Friedland: Do you even have any evidence for the reasons behind this EO?
-
-
This is their strongest argument and he's stammering over it because things are going so badly
-
They're trying to stick to the standing argument but their standing argument is garbage (not that anyone cares)
-
Canby pushing back on the government's standing argument. Basically, govt says states can't bring this case on behalf of people.
-
Govt pushes on the state's parens patriae theory (the state representing its people)
-
and Friedland interrupts saying the state is also asserting their own interests (unviersities, etc)
-
Clifton is now being very mean about the specifics of the cases being cited.
-
holy shit this long silence
-
holy goddamn the government is going down in flames
-
Clifton agrees that the state can't have a parens patriae interest, actually, but he still seems to think the state has standing
-
Bud, you should have never brought up standing. You're getting destroyed.
-
I've never seen a standing argument go so badly for the government
-
Life comes at you fast https://twitter.com/agcrocker/status/829106728826335232 …
Ce Tweet est indisponible. -
oh my god you could just hear Flentje turning a page over the telephone, in total silence, and it was so awkward
-
Canby: Could the order have said, "We're not going to let any Muslims in?" Flentje: That's not what the order does— Canby: But could he?
-
Flentje tries to move on Clifton: We'd like to hear an answer to that.
-
Clifton: Would anyone have standing to challenge that? Flentje says a US citizen would
-
Flentje finally gets a word in edgewise, is able to speak more than three sentences at once, and at last says the injunction is overbroad
-
Friedland: If true that the EO violates the Establishment Clause, [and doesn't meet standard], wouldn't it be invalid on its face?
-
Friedland: Can't an Establishment Clause claim be made by one individual and invalidate the whole thing?
-
Flentje says that the 9th Circuit has to lift the injunction w/r/t people who've never been to the US, because Washington's standing
-
He reserves the remainder of his time, and is done for now. Now it's Noah Purcell, arguing for Washington.
-
Purcell says that seeking a stay is the wrong remedy, rather than seeking mandamus.
-
Then Clifton speaks for the entire audience that's listening by replying, "Why should we care"
-
Purcell and Clifton go back and forth for a bit on this procedural question and then Clifton says that this isn't important (lolol)
-
Purcell wants to move onto the merits. Regardless of procedural argument, they still think 9th should reject DOJ.
-
Purcell: EO itself caused irreparable harm to our state and its people.
-
Clifton: What's the harm to the state of Washington?
-
Softball, because I'm pretty sure Clifton was just ennumerating those harms in the last part
-
Friedland: If we don't agree with the parens patriae theory, are we limited in harms we can consider?
-
Purcell is doing a much better job but let's not be too hard on Flentje: how would YOU do on the phone defending a morally repulsive order?
- 52 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.