The existing case law encourages the courts to ignore the trollish statements and dogwhistling/actual-whistling of this administration.
-
-
En réponse à @sarahjeong
It is not a fundamental characteristic of the law or the judiciary to use fascistic play with language against an administration.
1 réponse 4 Retweets 25 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
It in fact goes against the case law on executive power and immigration.
1 réponse 4 Retweets 20 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
What's happening here is that the situation is too fucking stupid for the courts to be able to bear to mindlessly apply the old rules.
3 réponses 23 Retweets 98 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
It is *absolutely* plausible that the challengers will ultimately lose in the airport cases.
1 réponse 4 Retweets 32 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
But I think it would be an enormous blow to the dignity of the judiciary, and my sense is that a lot of judges feel that way too.
4 réponses 1 Retweet 33 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
It's a little too perfect that DOJ and supporters like Judge Bybee say the courts cannot look "behind the curtain."
1 réponse 6 Retweets 36 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT BEHIND THE CURTAINpic.twitter.com/TiPINiCS4U
2 réponses 22 Retweets 100 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
.
@sarahjeong this always seemed like a shady two step by right wing judges. Step 1: discriminatory effect doesn't matter just intent1 réponse 3 Retweets 7 j'aime -
En réponse à @Krhawkins5
.
@sarahjeong step 2: we can't look at any of the places where evidence of discriminatory intend would show up, that wouldn't be proper1 réponse 1 Retweet 7 j'aime
I agree, airport cases are interesting bc public rhetoric blows apart careful pact between conservative judiciary and executive
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.