Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
15 replies, 6025 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
15 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: ACLU won in 4th circuit Muslim ban case! (Original Post)
DesertRat
May 2017
OP
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)1. Do DU posters understand WHY these cases are being decided this way?
Because non sycophants are on the courts making the decisions.
NOT voting for ANY and ALL democratic candidates, NO MATTER WHAT, will result in a GOP president with no brains appointing rightwing ASSHOLES from liberty univ to decide these cases in the FUTURE
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
(Not screaming at the OP, but those I am screaming at know who they are)
Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)5. Yes I do but I think there are many who do not understand the entire
ramifications of voting for a republican anything. Maybe that should be taken up by the DNC - a primer on just how important every vote for every political appointee is
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)7. Yes, and it starts at places like DU, thanks
mcar
(42,334 posts)12. +1000!
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)2. Yay. We get to be excited because we won
a battle we should never have had to fight in the first place.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)3. Yeah
grantcart
(53,061 posts)4. Still not tired of winning
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)6. from the opinion
WOW https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3733125/5-25-17-4th-Circuit-IRAP.pdf
The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace. And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principlesthat government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. Congress granted the President broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation. Therefore, for the reasons that follow, we affirm in substantial part the district courts issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction as toSection 2(c) of the challenged Executive Order
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)11. Thank you!
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)13. This very powerful prose
hatrack
(59,587 posts)8. Well, donation time once again!
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)9. From a concurring opinion
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)14. From the ACLU
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)15. Awesome!