Luv2StandingAnalysis
-
-
A judge calls him out for changing his answer.
-
Wall is a great oralist and sounds very sure of himself but honestly he's not being very logically consistent.
-
DOJ seems to now be taking the position that Mandel is actually rational basis review
-
That doesn't seem right to me, doesn't seem to be how he's describing Mandel anyways
-
Wall: In text and operation it does not seem to operate on the basis of religion
-
Wall emphasizing coequal status of executive branch, gets flowery about how he was elected, sworn into office, etc
-
Judge: That doesn't give him the right to violate the Establishment Clause.
-
Judge: Has the president ever repudiated what he's said about the Muslim ban? Wall: He has.
-
Judges now chiming in saying he's changed what he's said but never repudiated. Judge: It's still on his website!
-
*Ron Howard voice*: It was not still on his website.
-
(Wall does not appear to know that the statement has been deleted off the website)
-
We'll get more clarity into how the en banc panel is feeling about the case when the plaintiffs argue, but right now they seem quite hostile
-
(Quite hostile to the government, I mean.)
-
Oddly getting bogged down in whether nationals of 7 countries would be detrimental to nat sec of US under 1182(f)
-
Wall definitely trying to push that it's all campaign statements but that's not true and the judges don't seem to be buying it.
-
Wall says that when the president signed the EO, read the title "Preventing Terrorist Entry in the US" and said "We all know what the means"
-
... that the courts can interpret that as meaning that it was a Muslim ban, because they are obliged to give him the most generous reading
-
Judge: "What do you mean by neutral in operation. Obviously this order has a disparate impact on Muslims."
-
Judge apologizes for derailing, but then says, "But I literally don't know what you mean."
-
I can't tell if this is kind of brutal or if I just haven't listened to an oral argument in a while? Definitely not as brutal as the 9th
-
But the 9th was extra brutal because the DOJ lawyer was unprepared
-
Has anyone else who's listening along heard a judge ask a question that seems favorably disposed to the government?
-
Obvs it will become clearer during the plaintiffs' turn
-
Judge: So if the president says every day for a year, "I intend to ban Muslims, they are bad people," and the first day in office he does it
-
... we can't take into account his campaign statements? Is that what you're saying?
-
Yeesh.
-
Plaintiff counsel now beginning.
-
Ok we're starting off with standing, which is actually kind of interesting but pales in comparison to the question of the animus and Mandel
-
Currently figuring out which of the plaintiffs has standing to challenge which parts of the EO
-
Counsel for plaintiffs is a much less skilled oralist, but we're starting off pretty soft and slow.
- 29 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.