Court throw shade on White House counsel, says there's no evidence that counsel is empowered to supersede the EO with clarifying instructionpic.twitter.com/0pg63dxg8J
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
And they go for it. Says government can't show any aliens from the named countries have perpetrated terrorist attacks in the US 
Acknowledges that the 7 countries were named by Congress as countries of concern but says that doesn't justify "urgent need" to stay the TROpic.twitter.com/TBAZHohn4e
National security on the one hand. On the other hand, free flow of travel, separation of families, freedom from discrimination.
pic.twitter.com/mte7oYBAMP
Throwing in freedom from discrimination last is a really beautiful touch 
In conclusion, Trump lost today in court, is he tweeting yetpic.twitter.com/T29P9m64mv
This is why I don't think this case is going to stop anytime soon. WA is in it for the long haul and our president is a beet red baby
In a sane world, the president would look into the horizon, take the L, rescind the EO, and try to move on (maybe a new EO).
There would still be lawsuits but you could mess around a lot just by strategically retreating
But in a sane world, the EO would have never been drafted haha
ha ha ha ha haha
Commentators really need to start having some perspective. This isn't three-dimensional chess, he's an idiot and the WH is in disarray.
The president isn't acting like a president, he's acting like a pro se plaintiff
There's no point in questioning what deep game is being played by WH counsel or DOJ, either. It's clearly just an avoidant shitshow
What do you do when you can't fire your client, but also your client is Donald Trump? You get the behavior you're getting now.
It's a complete mess over there. But guess what? The State of Washington etc still has to stay on its toes.
The executive power and national security exceptionalism that was built up during the Bush and Obama years is on Donald Trump's side.
Who could have guessed that that was a bad idea? Who indeed?
Don't
sell
out
your
civil
liberties
just
because
your
current
president
is
sane 
Back to the decision, I'm still mulling over what it means that the court didn't explicitly specify constitutional standard of review
Avoiding the really big question, I guess, in a Kennedyesque way, and figuring they can get away with it because it's a TRO review
I don't know if they can get away with it, I'm looking forward to reading the takes by con law profs. Will link as I read them.
My guess is that opinion was authored by Judge Michelle Friedland. Consensus so far agrees w/ me that per curiam designation is interesting.
If Friedland (Obama appointee) did author the opinion, then Canby (Carter) and Clifton (Bush)-- are giving her cover.
Both Canby and Clifton are senior judges, and seemed more conservative than Friedland in oral arguments
I've had people suggest to me that the per curiam opinion is really a 2-1, but since there's no dissent, can that really be the case?
Ultimately Clifton has chosen to give this one his stamp of approval
This wasn't really an ultra-liberal panel, and the district court judge wasn't a liberal judge either.
9th Circuit is certainly known for skewing more liberal than the rest of the country, but citing that here is a pretty shallow analysis
District court judge in Washington is a Bush appointee. 9th Cir's Clifton is a Bush appointee. Canby is Carter, but sits in Arizona.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.