Happy Rational Ruling Tuesday!

I've appeared before Judge Brinkema, she's no pushover:
In her opinion, Brinkema wrote that the Commonwealth of Virginia “has produced unrebutted evidence” that the order “was not motivated by rational national security concerns” but “religious prejudice” toward Muslims. She cited Trump’s statements before taking office, as well as an interview in which former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) said that the president wanted a “Muslim ban.”
“The ‘Muslim Ban’ was a centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered,” Brinkema wrote.
See, in court, you have to produce "evidence" so that a determination can be made about "facts."

You guys know this, who could possibly swear an oath to the law and yet support this buffoon?

This was my favorite part:
Brinkema rejected that argument. “Maximum power does not mean absolute power,” she wrote. “Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.”
Again, these should be basic agreed-upon rules of the road.

Oh yeah -- Happy Valentine's Day!!!


  1. So we determine whether something is constitutional based on interview comments by people who aren't even in the government? Seems to make sense. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't realize this, they could have struck down Obamacare based on Gruber's comments without worrying about all the bothersome stuff like statutory analysis and constitutional precedent.

  2. Lol.

    "So we determine whether someone intended something based on what that someone said, repeatedly, and we can't exclude it because when they said it they were not in a position to enact it they were just promising to enact it?"


    1. It isn't silly at all. The original poster is correct. The test is whether a rational basis exists for laws. It has been applied thousands of times. Subjective reasons are not material. This really isn't hard analysis.

      Nevertheless, the executive order was poorly drafted to the point is was wildly overbroad. The arguments in the Washington district were done by a couple of very young lawyers, who were obviously in over their head. One, when asked a question, responded that the judge didn't need to worry about the subject of inquiry.

      Doesn't anyone wonder why it was handled this way? A flawed order gets litigated, not fixed, and argument is done by very young lawyers. Why would that happen?

  3. illegal racist xenophobic ethnic discriminatory intent will not be recorded in the congressional record


Post a Comment