Well, per Judge Napolitano on Fox Business (take that for what it is worth), the ruling is preliminary in that the Hawaii judge can still hold a trial on the ban and if that trial results in a decision against the ban, the ban would be overturned. This is like death by never ending litigation.
Hawaii had asked that the Travel Ban be enjoined during the trial. The District Court (trial) judge did so and the Ninth Circus affirmed. Today’s decision holds that the Travel Ban will be in effect during the trial, because Hawaii is unlikely to win on the merits. This signals that the Supreme Court would reach the same result post-trial that it did today. A trial would be a spiteful act. Even if it happens and even if the trial goes against the Travel Ban, the Supreme Court would likely quickly reverse.
I’ve said this before. In instances like this PDJT and the DOJ should apply their own stay or stay of their stay until such time as the SCOTUS weighs in again. However, lately Judge Nappy has been looking about as reliable as Dick Morris.
He’s wrong. I read the actual holding. In limited cases involving relatives an Article III hearing can be held on a case-by-case basis.
Actually in a technical sense Napalitano was right. But that’s just due to the posture of the case. If the Hawaii judge goes against the ruling, SCOTUS will clearly slap that judge down.
That makes no sense to me.
So if there was one case where a judge ruled against abortion being legal it would overturn Roe v Wade?