i'm screaming
-
-
KATYAL: Absolutely.
-
That would be interesting.
-
Based on questioning, Paez fucking hates Donald Trump, Gould wants to split the baby, and Hawkins only hates Donald Trump a little bit
-
HAWKINS: Why shouldn't we be deferential to the office of the president on such issues?
-
KATYAL: The test is an objective observer, not what the president thinks. ... we're not trying to get into his head.
-
It would be a big upset if the 9th came back striking down the injunction, but this entire line of cases has been high drama from day 1
-
Katyal starts listing off amici who are appalled by the EO creating a disfavored category of people, "even the Cato Institute!"
-
Even. The. Cato. Institute.
-
HAWKINS: Have you read the brief in Flores? KATYAL: [grins] I've been busy. Laughter in court
-
KATYAL: We're not saying the president doesn't have emergency powers... of course he does.
-
Says the EO is not designed for emergencies—it's about visas—and that it's telling. And there's only been two exemptions under the EO so far
-
Hawkins asks if the EO created a "legislative gerrymander" that looked at where visa-holders had recently been, would that pass muster
-
Katyal says yes.
-
He says that what's wrong with the EO is that it blocks a Syrian passport-holder who's lived his whole life in Switzerland.
-
KATYAL: Obviously we don't think Mandel doesn't apply because of Washington v. Trump, but if for some reason you wanted to get into it
-
but if for some reason indeed, neal katyal
-
Katyal runs quickly through a bunch of post-inauguration statements, "All of those things I said are sufficient"
-
Katyal says the president doesn't get any more deference than a consular official when it comes to creating a disfavored religion
-
Gould is now asking about the WHC / DHS letters that gave support to the order
-
Does this mean they have to find bad faith in the WH Counsel's office?
-
[but there was a DHS report that undermined the president?]
-
Katyal says that even if there was a natsec motivation among the cabinet secretaries, doesn't obviate how the president promulgated it
-
KATYAL: If you rule for us you preserve intact the president's power and preserve the status quo.
-
Says that if they rule for Wall, they will open the door to expanding presidential power in a way history says is dangerous.
-
Katyal says that what bind the country together is "the majestic Article III and the contours of the 1st Amendment" and closes out his side.
-
[Article III concerns the judiciary, his closing statement is a subtweet of Trump's attacks on judges, particularly the 9th circuit]
-
Wall has time reserved, and the panel is going to give him a bit more because Katyal went over time.
-
Wall says that the previous 9th is not a square holding on the applicability of Mandel
-
This, I would agree with? The previous 9th decision is procedurally very awkward.
-
WALL: Whatever this court says will govern the president's exercise of that power [under 1152] for generations to come.
- 19 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.