by rogue Federal judges is maddening. Congress should make it clear that ONLY Congress and the US Supreme Court has the ability to nullify a presidential executive order (strictly on constitutional grounds) and any attempt to do so by any one of thousands of lesser Federal jurists only become requests for Supreme Court action. The Executive Branch (and the Legislative Branch) cannot become subservient to virtually every Federal judge...not even a single one. Otherwise, we risk the entire government being paralyzed by an insane Federal judge in Utah, or Hawaii, or Vermont, or New York.

Blogger DonReynolds June 26, 2018 5:03 PM  

OGRE wrote:@20 Robert Divinity

My thoughts exactly.....and I don't recall even a single mention in law school of the distinction between law and equity.


I am sure you did not attend a crummy law school. Perhaps you were in a state that no longer separated chancery courts and criminal courts. This seems to be a modern trend to streamline and improve the efficiency of the courts, to have a single system of courts that hear both civil and criminal cases. Historically, the two were separate and had their own rules and procedures.

Blogger MrNiceguy June 26, 2018 5:20 PM  

Ideally, someone so anti-statist that RBG blows a clot in that lukewarm tapioca pudding that passes for her brain. Double play!

Blogger Sheila4g June 26, 2018 5:40 PM  

@39 TM Lutas: "At the same time the President is charged to faithfully uphold the laws, not to wink and nod so that some are treated better than others . . . I'm a big believer in the American value of equal protection under the law. That's something we should all agree on."

(Hope I'm not touching the poop here.) Go virtue signal to John Podhoretz, Professional Jew™. Prospective immigrants, as non-Americans, are not entitled to protection under American law. And who is "we," pray tell?

Blogger tz June 26, 2018 6:02 PM  

She has to go back, even if only to Puerto Rico.

Blogger OGRE June 26, 2018 7:26 PM  

@60 Don Reynolds

Every law school is crummy anymore.

I started at a top 25 school but couldn't maintain my scholarship after the first year, so instead of taking on an extra 30K/year in debt I transferred to a tier III law school which was the only one in my home state. Both schools taught the exact same stuff of course, the only difference I could tell was that the tier III school had a mandatory attendance policy and the tier I did not...go figure. But at neither one did any class I had touch on the differences between actions in law vs actions in equity, or the historical division between them. I just glanced through the current course catalog at my alma mater and there doesn't appear to be any course that would deal with equity. I'd imagine it should have been taught in Civ Pro but it wasn't, although there were quite a few things they never taught us that they should have.

My first job out of law school was at a real estate boutique firm in a resort area in South Carolina. One of my duties was handling the foreclosures of condominiums for failure to pay HOA dues. South Carolina originally had courts of equity, but those powers were in theory combined into the general trial courts and then the trial court delegated its equity powers in certain matters to Masters in Equity courts, in particular foreclosures and judicial sales. And we also had a few other cases that were very much in equity--there was one to establish a constructive trust and another to establish a de facto corporation. So I had to quickly educate myself in depth on the principles of equity. And now back in my home state I often end up educating my peers on some of the distinctions when they have a matter that sounds in equity.

Blogger Robert Divinity June 26, 2018 7:36 PM  

@60:

I read OGRE was agreeing with the jurisdictional point you made here:

Otherwise, we risk the entire government being paralyzed by an insane Federal judge in Utah, or Hawaii, or Vermont, or New York.

While used sporadically in the distant past, frequent universal injunctions from district courts are a relatively recent phenomenon. Given cucks run Congress and Roberts himself is a cuck, it's unlikely the practice will be fixed administratively or legislatively through revised procedural rules. If the district judges are denied this super equitable power, though, it would be a major, actual SJW defeat and accelerate the disunion of jurisdictions that welcome the invasion via open borders.

Blogger DonReynolds June 26, 2018 8:05 PM  

@65 Robert Divinity
"I read OGRE was agreeing with the jurisdictional point you made here:"

AND I was agreeing with him as well.

I always get into my biggest arguments by agreeing with someone. Ha Ha. I am not sure if they are surprised or misunderstood me.

When the accused walks into a court of equity, it is a matter of money or property and the jury must find by the preponderance of the evidence presented.

When the accused walks into a court of law, they stand to lose their liberty or their life, but the jury must find beyond a shadow of doubt on the evidence allowed.

Blogger VD June 26, 2018 8:11 PM  

I'm a big believer in the American value of equal protection under the law. That's something we should all agree on.

No, you're not, cucky. And we don't. The laws and the Constitution should favor American posterity at the expense of everyone else, be they citizen, resident alien, or non-resident alien. There is no American value of "equal protection under the law". That is literally anti-American.

Blogger Robert Divinity June 26, 2018 8:32 PM  

@66:

It was misunderstood in this instance.


@64: The handful of states with separate systems continue to teach courses in "Equitable Remedies" and so forth, but the subject should be taught in all civil procedure courses even in jursidcitions with combined equity and law courts. Given what a tool injunctive relief has become in the SJW arsenal, it's a surprise equity isn't force-fed students. The universal injunction has become an explicit mechanism used by SJWs to allow the Ninth Circuit to trump the others. It's a cynical and effective way to bind circuits and throw a wrench into the judicial progress, in this case to keep the immigration spigot wide open. At some point, though, it will clog the very system that legally succors the SJWs and probably only then will action be taken.

Blogger tublecane June 26, 2018 9:09 PM  

@39- "I'm a big believer in equal protection under the law."

What does that mean to you? The law discriminates in a billion ways, including ways that take into account qualities like sex, age, and race. Where do you draw the line?

Well, religion is off limits within the United States, because of the first amendment. But newsflash: people traveling into the U.S. aren't in the U.S. yet. They don't merit constitutional protection.

