I've never seen a standing argument go so badly for the government
-
-
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?
-
Purcell now responding to the contention that they have to limit injunction to how it affects "long-time residents" of WA etc
-
Canby asks Purcell about being confined to the four corners of the instrument (have to review EO just on its face)
-
I'm not following the gist of Purcell's argument but this isn't really the kind of law I know a lot about
-
Purcell: We are at the pleading stage. Allegations to be treated as true
-
Clifton: Why should the temporary restraining order reach beyond LPRs? Purcell: wouldn't remedy the Establishment clause violation
-
Purcell: also Equal Protection, relies on discriminatory animus, prevents ppl from visits from friends and family
-
Purcell: violates rights of people overseas, who do have rights
-
Purcell: Defendants (the US, hah) have not credibly described how to address concerns
-
Friedland asks if they should apply Lemon or Larson (the Establishment Clause tests)
-
Purcell says Larson
-
But says they also would prevail under Lemon test, and that they did not have space to brief the court on it
-
Yes, it's called the Lemon test, and it's very important, don't laugh
-
Purcell acknowledges that if they use the Larson test, they don't have to reach the equal protection claim
-
"rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims, considering we haven't had discovery yet," says Purcell
-
Clifton: Do you deny that there is concern about people coming from those countries... bc those are a concern from a terrorist perspective?
-
Clifton is not woke
-
Clifton asks for evidence of animus. Purcell: Well for one, the president called for a complete ban on the entry of Muslims.
-
Clifton: Is that this ban? Purcell: No— It's just evidence of the motivation
-
Clifton: Do I just have to believe you? Purcell flails a little here, Friedland assists with "You've filed exhibits, haven't you?"
-
Clifton: Don't tell us you need more time, you're the one who asked for the TRO. ????!?!
-
Clifton: I don't think allegations cut it at this stage.
- 31 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.