@my2sons saidAsk Marauder why, in several cases, the THREE liberal judges on the Court side with each other in the 6-3 decisions, mainly Mullins v Doe and the TPS matters. There are others. 6-3. Sickening. One of them cannot even define what a woman is.
Thank God we have a right-thinking majority Supreme Court!
There is NO QUESTION that their basis for dissent were TOTALLY on emotion, politics, prejudice, ,,,,,,I could go on. No thought given to what the other learned judges considered before them. Let's throw Marauder into the mix with these hyenas.
Let us see Marauder's reasoning for this constant alignment of these 3 pitiful women. I predict that the next judge appoointed to the Court will not be a woman. These 3 have ruined it for next otherwise qualified women.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYou've never even read any opinion from any justice on the court, so you are a totally unqualified partisan moron, utterly incapable of evaluating any judge's work product.
Ask Marauder why, in several cases, the THREE liberal judges on the Court side with each other in the 6-3 decisions, mainly Mullins v Doe and the TPS matters. There are others. 6-3. Sickening. One of them cannot even define what a woman is.
There is NO QUESTION that their basis for dissent were TOTALLY on emotion, politics, prejudice, ,,,,,,I could go on. No ...[text shortened]... inted to the Court will not be a woman. These 3 have ruined it for next otherwise qualified women.
When the history books are written, long after these radical right wing departures from prior precedent and accepted legal reasoning are reversed by future SCOTUS justices, the dissenters in these cases will be as vindicated as Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson or the minority in Lochner v. New York.
@no1marauder saidExcuse me....SCOTUS interprets statutes. Congress has the authority to rewrite them. You need to call your congressman?
You've never even read any opinion from any justice on the court, so you are a totally unqualified partisan moron, utterly incapable of evaluating any judge's work product.
Here you g again conflating two separate questions, that is why I have jumped in. You are off track, I am here to help.
Whether the executive is legally obligated to follow the statute, and whether courts are authorized to review whether it did.
Two seperate questions, plain and simple. So I suggest getting out of the weeds and have a nice discussion. I will stand aside ,because you are right... I have not read the opinion. If I do read it, I will be reading the dissents for entertainment.. How did those women rise to the land's highest court to throw their prejudices around. It is quite obvious, they do not even try to hide it when they meet in the lavatory.
@AverageJoe1 saidYour idiotic sexism is as tiresome as your xenophobia.
Excuse me....SCOTUS interprets statutes. Congress has the authority to rewrite them. You need to call your congressman?
Here you g again conflating two separate questions, that is why I have jumped in. You are off track, I am here to help.
Whether the executive is legally obligated to follow the statute, and whether courts are authorized to review whether it did.
...[text shortened]... dices around. It is quite obvious, they do not even try to hide it when they meet in the lavatory.
The statute does not say there is no review of whether the procedural requirements are met; that's something Alioto invented when he changed the word "determination" to include "the chain of events leading up to the decision". This renders nugatory the prior requirements and it is unreasonable to assert that Congress added them only to say a paragraph later "nevermind".
@no1marauder saidLook dimwit, congress wrote the law like that…no judges involved
Congressional laws are binding on the Executive; Congress need take no further action to punish violations if they don't care to. When Congress says the Executive "shall" do something, they are required to do so.
The right wing's majority erasure of the provision just before the one you keep quoting is completely lawless and contrary to established rules of statutory i ...[text shortened]... ected such a novel and unreasonable interpretation effectively annulling an entire section of a law.
Deal with it.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidShow me where it says "no judges involved" in ANY provision of the law?
Look dimwit, congress wrote the law like that…no judges involved
Deal with it.
Or does it say there's only no judicial review of a "determination"?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThat means the judicial branch doesn’t have a say in this . Damn you are dense.
Show me where it says "no judges involved" in ANY provision of the law?
Or does it say there's only no judicial review of a "determination"?
Let me grab some crayons and paper.
This is a complex situation that would require several expert opinions.
How it would work. If there was an issue congress would have a hearing. Witnesses and experts on the subject would be called and the facts would come out.
A fed judge doesn’t have this kind of info to make a qualified opinion on this situation.
Hence, they a barred. This is between executive and legislative. Just another case of a liberal judge usurping power that doesn’t belong to them.
Activist judges were never meant to run this country as many are trying to do now.
Boasburg was wrong in his ruling too, as many others, that is why they get slapped down.
@no1marauder saidGo ahead, get personal, Suzianne.
Your idiotic sexism is as tiresome as your xenophobia.
The statute does not say there is no review of whether the procedural requirements are met; that's something Alioto invented when he changed the word "determination" to include "the chain of events leading up to the decision". This renders nugatory the prior requirements and it is unreasonable to assert that Congress added them only to say a paragraph later "nevermind".
