FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
The judge is probably going to be pissed they are trying to end his discovery time simultaneously. Also, he gave very clear options and they chose neither.
Fencingsax on
+3
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
the stupidest thing is how likely it is that this will work.
I am taking this to mean they've declined to do option A or option B, and are trying to take the extra time they were specifically refused?
They had a binary choice got it wrong three ways, they're like a human USB plug.
Edit: Read the filing, they did say they accept the Plaintiff's discovery schedule if the court doesn't take them up on their offer to throw it out.
Although Defendants oppose discovery commencing at this time for the above stated reasons, if discovery does go forward, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery schedule.
...But they do recommend against the Court accepting it
although it is difficult to determine how such developments may affect any discovery schedule entered in this case, should the Court enter a discovery schedule now,
...And, of course, reserve the right to not accept it later.
Defendants may seek to revise the discovery schedule in the future as circumstances warrant.
After they've had extra time to mull over their options.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The fact that this is the best those attornies had tells you they have literally nothing, because ignoring a judge's instructions doesn't tend to do wonders for your case.
The fact that this is the best those attornies had tells you they have literally nothing, because ignoring a judge's instructions doesn't tend to do wonders for your case.
And I'll wager even this ultra-thin "What if we come up with a new motive?" angle probably didn't account for POTUS announcing, this morning, that it was primarily needed for exactly the thing they claimed it wasn't for.
I'm really can't fault the lawyers here, they've got an impossible client.
ArbitraryDescriptor on
+10
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
the stupidest thing is how likely it is that this will work.
I am taking this to mean they've declined to do option A or option B, and are trying to take the extra time they were specifically refused?
They had a binary choice got it wrong three ways, they're like a human USB plug.
Edit: Read the filing, they did say they accept the Plaintiff's discovery schedule if the court doesn't take them up on their offer to throw it out.
Although Defendants oppose discovery commencing at this time for the above stated reasons, if discovery does go forward, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery schedule.
...But they do recommend against the Court accepting it
although it is difficult to determine how such developments may affect any discovery schedule entered in this case, should the Court enter a discovery schedule now,
...And, of course, reserve the right to not accept it later.
Defendants may seek to revise the discovery schedule in the future as circumstances warrant.
After they've had extra time to mull over their options.
It’s the legal equivalent of “my dog ate my homework”
fuck gendered marketing
+4
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
the stupidest thing is how likely it is that this will work.
I am taking this to mean they've declined to do option A or option B, and are trying to take the extra time they were specifically refused?
They had a binary choice got it wrong three ways, they're like a human USB plug.
Edit: Read the filing, they did say they accept the Plaintiff's discovery schedule if the court doesn't take them up on their offer to throw it out.
Although Defendants oppose discovery commencing at this time for the above stated reasons, if discovery does go forward, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery schedule.
...But they do recommend against the Court accepting it
although it is difficult to determine how such developments may affect any discovery schedule entered in this case, should the Court enter a discovery schedule now,
...And, of course, reserve the right to not accept it later.
Defendants may seek to revise the discovery schedule in the future as circumstances warrant.
After they've had extra time to mull over their options.
It’s the legal equivalent of “my dog ate my homework”
The arguments put forth by the administration are, from a professional standpoint, embarrassing and would lose a 1L moot court.
However, the outright ignoring of relevant presidential statements regarding intent and purpose of the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii may be important if the conservatives on the court decide to accept this fig leaf. That would be additional bullshit but here we are.
+1
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
the stupidest thing is how likely it is that this will work.
I am taking this to mean they've declined to do option A or option B, and are trying to take the extra time they were specifically refused?
They had a binary choice got it wrong three ways, they're like a human USB plug.
Edit: Read the filing, they did say they accept the Plaintiff's discovery schedule if the court doesn't take them up on their offer to throw it out.
Although Defendants oppose discovery commencing at this time for the above stated reasons, if discovery does go forward, Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery schedule.
...But they do recommend against the Court accepting it
although it is difficult to determine how such developments may affect any discovery schedule entered in this case, should the Court enter a discovery schedule now,
...And, of course, reserve the right to not accept it later.
Defendants may seek to revise the discovery schedule in the future as circumstances warrant.
After they've had extra time to mull over their options.
