Constitution? 14th Amendment?

Homicidal_Squirrel · Oct 17, 2015

Not in Texas.

http://klfy.com/ap/judge-no-birth-certificates-to-immigrant-kids-born-in-texas/

A federal judge has chosen for now not to force Texas health officials to change their stance in denying birth certificates to immigrant families with U.S- born children, saying that the families raised “grave concerns” but more evidence is needed, according to a ruling issued Friday.

CaptainGemini · Oct 17, 2015

Okay, who wants to place bets on how many Texan officials will end up jailed before all of the court cases related to this are over?

Umbran · Oct 17, 2015

If they had ruled for the plaintiffs, the state would have appealed to a higher court.

They rule for the state, the plaintiffs will appeal to a higher court.

Either way, it's going up the chain. The judge then merely has to decide which precedent he wants to set for the moment, before it gets escalated.

Ovinomancer · Oct 17, 2015

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
Not in Texas.

http://klfy.com/ap/judge-no-birth-certificates-to-immigrant-kids-born-in-texas/

Not even an issue. This was a ruling on an emergency injunction. To get that, you have to show that you have nearly overwhelming evidence that you would win in court -- if it went that far. The judge recognized the seriousness of the case and the impact on the families - showing that he's taking this very seriously - but didn't have enough in the motion for him to grant the emergency injunction. This is pretty routine, and has almost no bearing on what the outcome of the case will be. It just means that the petitioners don't have an absolutely slam-dunk case before even discovery begins. It's rare that such a slam-dunk obtains in cases.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Oct 17, 2015

Ovinomancer said:
Not even an issue. This was a ruling on an emergency injunction. To get that, you have to show that you have nearly overwhelming evidence that you would win in court -- if it went that far. The judge recognized the seriousness of the case and the impact on the families - showing that he's taking this very seriously - but didn't have enough in the motion for him to grant the emergency injunction. This is pretty routine, and has almost no bearing on what the outcome of the case will be. It just means that the petitioners don't have an absolutely slam-dunk case before even discovery begins. It's rare that such a slam-dunk obtains in cases.

You missed the point.

Ovinomancer · Oct 17, 2015

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
You missed the point.

Perhaps you weren't clear enough.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Oct 17, 2015

Ovinomancer said:
Perhaps you weren't clear enough.

You are correct. I wasn't clear enough. You still missed the point, though.

Umbran · Oct 17, 2015

Folks,

This looks a lot like petty sniping.

Please stop it. If you aren't going to actually discuss like people who want to exchange ideas, just let it go. Thanks.