(09-13-2019 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Its actually not a big win. The lawsuit regarding the issue of law is yet to be decided. All this thing does is pull away a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the law while the underlying question is being adjudicated. And no, the SC did not *clear* the regulations.

No matter which side 'won' this portion, it is really a non-issue in light of the stance of the underlying case.

Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Hunh.

Are they immigrants or illegal aliens?

Aren’t immigrants, by definition, legally here?

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read our old founding papers stuff, wherein is the asylum for third party fence jumpers or Nigerian citizenship seekers found?

7-2 sounds pretty sound to me. I’ll rest easier tonight. Lol

You assume with two open dissenters a 7-2 vote. If you want to keep parroting that, fine. It's an incorrect view. And with that fact in front of you (twice now) it borders on ignorance.

But the simple fact is that a final vote on a temporary relief issue is never released. Or keep jamming your fingers in your ears and keep going LALALALALALALALALA. Your choice. Your bleating it continuously doesnt make it fact or true. Bummer.

The *only* thing we know about the vote is at least 5 voted for it, and two dissented.

Easy, killer. This really isn't personal, don't even think I know you. Don't take it as such.

7-2, 5-2-2, 6-3, 5-4. Who cares? Seems pretty indicative of the lean and the mood of the court on this and these matters,

I'll still take the W, despite how fleeting it may be before Tigar thumbs his nose as the SC and 9th yet again. (No, I'm not looking to see if that's even possible)

(09-12-2019 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im saddened though -- elsewhere a poster called #s, Optimistic, and myself the 'Three Amigos', ostensibly because we disagreed in tandem with him. Now that I disagree with a point brought up by #s, I guess we arent in lockstep any more. No more 'Three Amigos'.... {sad face}

I frequently side with you guys as well, can I at least be the stand-in? Or can we be the Million Dollar Quartet?

(09-13-2019 12:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 06:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually, its a pretty big win. It not only drops the current injunction---but stops any other Federal court from issuing a similar injunction. I suspect its also a fairly good indication that the SC believes the Trump administration will almost certainly prevail.

Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Hunh.

Are they immigrants or illegal aliens?

Aren’t immigrants, by definition, legally here?

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read our old founding papers stuff, wherein is the asylum for third party fence jumpers or Nigerian citizenship seekers found?

7-2 sounds pretty sound to me. I’ll rest easier tonight. Lol

You assume with two open dissenters a 7-2 vote. If you want to keep parroting that, fine. It's an incorrect view. And with that fact in front of you (twice now) it borders on ignorance.

But the simple fact is that a final vote on a temporary relief issue is never released. Or keep jamming your fingers in your ears and keep going LALALALALALALALALA. Your choice. Your bleating it continuously doesnt make it fact or true. Bummer.

The *only* thing we know about the vote is at least 5 voted for it, and two dissented.

Easy, killer. This really isn't personal, don't even think I know you. Don't take it as such.

7-2, 5-2-2, 6-3, 5-4. Who cares? Seems pretty indicative of the lean and the mood of the court on this and these matters,

I'll still take the W, despite how fleeting it may be before Tigar thumbs his nose as the SC and 9th yet again. (No, I'm not looking to see if that's even possible)

We have interacted some. You in fact asked me via PM where to eat some meals when you came to my hometown, among other interactions.

And no, I agree, its not personal. But, if one wants to make up facts and continues to do so, that is on them.

(09-13-2019 10:34 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  In the bigger scheme--it makes logical sense that one should only be able to seek asylum in the first place removed from where they are endangered.

You are terrified to live in Honduras, so you seek asylum in Mexico. You don't then travel all the way THROUGH Mexico to go to the US "just because" the US is better than Mexico.

That has always bothered me. Refugees should just get to pick which country they want to go to.

but muh USD mailed in 'fliers' and the whim of garnering votes is much more attractive...

if one nation in any direction offers zero value, wtf could anyone expect in return....

yep....the founders new it....the courts are finally con enough to give a whirl...

this one's a fk'n monster whether one likes it or not....

and I'm with Dunk....

interpretation of 'law' was lost long ago....