It’s the legal equivalent of “my dog ate my homework”
It's legal for "our fucking client"
Who is the dog in this analogy
fuck gendered marketing
+1
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The arguments put forth by the administration are, from a professional standpoint, embarrassing and would lose a 1L moot court.
However, the outright ignoring of relevant presidential statements regarding intent and purpose of the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii may be important if the conservatives on the court decide to accept this fig leaf. That would be additional bullshit but here we are.
This is a single federal judge. It hasn't risen to en banc yet. And judges don't like it when they give clear instructions and are ignored.
Yeah that seems really dumb from what we were told the judge asked. Especially since the consequence for refusing that was a reinstatement of previous like issues right?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So I'm confused, they were told they had a or b they chose nothing and the judge didn't do anything?
The judge has to decide what he's going to do. It's possible he chose 2 pm because he wants to make his decision by the end of the day.
Fencingsax on
+8
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Say what you want about Bush, his subordinates were always prepared, which gave his team enough time to back the terribleness. Trump just ambushes his team and they don't have enough time to actually do his terrible things.
And you just know this is how he runs his business. Where everyone is getting ready to go home at the end of the day and old man crazypants has an idea and everyone rushes for 8 hours after they should have gone home to be with their family to make this ridiculous requirement a reality, then on Monday, never mind we did something else.
These idiots are going to end up treating the courts like they treat congress and are all going to end up in jail or owing $texas in legal fines.
Up to this point its been working for them on a lot of cases. And as Jeffe said everyday they cloud this issue of "is that question on the census" they scare the very people they want to.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
These idiots are going to end up treating the courts like they treat congress and are all going to end up in jail or owing $texas in legal fines.
Up to this point its been working for them on a lot of cases. And as Jeffe said everyday they cloud this issue of "is that question on the census" they scare the very people they want to.
I don’t think they’ve let anyone have an open discovery against them yet though (because they have had lawyers smart enough to back off before then)
I mean Trump is floating adding it with an executive order, he's putting that out there. And knowing how slow the courts can go, that can get the question on there before it can be struck down and knowing this SCOTUS I don't even know if it would be struck down despite the census being a congressional duty.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The emails -- obtained by CNN -- were sent to the [witnessing] agent's supervisor and outlined the March 5 episode in which a Honduran man was forced to hold a piece of paper that said, "Me gustan los hombre(s)," which translates to "I like men," while being paraded through a migrant detention center.
The incident is one of many, per the emails, in which the CBP agent allegedly witnessed several colleagues displaying poor behavior and management's failure to act.
After reading the headline I was genuinely surprised it came from another CBP agent.
(Though not at all surprised that it still didn't go anywhere.)
One of the stories I read is that CBP knew about the original facebook group dating back to 2016 and did nothing at the time. The bigger problem with any good CBP members is they are effectively covering for their shitty bretheren at the same time. Its kind of like good cops who keep quiet when a bad cop is called out "well I don't want to upset the brotherhood"
Like the current immigration system needs to be wholesale fired and investigated/tried for crimes against humanity. And only after this has happened can we begin to rebuild a compassionate group made up of 0% of the current jackals.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
These idiots are going to end up treating the courts like they treat congress and are all going to end up in jail or owing $texas in legal fines.
Up to this point its been working for them on a lot of cases. And as Jeffe said everyday they cloud this issue of "is that question on the census" they scare the very people they want to.
But you can literally read whether or not the question is on the census when you get your copy of it. Is the contention that people won't even open it for fear of what it might ask?
These idiots are going to end up treating the courts like they treat congress and are all going to end up in jail or owing $texas in legal fines.
Up to this point its been working for them on a lot of cases. And as Jeffe said everyday they cloud this issue of "is that question on the census" they scare the very people they want to.
But you can literally read whether or not the question is on the census when you get your copy of it. Is the contention that people won't even open it for fear of what it might ask?
Yes very much so. The idea is to create fear in a community that this admin has done nothing but make afraid of them. Even being able to read it, might not guarantee they understand it and that fear would cause them to not fill it out.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
What the administration is communicating is that they really want to know where all the brown people are so they can deport them. How much do you trust the Trumpers not to find some reason to bust down your door, if you're Hispanic?
Practically, they can't do much with this information as far as using it to target individuals, we know this. But would you gamble your life on it? Your family's life? Especially if you have only a foggy notion of how census data is actually used, or what's possible?
