This has to have been the most fascinating hour of my life spent on legal matters since the Clarence Thomas hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee so many years ago. The U.S. Attorney Flentje seemed not particularly well prepared when compared to WA state attorney Purcell — Flentje kept insinuating that the court did not really have standing (ETA: ‘jurisdiction’) to rule, but Purcell responded with both claims to standing and the actual merits.. The 3 judges asked fascinating questions. I kept waiting for someone to mention the elephant in the room — that Trump actually said the US was going to give priority to Christians — but no one did. They alluded to it indirectly (as “newspaper accounts,” and “allegations”).
I hope the Appellate Court upholds Judge Robarts’ Temporary Restraining Order and sends the case back to his court for next week’s hearing on a Preliminary Injunction. I’m not a lawyer, but I found I was able to follow all the non-jargony stuff pretty well. Next on my list: learning what “Mandamus” means :)
I would definitely encourage everyone to give this a listen if and when you can. If only the fate of the republic didn’t hang in the balance.
Edited to add: I read the NY Times liveblog this morning and it gives a pretty good birds-eye view:
Live Analysis: Oral Arguments on Trump’s Immigration Order nyti.ms/...