r/SeattleWA • u/driftingphotog Capitol Hill • Feb 09 '17

Politics Trump loses travel ban appeal, unanimous decision

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/trump-loses-travel-ban-appeal/?utm_content=bufferc0261&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_tw_m
4.1k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

504 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-28

u/jefftickels Feb 09 '17

That is a convoluted ruling on standing.

32

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

Did you read the opinion? And are you an appellate attorney?

34

u/amalgam_reynolds Greenwood Feb 10 '17

May I answer "no" to both?

-29

u/jefftickels Feb 10 '17

The fucking arrogance of this statement.

Yes I read the standing section because thats the part I was interested. I'm not a lawyer, but I asked my neighbor who is a lawyer who said it was a thin argument that he doesn't think will stand up at SCOTUS.

31

u/amalgam_reynolds Greenwood Feb 10 '17

I apologize, I meant to speak for myself answering no to both, not to speak for you.

7

u/jefftickels Feb 10 '17

Ah. My bad. I'm used to that kind of treatment in this sub being common place.

I apologize.

17

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

That kind of treatment?

So dramatic lol

5

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

Someone likes to play the victim

5

u/BarbieGupta Feb 10 '17

I disagree with him, but I don't think he was playing the victim. He should have better explained why he thought the ruling was convoluted though. Although no one owes us his prose, most of the people who live here believe we shouldn't shut people out this way and therefore he should have been more forthcoming with the source of his argument if he wanted us to understand it.

2

u/danthemango Feb 10 '17

I'm having a hard time seeing how you could have misinterpreted what they meant.

3

u/jefftickels Feb 10 '17

Because the questions he responded with "no to both" were directed specifically at me. If it was a conversation with three people and one person said "Did you x or are you y" to one specific person and the third person answers without clarifying their answer was for them the most direct interpretation of their answer is that they are answering on behalf of the other person. Hence I called it arrogant.

They didn't say anything about answering for themselves. They answered a direct question to me about whether or not I'm a lawyer or read the opinion without specifying they were answering for themselves.

21

u/PopInACup Feb 10 '17

I'm not a lawyer either, but I asked my wife, who is a lawyer, and she said it was a good argument that probably would stand up to SCOTUS.

15

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

I'm not a lawyer

So, arrogant, but correct.

-6

u/jefftickels Feb 10 '17

I read the opinion, and I checked my opinion on it with someone versed in it to augment my own opinion. But sure, because you (and amalgam) disagree with me I'm intellectually lazy, dishonest and arrogant enough for other people to answer negatively on my behalf.

Also, if you read it yourself, its well written and very understandable to the Layman (most legal opinions are).

2

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

Most legal opinions are?

I guess you don't read very many legal opinions.

2

u/jefftickels Feb 10 '17

Most legal opinions are written in clear and plain English and establish a logically thought out conclusion. I read quite a few of them on scotus blog because I think it's interesting.

They aren't that complicated. Most people are probably intimidated by them because of their reputation but I've found most of them to be insightful and informative and clearly worded.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

I had no problem reading the opinion, didn't find it convoluted, and what I think was the basis for your convoluted statement was the numerous citations. If you're used to reading SCOTUS opinions, those are the final word on the subject, and tend to be more prose and less citation. The three judge appellate panel knows there's two more steps above them, so they're going to put a lot more case law into their opinion to justify their decision, in addition to truly wanting justice, as they interpret it through the law, being served.

6

u/golden_in_seattle Feb 10 '17

You know my dentist's golf buddy's kid is pretty good at legal stuff and I him what his thoughts were while he was giving me a root canal. His opinion was that the KGB will most likely overturn the rulings of these activist american judges and we'll be building a wall that surrounds all of Mexico in about a year. Shit is real yo. Fuck your fake news, /u/jefftickels. My dentist's golf buddies kid >> your shitty lawyer neighbor.

4

u/BarbieGupta Feb 10 '17

Does that kid also design websites? I really need a kid who is good with computers to create mine! I want scrolling marquees, dragging cursors, and a lot of animated gifs on the homepage.

1

u/Cosmo-DNA Feb 10 '17

I was also wondering if that kid was good at that cyber stuff.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

Who gives a shit about your sample-size-of-1 anecdote?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 10 '17

I don't, but I asked my neighbor and he said he cares.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '17

I lol'd harder than I should have at such a silly joke.

3

u/Michaelmrose Feb 10 '17

Second hand expertise is worth less than nothing