I meant get the issue properly before the district court
-
-
That's what they call it. It's like some people call the estate tax the death tax. Welcome to
#branding. -
The debate here is not over the larger questions of the ban's legality; it is over the implementation of the SCOTUS stay. That's my point.
-
I don't think we are disagreeing about anything. You are (smartly) talking about merits. I am (snarkily) talking about framing of case.
-
Oh. Well ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... It does appear that some liberals and others fighting Trump can't help but try to play his game.
-
I don't think what you're describing is quite that — though it has a whiff of it.
-
I'm not familiar enough with the merits to be confident about the presentation of this case. But Katyal's tweet raised my eyebrows.
-
As I said earlier, for all I know, P's are 100% right and Govt is 100% wrong. But "muslim ban interpretation" language rubs me wrong way.
-
Yes, I get what you're saying. I just think that many opponents have decided that is the only way they will refer to it.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
My point is not about merits. (I have no idea whether requested relief should be granted. Leave it to immig/civpro experts). 1/
-
Point is that this *seems* to be a continuation of "advocacy through tweets and innuendo," which I think SCOTUS rejected. 2/2
- 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.