IN OTHER NEWS ... something I'm noticing about the ban EO litigation ...
-
-
I noted yesterday that DOJ had included such a request in its Ninth Circuit filing: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/trump-announces-new-travel-ban-executive-order-is-coming-nex?utm_term=.hbdeRJdY6z#.qdK0eMlYLp …pic.twitter.com/gigsnojnsn
-
I imagine, in addition to the standing ruling, Justice (and the White House) would v much like to see this part of the 9th Cir ruling gone:pic.twitter.com/boVvOKoadk
-
Hence the focus, in the 9th Circuit and elsewhere, on vacating the 9th Circuit ruling.
-
Q: why request that the en banc request be postponed if they're that burnt about the existing order?
-
Because they couldn't get it vacated now. They're hoping they could once a new one is issued.
-
sorry if I'm not following- because unlikely to be successful at en banc, or at SCOTUS? Or are you implying another reason?
-
why couldn't they get it vacated at en banc? B/c new order moots issue? Or because unlikely to succeed on merits of PI appeal?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Seeking vacation instead of dismissal for mootness is nothing other than attempt to manipulate judiciary's role to review.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are they asking that the court be dismissed from the case?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
En ingles, sil vous por favor?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is so weird. Like the decision isn't moot until a new EO is actually issued, am I wrong?
-
I get not wanting to proceed on en banc hearing but don't see why this warrants vacating panel decision.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.