Do Blackman, et al. actually prefer a system that sends these migrants to a forever prison on the taxpayer dime or if they are pretending that the deportations weren't going to happen? They want to dance around the issuee without ever coming out and saying they're pro rendentions.
This is a good formulation. I'll merely add that, even if Judge Hendrix failed to rule on the preliminary injunction for the best reason—because he was performing life-saving surgery on a dying infant or taking a sick loved one to the ER while his cell was broken—the failure to rule *still* have been an "effective denial" of the motion. As I conceptualize it, the "constructive denial" finding is not so much viewed from the perspective of the judge, as Judge Ho and J. Alito seem to think, but from the perspective of the party seeking the injunction. Sometimes the two aligned, but I don't see why they'd have to. Am I thinking about this wrong? Because I've been shocked by the weirdly personal affront so many have taken to the issuance of plaintiff-protective emergency relief under extraordinary circumstances.
>>>including the important questions of whether we have been invaded by the country of Venezuela (which is, no kidding, the President’s theory)
The text of the Act starts as follows:
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States..."
A threat of predatory incursion is sufficient for the Act. That seems far easier to satisfy than is presented in this post.
This "don't disparage Judge Hendrix" argument seems like an attempt for one "side" to find a win out of this situation. It seems like a bit of a self-own though, given that even a competent, nonpartisan District Judge (who presumably follows national news and was aware that emergency habeas claims were a possibility) couldn't keep up with the Trump administration's attempt to quickly deport people before they can obtain effective judicial review.
Do Blackman, et al. actually prefer a system that sends these migrants to a forever prison on the taxpayer dime or if they are pretending that the deportations weren't going to happen? They want to dance around the issuee without ever coming out and saying they're pro rendentions.
This is a good formulation. I'll merely add that, even if Judge Hendrix failed to rule on the preliminary injunction for the best reason—because he was performing life-saving surgery on a dying infant or taking a sick loved one to the ER while his cell was broken—the failure to rule *still* have been an "effective denial" of the motion. As I conceptualize it, the "constructive denial" finding is not so much viewed from the perspective of the judge, as Judge Ho and J. Alito seem to think, but from the perspective of the party seeking the injunction. Sometimes the two aligned, but I don't see why they'd have to. Am I thinking about this wrong? Because I've been shocked by the weirdly personal affront so many have taken to the issuance of plaintiff-protective emergency relief under extraordinary circumstances.
>>>including the important questions of whether we have been invaded by the country of Venezuela (which is, no kidding, the President’s theory)
The text of the Act starts as follows:
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States..."
A threat of predatory incursion is sufficient for the Act. That seems far easier to satisfy than is presented in this post.
This "don't disparage Judge Hendrix" argument seems like an attempt for one "side" to find a win out of this situation. It seems like a bit of a self-own though, given that even a competent, nonpartisan District Judge (who presumably follows national news and was aware that emergency habeas claims were a possibility) couldn't keep up with the Trump administration's attempt to quickly deport people before they can obtain effective judicial review.