It's not that people are scared that the census question will jump out of the envelope and bite them. They're just not going to fuck with the entire endeavor at all, because there's no upside for them, only potential risk.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
What the administration is communicating is that they really want to know where all the brown people are so they can deport them. How much do you trust the Trumpers not to find some reason to bust down your door, if you're Hispanic?
Practically, they can't do much with this information as far as using it to target individuals, we know this. But would you gamble your life on it? Your family's life? Especially if you have only a foggy notion of how census data is actually used, or what's possible?
It's not that people are scared that the census question will jump out of the envelope and bite them. They're just not going to fuck with the entire endeavor at all, because there's no upside for them, only potential risk.
Also, it's technically illegal to lie on the census. It's next to impossible to prosecute, but you KNOW these fuckers will a) try, and b) shout loudly that they will try.
So it's the same thing again. Are people who might think they're at risk, going to do it, especially if the circumstances are even slightly foggy.
While it's not as much as a win as having the question on the census, the confusion raised is absolutely a win for the Administration.
+9
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean Trump is floating adding it with an executive order, he's putting that out there. And knowing how slow the courts can go, that can get the question on there before it can be struck down and knowing this SCOTUS I don't even know if it would be struck down despite the census being a congressional duty.
Anyone who puts the question on there after a judge issues a stay is going to get in trouble.
Who would get in trouble, what kind of trouble, and who would be responsible for enforcing the punishment?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+19
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Whoever is in charge of putting and confirming the questions on the census, at the least contempt of court, and said court.
Granted, it's up to the judge, and it would probably go before SCOTUS in a separation of powers thing, so it isn't sure.
It was argued before SCOTUS that they needed a verdict by June 30th so they could proceed with printing the census.
I'm just saying, lying under oath should have consequences.
Unfortunately, the law treats arguments, and the hypothetical factual bases underneath, as fungible.
This is probably a good thing.
Imagine a farmer that says he needs a land dispute resolved by the rainy season in May to plant crops, then it turns out May has a draught and he has to wait until June anyway, he shouldn’t be liable for perjury.
On May 10, 2019, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would prohibit “mixed-status" families from living in public housing and Section 8 programs. Mixed-status families are households that include both members who are eligible and ineligible for housing assistance based on their immigration status. HUD's proposed rule would force families of mixed immigration status to break up to receive housing assistance, to forego the assistance altogether, or face termination from the programs.
Tell the Department of Housing and Urban Development to oppose this harmful and cruel rule that could lead to the eviction of over 100,000 people from HUD-assisted housing. Comments are due by July 9, 2019
Please personalize your comments with 3 or more sentences about why you oppose the rule. We encourage you to refer to the multi-sector comment template for additional arguments and information. Your comment will be directly submitted to regulations.gov.
It's another in the long series of means-testing "cost savings" efforts that cost an enormous amount of money and make the country worse in order to hurt people who aren't white.
Edit: I've worked for places that get funds from HUD, and so it's been one of the places where it's easiest for me to see just how fucking terrible Republican administrations are. It's so easy to improve a community with HUD funds. It does so much for so little. People who would otherwise be in incredibly dire straits are able to live well with just a little assistance, and so many of them go on to work at making sure other people are okay because they can finally focus on doing what they care about.
It was argued before SCOTUS that they needed a verdict by June 30th so they could proceed with printing the census.
I'm just saying, lying under oath should have consequences.
Unfortunately, the law treats arguments, and the hypothetical factual bases underneath, as fungible.
I didn't know you posted here, Justice Roberts! Haha, but seriously, it came up again and again and was used as justification to bypass normal appeals processes and go straight to SCOTUS. This isn't normal and shouldn't be allowed to just slide by.
(Twitter user @emptywheel doesn't have any particular credits listed in their bio, but the pictures are just a few selections from the lengthy motion filed by the ACLU, which is linked in the tweet.)
Posts
It is not currently up to SCOTUS, and really easy for any other judge to get around that, because policy statements are necessarily relevant.
They had a binary choice got it wrong three ways, they're like a human USB plug.
Edit: Read the filing, they did say they accept the Plaintiff's discovery schedule if the court doesn't take them up on their offer to throw it out.
...But they do recommend against the Court accepting it
...And, of course, reserve the right to not accept it later.
After they've had extra time to mull over their options.
And I'll wager even this ultra-thin "What if we come up with a new motive?" angle probably didn't account for POTUS announcing, this morning, that it was primarily needed for exactly the thing they claimed it wasn't for.