Meanwhile, allow me to address the legal issues which you are now about to start dancing around apparently.
Your argument assumes that judicial review must exist unless Congress explicitly says otherwise. BUT, BUT, the statute says the Secretary’s “determination” is not subject to judicial review. It Is Not. Ask Mott! The disagreement is over what “determination” encompasses.
“Alito’s point is that a determination isn’t made in a vacuum. If every alleged procedural defect automatically opened the door to judicial review, then Congress’s command that the determination is unreviewable would have little practical effect. Courts would simply re-label, if you willl, every challenge as a procedural one.” (Source: input from trial lawyer))
You may disagree with that interpretation, but it’s hardly something Alito “invented.” It’s a standard exercise in statutory interpretation: reading the statute as a whole so that both the procedural requirements and the review-limiting language have meaning. Reasonable judges can disagree about where that line is, but calling one side unreasonable doesn’t resolve the statutory question. You and Mott agree it is a question , and move along?!?!?
Trust me, this is not my my bailiwick, I ran this by my partner, he says you are in left, literally, field. So I ain’t gonna bother him w this, suffice he and Alito have got creds!
He said disagree with the interpretation???? ha ha ha, I told him you disagree with everything. Everything.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidThe procedural requirements are the law. IF the Executive Department can simply ignore them (as they can if ignoring them is unreviewable) then the words requiring them are meaningless. And as I have pointed out several times, the standard statutory interpretation rule against treating anything Congress writes as surplusage is violated by Alito's invention.
Go ahead, get personal, Suzianne.
Meanwhile, allow me to address the legal issues which you are now about to start dancing around apparently.
Your argument assumes that judicial review must exist unless Congress explicitly says otherwise. BUT, BUT, the statute says the Secretary’s “determination” is not subject to judicial review. It Is Not. Ask Mott! The dis ...[text shortened]... sagree with the interpretation???? ha ha ha, I told him you disagree with everything. Everything.
Congress could have said the "Attorney General makes the determination at their discretion and such determination is not subject to judicial review" but it did not.
Here's a hypothetical:
The statute says "If the Attorney General does not determine under subparagraph (A) that a foreign state (or part of such foreign state) no longer meets the conditions for designation under paragraph (1), the period of designation of the foreign state is extended for an additional period of 6 months (or, in the discretion of the Attorney General, a period of 12 or 18 months)." 8 USC 1254a(b)(3)(C). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1254a
Suppose the next Attorney General says "Screw that; my determination is to extend TPS status for Country X for 20 years."
That's a clear violation of the statute, but according to Alito's "logic" tough titty; it cannot be judicially reviewed and thus would remain in effect.
@no1marauder saidYou write a very good treatment here, I had to read it 3 times. I think that Congress did NOT delegate authority to extend TPS for 20 years, that action would be beyond the statutory authority of congress. No way that they can do that. How can you suggest that. It says 15 years. The forum wohd appreciate your comment on that simple fact, not a tome such as this. Don't want to lose your fans when you are so close to nationalizing the country.
The procedural requirements are the law. IF the Executive Department can simply ignore them (as they can if ignoring them is unreviewable) then the words requiring them are meaningless. And as I have pointed out several times, the standard statutory interpretation rule against treating anything Congress writes as surplusage is violated by Alito's invention.
Congress co ...[text shortened]... ng to Alito's "logic" tough titty; it cannot be judicially reviewed and thus would remain in effect.
I will run this by a trial lawyer today and get back to you, we will see who has the best argument. It is not my field. I am known as a transaction man!!!
@no1marauder said“ That's a clear violation of the statute, but according to Alito's "logic" tough titty; it cannot be judicially reviewed and thus would remain in effect.”
The procedural requirements are the law. IF the Executive Department can simply ignore them (as they can if ignoring them is unreviewable) then the words requiring them are meaningless. And as I have pointed out several times, the standard statutory interpretation rule against treating anything Congress writes as surplusage is violated by Alito's invention.
Congress co ...[text shortened]... ng to Alito's "logic" tough titty; it cannot be judicially reviewed and thus would remain in effect.
Not Alitos logic…the law specifically requires no judicial review.
Common sense for a lay person understands no judicial review …means …no judicial review.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNo judicial review of what specifically?
“ That's a clear violation of the statute, but according to Alito's "logic" tough titty; it cannot be judicially reviewed and thus would remain in effect.”
Not Alitos logic…the law specifically requires no judicial review.
Common sense for a lay person understands no judicial review …means …no judicial review.
You keep leaving that out.
The law has many requirements all of which your misreading would render meaningless.
@no1marauder saidthe entire statute ...dayyyuuuummm
No judicial review of what specifically?
You keep leaving that out.
The law has many requirements all of which your misreading would render meaningless.