#wildwest21stcenturystyle

(09-13-2019 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 12:34 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 10:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-13-2019 01:44 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-12-2019 07:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually when you look at the elements of a prelim, the most important one will be 'is there a party to this case that *should* have a status quo protected from harm'.

When you look at the rationale of the new rules, the government plainly stated a good reason that the status quo of injunction leads to an overall harm to the government position if the rule is gutted by injunction in the interim.

The balance of that status quo against the position of the immigrants harmed by the rule is so overwhelmingly in the government's favor as to be almost dispositive in and by itself.

To *earn* the preliminary injunction the plaintiff (in this case the immigrant's side) you *have* to show each of the following: (1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages); (2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction; (3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial; (4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and (5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

If any one of the above fails, the preliminary injunction fails.

So, #s is correct that the 'court tips it's hand to the prevailing side', but *only* when the injunction is granted (or sustained). A *failure* to gain an injunction does no such hand tipping, unless a written ruling specifically says that.

Sorry, we have *zero* basis to judge the reason why the SC overturned to the prelim. And, to be blunt, any success on any element above can overturn a prelim. I think the weight stacked against the immigrant's side on the matter of the 'weight of who carries the burden of the status quo' seems to be as good a reason, if not better, than failing on element 4 above.

Hunh.

Are they immigrants or illegal aliens?

Aren’t immigrants, by definition, legally here?

I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read our old founding papers stuff, wherein is the asylum for third party fence jumpers or Nigerian citizenship seekers found?

7-2 sounds pretty sound to me. I’ll rest easier tonight. Lol

You assume with two open dissenters a 7-2 vote. If you want to keep parroting that, fine. It's an incorrect view. And with that fact in front of you (twice now) it borders on ignorance.

But the simple fact is that a final vote on a temporary relief issue is never released. Or keep jamming your fingers in your ears and keep going LALALALALALALALALA. Your choice. Your bleating it continuously doesnt make it fact or true. Bummer.

The *only* thing we know about the vote is at least 5 voted for it, and two dissented.

Easy, killer. This really isn't personal, don't even think I know you. Don't take it as such.

7-2, 5-2-2, 6-3, 5-4. Who cares? Seems pretty indicative of the lean and the mood of the court on this and these matters,

I'll still take the W, despite how fleeting it may be before Tigar thumbs his nose as the SC and 9th yet again. (No, I'm not looking to see if that's even possible)

We have interacted some. You in fact asked me via PM where to eat some meals when you came to my hometown, among other interactions.

And no, I agree, its not personal. But, if one wants to make up facts and continues to do so, that is on them.

I wasn't intending nor did I think I was making anything up, I heard that reported and "News alerted" repeatedly.

NOW, is it possible what I heard was "A majority of" the SCOTUS voted to lift the injunction with only 2 dissensions, and naturally (I think) figured that equaled 7-2? That's possible I guess, but not entirely sure that's what happened...


Yea, we still haven't made that vacation

(09-12-2019 07:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im saddened though -- elsewhere a poster called #s, Optimistic, and myself the 'Three Amigos', ostensibly because we disagreed in tandem with him. Now that I disagree with a point brought up by #s, I guess we arent in lockstep any more. No more 'Three Amigos'.... {sad face}

I'm not sure how strongly we really disagree. I agree with your five-prong test, and agree that the supremes could have reached their decision on any of the five. But that means there is some nonzero likelihood that at least some of the justices, perhaps as many as five, disagreed with the lower court on prong 4. Unfortunately, courts at all levels have become much more politicized.

Note that in my post I said "may suggest," which I believe is consistent with that analysis. And this is not merely failure to gain an injunction but rather reversal by the supremes of an injunction that was granted below. That may be a difference without distinction, but it is at least a difference.