• Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t think that works. You’d still have a situation where the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide US foreign and defense policy.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No. That’s the law as passed by Congress. Either it’s enforceable or it isn’t.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Sure. And it’s also enforceable by a court order to the DOD stating they need to comply with the law.

              • Melllvar@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I’ve pointed out.

                Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  That’s not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.

                  • Melllvar@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    sigh I don’t know what else to say and I’m done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn’t change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.

                  • Melllvar@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.

                    The law is not being violated; it’s being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive’s judgement here–even if that judgement is wrong.