Wall has time reserved, and the panel is going to give him a bit more because Katyal went over time.
-
-
Replying to @sarahjeong
Wall says that the previous 9th is not a square holding on the applicability of Mandel
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
This, I would agree with? The previous 9th decision is procedurally very awkward.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
WALL: Whatever this court says will govern the president's exercise of that power [under 1152] for generations to come.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
Wall finally says that even if they're wrong about standing and merits, the scope of the injunction has to be limited to the plaintiffs and
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
a handful of students identified by Hawaii. It cannot be a nationwide injunction.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
WALL: What the president did here falls squarely within his constitutional and statutory authority.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
WALL: We know they disagree with his policies but that does not amount to a constitutional crisis.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
WALL: This debate should go back to where it belongs: the political realm.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @sarahjeong
The court is now in recess. Hawkins thanks them for the "high quality" of their arguments. Yep. that was A+++ lawyering on both sides
2 replies 9 retweets 47 likes
A a non-lawyer combination of topic & quality of argument really makes one want to know a lot more about the law. Thanks for commenting!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.