JUST IN —> Justice Department Defends Trump’s Travel Ban At The Fourth Circuit And In The Hawaii Case:https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-defends-trumps-travel-ban-at-appeals?utm_term=.shvdbJGr3n …
-
-
Also, further down into this section: I imagine there are many people who wouldn't mind this coming to pass at all.pic.twitter.com/ZDwcxOYuWV
-
It's also, obviously, a much further-down-the-stream argument than the argument actually being advanced by plaintiffs in these cases.
-
The idea that "express statements of discriminatory intent" = "a candidate’s religiously related campaign statements" is an argument, but.
-
Now onto the DOJ filing in Hawaii ...
-
While Hawaii might have pushed a bit far in its "plodding" characterization, the DOJ response is SO over-the-top.pic.twitter.com/3yc6mPbJ6O
-
Does DOJ think Judge Watson missed the Fourth Circuit appeal?
-
In Hawaii & at the 4th Cir, DOJ argues that, at the least, the court orders halting enforcement of the EO should be narrowed.pic.twitter.com/Zvaet0AOBs
-
I'm not sure why you argue this if you're DOJ, but, ok. (I mean, even if you're right, why ~say~ it?)pic.twitter.com/SUEojktfXH
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
actually, its not thin ice. Sadly, this ban will pass muster.
-
I mean, this language is arguably false (and certainly will be argued as such by the plaintiffs). Something courts don't like.
-
Also, you literally "actually"-d me, and you're quite possibly wrong, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply to you. Never mind.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@katherinemiller inquiry comes down to whether we give more weight to interviews from Todd or Stahl; suggests fraught analysispic.twitter.com/clgu8RNJEl
-
Yeah, I've read that (dissenting) opinion. But, thanks for weighing in.
-
agree its weak atm, better approach for them would be to argue re Rudy, that he had no role in crafting EO
-
My point is that there are new enough comments — from Trump (the eve of Hawaii decision) and Miller — that ...
-
... this arg from DOJ borders on disingenuous, esp. given that those comments have been raised in other cases.
-
1/ agree esp bc he has had opps to clarify statements & hasn't. How do u think Court wld rule if they found EO is primarily
-
2/ motivated by a nat'l security purpose but that the pres theory of what constitutes a nat'l security threat is driven by
-
3/3 religious animus given large deference to Exec nat'l sec powers
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
