Same pattern with the lame stream media. Report on something til it falls apart then find something new and keep on it till it falls apart then rinse and repeat.
At least now we know who is manipulating the strings that animate RBG making it appear that she is still alive. 
1 Like
I wonder if it will be enforced? The EU has a similar law the “Dublin Regulations” were all migrants must claim asylum on the first country they arrive and could be deported to that country if they made it to another, I think Hungary blew that out of the water though.
Sure does seem to be there MO.
It will be now under Trump administration.
I tried and tried and tried…to tell em…amirite? 
1 Like
Silwy wabbit…libs can’t speak with their mouths full.
LOL like a ghost town for libs in here now.
Supreme Court threads are my favorites.
2 Likes
Kagan voted for?
Jim bunning (the last person to bury the nortorius RBG) is dead and Ginsberg is still alive.
Allan
It wasn’t an opinion just an order nullifying the injuction the ACLU sought.
The merits of the case were not argued. That’s is for another day, just like the DACA case.
Allan
You are correct… The only thing “won” is lifting of the injunction…
Yes, but when they stop an injunction, it means the case is unlikely to succed.
No, that’s not what it means… nice try…
We don’t know how the other 7 votes I don’t think. It needed 5 to lift the injunction, but we don’t know if it got more. The two dissents were just the written ones.
Typically the courts will allow in injunction if there is likely hood of injury or success of the case.
If the courts don’t believe that’s the case, they deny the injunciton.
1 Like
The supreme court has not evaluated the merits of the case… The order yesterday is only in effect until the 9th issues an opinion and another possible appeal to the supreme court…
From the order:
The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction and
September 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of
the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the
Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s
petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a
writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall
terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
They would have had information from the lower court on issues surrounding the case that they would have reviewed. They disagreed with the lower court that injury and likleyhood of success was present.
So the injunction will be dropped while arguments are made to the lower court.
Nonsense… Have you actually read the governments application for stay? IMO it’s actually pretty reasonable…
I heard Ginsburg was an ACLU Activist before she was appointed. I knew she was trouble.
I was correct.
1 Like
From your link:
The request to drop the injunction has no injured party among them that filed the lawsuit:
No respondent is actually subject to the rule.
There is the first part of what I said.
there is more than a fair prospect that the Court
will vacate the injunction. As an initial matter, the
injunction was entered at the behest of organizations that do
not even have a judicially cognizable interest in its
application to individual aliens. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit
denied a full stay solely on the ground that the Departments
likely should not have issued the rule as an interim final rule,
without advance notice and comment. The Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), however, allows an agency to issue a rule
without notice-and-comment procedures if the rule involves a
“foreign affairs function of the United States.”
And there is the second part of my equasion. Unlikely to succed.
It meets the two part test. No injured party and unlikely to succed. So the high court removed the injunction that says the rule can’t be enforced until the appeals court makes a rulling.
If the appleals court rules the same way, it most likely will issue an injunction again, and that will go to the supreme court again to be lifted until arguments can be made before the high court.
