Someone forgot to tell Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

See Justice Thomas dissent.

The minority opinion loses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The minority opinion loses
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The dissent makes valid points. They are put on the record. And they can be used in future arguments, as they have been.

Ross gave an explanation. It was not an unconstitutional reason. It was a valid reason. Roberts admitted as much. But he claimed that it seemed to conflict with previous things Ross had said or did. Why should it have to comport with what he said or implied previously?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why should it have to comport with what he said or implied previously?

Because if you don't follow the rule of law, you lose.

Like when you misrepresent the facts to the Court, or present alternative facts. Or use Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth argument. Or your "client" admits that your premise was false.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Because if you don't follow the rule of law, you lose.

Like when you misrepresent the facts to the Court, or present alternative facts. Or use Giuliani’s truth isn’t truth argument. Or your "client" admits that your premise was false.

He stated a legitimate reason for including a valid, constitutional, question. Whether he had not stated this reason previously or not, or whether the DOJ request was later and more important may all "seem" inconsistent is not relevant. What was relevant is the validity and constitutionality of his reason. Roberts did not say the reason was not valid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Roberts did not say the reason was not valid or unconstitutional. Quite the contrary.

"The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation (Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision," Roberts wrote. "The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived."

If the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation then the reason is invalid. Full stop.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

"The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation (Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) gave for his decision," Roberts wrote. "The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived."

If the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation then the reason is invalid. Full stop.

"Seems" is not valid substantive legal evidence. I suppose that is why it was remanded to the lower court for further investigation.

Although from some of your past posts, for you, "seems" seems to be synonymous with "conclusive" or with "fact."