Saturday, June 25, 2016

Every politician pushing this bill ought to be removed from office.

No jokes, no crap, this is horrible.  It includes this:
"No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section except pursuant to a petition for review under section."

Yes, this says you cannot question if the Flake Amendment (my name for it), the no-fly-no-buy law is legal. Clearly, it isn't, hence they won't tolerate questions.
There's more.  A lot more, and it's just as bad.
By coincidence, the same Justice Dept. decides if: 1) you meet the criteria for the no-new-guns list, and 2) for the freedom-to-travel-but-not-by-air list, and 3) it's the same Justice Dept. that controls review of the list, and 4) it also controls appeals for reversals if you sue. By law, after your first hearing, no appeals are allowed. Have a nice day:
"(h) EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.—The judicial review under a petition for review filed under subsection (c)* shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for a claim by an individual who challenges a denial under subsection (a)(1).
* "(c) An individual... who seeks to challenge a denial... may file a petition for review and any claims related to that petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States for the judicial circuit in which the individual resides."
And for good measure, in case you want to know why you have been denied:
"(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice." Read it all for yourself if you have the stomach.


Phelps said...

It doesn't mean no appeal. It seems that way, but what it really says is that any appeal goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Congress has the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of lower courts, but not the scotus. They can send things straight there, and have in this case (had this law a chance to pass)

I think that they are betting on a split court like we have now, which means that they don't have to face a situation where a lower court rules against them and it stands because he scotus is deadlocked (like in the south Texas immigration case).

Windy Wilson said...

What Mr. Phelps said. It is also possible that the Scotus could take the case for review and send it to a lower court for fact-finding. Considering the egos involved, particularly on the left, not bloody likely, but possible.