What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kepler said:
Are we sure? I mean, he could just announce tomorrow or the next day.
Click to expand...

None announced today, mr. pedantic (I'm going on 3 hours sleep due to a teething kid and stuck in project management training all day, so I apologize for being short tempered today).
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Kepler said:
Are we sure? I mean, he could just announce tomorrow or the next day.
Click to expand...

To that end, we can never be certain on any day of any which year. Any justice alive may decide to retire at any given point. Except RBG, she's in it until she expires while hearing a case on the bench.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
Gorsuch writes/joins a number of opinions putting him right of Alito and on par with Thomas.
Click to expand...

< left palm on forehead >

Nope, no, I don't feel surprised.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
None announced today, mr. pedantic (I'm going on 3 hours sleep due to a teething kid and stuck in project management training all day, so I apologize for being short tempered today).
Click to expand...

And now you have put in an extra "today". ;) :D
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

St. Clown said:
To that end, we can never be certain on any day of any which year.
Click to expand...

Like a thief in the night ...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
a teething kid and stuck in project management training all day, so I apologize for being short tempered today.
Click to expand...

Meh. Both of those are self-inflicted.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
second no.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Life is choices. The bright sunny day beckons.

I mean, no, I'm not leaving my corporate slave pen either, but it's a choice I make every day. Stupid forethought. :(
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

The Sicatoka said:
< left palm on forehead >

Nope, no, I don't feel surprised.
Click to expand...

That's not a facepalm moment. That's a everyone knew exactly what was going to happen and those of us who gave a ****, lost.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
None announced today, mr. pedantic (I'm going on 3 hours sleep due to a teething kid and stuck in project management training all day, so I apologize for being short tempered today).
Click to expand...

What I meant was: did Kennedy announce he is not retiring or did Kennedy not announce he is retiring?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Well Trump got part of his Travel Ban reinstated...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
Well Trump got part of his Travel Ban reinstated...
Click to expand...

Yep. More winning. Are we sick of it yet?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Handyman said:
Well Trump got part of his Travel Ban reinstated...
Click to expand...

Interesting...

“In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the Court said. “All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted the Trump administration’s request to block the lower court injunctions in their entirety while legal proceedings unfold.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

A question. From the SCOTUS:

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship
that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relation
-
ship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter
the United States to live with or visit a family member,
like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has
such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must
be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course,
rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2.
Click to expand...

The stu-
dents from the designated countries who have been admit-
ted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship
with an American entity. So too would a worker who
accepted an offer of employment from an American com-
pany or a lecturer invited to address an American audi-
ence. Not so someone who enters into a relationship sim-
ply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to
immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from
the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then
secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.
Click to expand...

How could this be proven? What is the legal threshold here?

It looks like Thomas, in his opinion, wonders the same thing:
Moreover, I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove
unworkable. Today’s compro
mise will burden executive
officials with the task of deciding—on peril of contempt—
whether individuals from the six affected nations who
wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connec-
tion to a person or entity in this country.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It was per curium so all of them at least agreed in part.

The other three went full trump.
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

What if Jared Kushner's sister sells them visas is that allowed?
 
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

unofan said:
Gorsuch writes/joins a number of opinions putting him right of Alito and on par with Thomas.
Click to expand...
I decided to take park of my lunch to read through a number of most recent decisions. It's going to get very annoying if Thomas and Gorsuch hold each other's hands and fear the boogeymen in the closet in every opinion.

And his writing style is not fun to read. I don't think I've read an opinion of his yet where half the content is, "I'm just asking a question here..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top