Why not discriminate against them on the basis of religion? If their religion objectively tends to breed violence.

Blogger OGRE June 26, 2018 9:11 PM  

I think we're all in agreement that universal injunctive relief is too broad a power to be vested in a local district court. (I didn't think any of us were arguing were we?) And historically injunctive relief was only for the benefit of the petitioner, and was not to be considered for the entire class of persons who might potentially face some harm. So permitting them to apply for all persons from a single judgment is a recent development without a grant of authority under the Constitution or statute or even by way of inherited common law. Which was what Thomas was getting at in his concurrence; if its going to be a thing it needs to be a power properly established or else the Court will have to address it.

And really, injunctive relief is meant to be temporary anyways until the suit can proceed and a decision can be properly rendered; then actual relief can be granted. But giving a district court the power to rein in the entire federal government PRIOR to a full hearing and determination is an extreme remedy, and such should be available only in extreme circumstances.

Plus, giving the power of universal injunctive relief to the district courts creates a strong incentive for extreme forum (and petitioner) shopping, especially given the large number and wide diversity in the various district courts. And this is what we've seen the activists doing.

@66 Don Reynolds

Those distinctions are a bit blurred there. A court of law would be one dealing with a criminal matter or one in which the only remedy is monetary relief, or one dealing with a statute. Most tort and contract actions would be handled by a court of law. In a criminal case (and only in criminal cases as far as I know) the prosecution has to prove the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury acting as fact-finder. In civil cases the parties are entitled to a jury trial, but the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence (and in some particular cases such as fraud the standard is clear and convincing evidence.)

A court of equity, or a court handling a case sounding in equity, has the power to grant relief beyond money damages or statutory enforcement, usually in the form of compelling a party to do or refrain from doing a certain thing, but also to create legal statuses that didn't exist before. So an action to compel specific performance under a contract, or to force transfer of property under a disputed deed, or modification of an existing contract. One major distinction is that a court sitting in equity acts as the trier of fact; there is no jury and neither party is entitled to one.

Obviously there are many instances where a court will be called upon to act both in law and in equity. e.g. a contract dispute where the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and specific performance, and the defendant invokes the equitable defenses of laches and estoppal. In most jurisdictions when a party is seeking both monetary and equitable relief that is sufficient to invoke a jury trial, but if the relief sought is only equitable then there would be no jury.

Blogger Robert Divinity June 26, 2018 9:38 PM  

if its going to be a thing it needs to be a power properly established or else the Court will have to address it.


Thomas got to the nut there. The political reality is it will take some action that offends the SJWs before it gets addressed, maybe a universal injunction against the next amnesty upon a finding of irreparable harm under an equal protection theory. That would be no more farfetched than a finding executive privilege represents a threat of irreparable harm.

And, no, there wasn't disagreement.

Blogger DonReynolds June 26, 2018 9:41 PM  

@70 OGRE
"But giving a district court the power to rein in the entire federal government PRIOR to a full hearing and determination is an extreme remedy, and such should be available only in extreme circumstances."

I once tried to get an ex parte injunction from a chancellor and he told me....'I am been on this court many years and I have only issued two, and this is not going to be the third one.'

Thanks for the clarification. It is helpful and useful.

Blogger Thucydides June 26, 2018 11:22 PM  

Thanks, J. wrote:

Some are predicting mainstream shitlibs advocating assassinations, violence against Trump supporters, etc. (Yeah, yeah some examples already - but you ain't seen nothin'.)

We are already into the "Bleeding Kansas" phase of a Civil War (don't tell me attempted assassination of legislators by a "Bernie Bro" or the assault on Rand Paul somehow don't count). It could de-escalate if the Progressives were to tone down the rhetoric, but that is how they hope to gain and maintain their power, so how likely is that?

The last non violent tactic on the other side would be to look carefully at the electoral map and socially, politically and economically shun and isolate the "Blue" enclaves, in the hope that their rickety systems will collapse and people forced to confront the disaster they have made, without recourse the manpower and resources of the greater United States (I know demographically the Blue's have more warm bodies, but when it comes to the skilled tradespeople and labourers who *actually* make the trains run on time I think they might discover a sudden lack).

Otherwise, "Bleeding Kansas" rapidly expands until the American side decides to physically isolate the Blue enclaves and turn the war into an analogue of the Island Hopping campaign in the Pacific Theatre (especially isolating "islands" and letting them "die on the vine"), saving the Marine style "Storm landings" for clearing counties which are on any US border.

How it ends and how the post war order will be created is going to be an interesting discussion for the future.

Blogger Jack Amok June 27, 2018 12:41 AM  

if its going to be a thing it needs to be a power properly established or else the Court will have to address it.

Alternatively, we can start ignoring the courts if they won't clean their own house (or should that be make their own beds?). After all, if the referee starts playing for the other team, he's fair game to tackle.

Blogger Chuck June 27, 2018 1:47 AM  

Court packing didn't go any where with FDR because the court caved and gave him what he wanted.

Blogger Dirk Manly June 27, 2018 3:07 AM  

@76

"Alternatively, we can start ignoring the courts if they won't clean their own house (or should that be make their own beds?). After all, if the referee starts playing for the other team, he's fair game to tackle."

Especially when the ref has grabbed the ball and started running with it.

Blogger wahr01 June 27, 2018 4:05 AM  

In related news, Trump has gotten EXACTLY what he wanted to bait out of the commie judges in Cali:

A district judge from the state just issued a ruling in direct opposition to the infamous Florez decision.

This allows Trump a clear path to the Supremes for modification, and in the mean time he gets to detain them together.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts