Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

My Kind of Federal Judge!

Sure we have Scott Rothstein and his lovely Tom James clothier Romina Sifuentes, but Louisiana has ED LA judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr.:
A federal judge from Louisiana who had run up big gambling debts routinely solicited money and gifts from lawyers with cases before his court, Congressional investigators said Tuesday as the House opened impeachment hearings in the judge’s case. The judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court, had more than $150,000 in credit card debt by 2000, mostly for cash advances spent in casinos, investigators said. Judge Porteous’s requests for cash became so frequent that one New Orleans lawyer said he started trying to dodge the judge.“He began to use excuses that he needed it for tuition, he needed it for living expenses,” the lawyer, Robert Creely, told a House Judiciary Committee task force. “I would avoid him until I couldn’t avoid him anymore.”
Mr. Creely said he and his law partner, Jacob Amato, gave Judge Porteous an estimated $20,000 o…

Honoring Richard C. Seavey

I drank a shit-ton of bourbon last night. Enough to float a battleship.

My head hurts. But not as much as my heart.

We lost another lawyer over the weekend. Not someone who will receive facebook accolades and other public claims of friendship and statements that he shaped and changed lives and careers. Just a guy who did the best he could with what he had. Every day. And he did very, very well to be the best person he could be. 
Richard Seavey was a profoundly private person. In his 49 years, he walked through more than his share of trials and tribulations, mostly asking for no help, leaning on no one. 

Richard was a fantastic lawyer. He could try a case. He could "litigate" a case. He could mediate and settle a case. He was nuanced. He bent but never broke. The blustery Miami lawyer never scared him. To the contrary, he found humor in it, studying it like a science project. Richard never got too high or too low. He was good at lawyering, but you got the f…

First Carnival Triumph Lawsuit on File!

It was filed in the SD FL (of course) and is pending before Judge Graham.

Check it out here.

The lawyer on the pleading is Marcus R. Spagnoletti.