Quote (Plaguefear @ Feb 9 2017 07:41pm)
"Everyone knows" is a stretch.
let alone the constitutionality of a law that falls abundantly within the powers of the executive, is precedented and any equal protection clause challenge rests on playing connect the dots with hearsay and media spin- the lower court never showed the basic four pronged test for a TRO or injunction. Where do they pull 'irreparable harm' out of their ass when a
temporary immigration ban with exceptions for emergencies can be reversed by simply letting people into the country? Its not an abortion, its not an execution or demolishing a national monument, its something that can easily be reversed. The washington lawyer in oral even tried bringing up "financial losses" from lost work time at the university, when the law clearly defines irreparable harm as explicitly excluding economic losses. As far as substantial likelihood of success, see the first sentence. They could argue public interest and balance of harms and win, but their ruling has a couple holes big enough to drive a dump truck through. Now granted the 9th circuit can dodge that by pretending they only need to comment on irreparable harm to revoke rather than uphole, and claim the government doesn't have it, but its entirely within their powers to simply point out the bogus case made by the lower court and throw it out. But they didn't, and its no secret why.
This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 9 2017 07:55pm