I'm really can't fault the lawyers here, they've got an impossible client.
It’s also not nearly as straightforward a question as it may appear
For me the answer is actually a firm “maybe”
It’s the legal equivalent of “my dog ate my homework”
It's legal for "our fucking client"
However, the outright ignoring of relevant presidential statements regarding intent and purpose of the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii may be important if the conservatives on the court decide to accept this fig leaf. That would be additional bullshit but here we are.
Who is the dog in this analogy
This is a single federal judge. It hasn't risen to en banc yet. And judges don't like it when they give clear instructions and are ignored.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I do not! However, I would ask that we delay these precedings indefinitely in the event that you do not wish to yield instead.
They told the 4th circuit discovery would be done in 45 days a week ago, and nothing has happened.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The judge has to decide what he's going to do. It's possible he chose 2 pm because he wants to make his decision by the end of the day.
And you just know this is how he runs his business. Where everyone is getting ready to go home at the end of the day and old man crazypants has an idea and everyone rushes for 8 hours after they should have gone home to be with their family to make this ridiculous requirement a reality, then on Monday, never mind we did something else.
Buzzfeed reporter.
Judge says your ridiculous excuse does not fly, discovery continues.
Up to this point its been working for them on a lot of cases. And as Jeffe said everyday they cloud this issue of "is that question on the census" they scare the very people they want to.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don’t think they’ve let anyone have an open discovery against them yet though (because they have had lawyers smart enough to back off before then)
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well at least there's one exception out there:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/04/us/honduran-migrant-shamed-border-patrol/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
After reading the headline I was genuinely surprised it came from another CBP agent.
(Though not at all surprised that it still didn't go anywhere.)
Like the current immigration system needs to be wholesale fired and investigated/tried for crimes against humanity. And only after this has happened can we begin to rebuild a compassionate group made up of 0% of the current jackals.
pleasepaypreacher.net
But you can literally read whether or not the question is on the census when you get your copy of it. Is the contention that people won't even open it for fear of what it might ask?
Yes very much so. The idea is to create fear in a community that this admin has done nothing but make afraid of them. Even being able to read it, might not guarantee they understand it and that fear would cause them to not fill it out.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Practically, they can't do much with this information as far as using it to target individuals, we know this. But would you gamble your life on it? Your family's life? Especially if you have only a foggy notion of how census data is actually used, or what's possible?
It's not that people are scared that the census question will jump out of the envelope and bite them. They're just not going to fuck with the entire endeavor at all, because there's no upside for them, only potential risk.
Also, it's technically illegal to lie on the census. It's next to impossible to prosecute, but you KNOW these fuckers will a) try, and b) shout loudly that they will try.
So it's the same thing again. Are people who might think they're at risk, going to do it, especially if the circumstances are even slightly foggy.
While it's not as much as a win as having the question on the census, the confusion raised is absolutely a win for the Administration.
Anyone who puts the question on there after a judge issues a stay is going to get in trouble.
Granted, it's up to the judge, and it would probably go before SCOTUS in a separation of powers thing, so it isn't sure.
I'm just saying, lying under oath should have consequences.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Unfortunately, the law treats arguments, and the hypothetical factual bases underneath, as fungible.
This is probably a good thing.
Imagine a farmer that says he needs a land dispute resolved by the rainy season in May to plant crops, then it turns out May has a draught and he has to wait until June anyway, he shouldn’t be liable for perjury.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
It's another in the long series of means-testing "cost savings" efforts that cost an enormous amount of money and make the country worse in order to hurt people who aren't white.
Edit: I've worked for places that get funds from HUD, and so it's been one of the places where it's easiest for me to see just how fucking terrible Republican administrations are. It's so easy to improve a community with HUD funds. It does so much for so little. People who would otherwise be in incredibly dire straits are able to live well with just a little assistance, and so many of them go on to work at making sure other people are okay because they can finally focus on doing what they care about.
I didn't know you posted here, Justice Roberts! Haha, but seriously, it came up again and again and was used as justification to bypass normal appeals processes and go straight to SCOTUS. This isn't normal and shouldn't be allowed to just slide by.
(Twitter user @emptywheel doesn't have any particular credits listed in their bio, but the pictures are just a few selections from the lengthy motion filed by the ACLU, which is linked in the tweet.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar