An Unusual Sunday Filing, In The Fourth Circuit…

Update: argument underway. 45’s lawyer (Mr. Wall) being hammered — right out of the box. He’s doing an admirable job, with what are terrible facts.

LATER UPDATE @ 2 PM CDT: If I am hearing the competing voices clearly enough — I’ve heard at least seven voices that are VERY skeptical of 45’s claims here — and there are only 13 jurists on the en banc panel. I think Mr. Trump’s chances are evaporating — we may see unity in both Circuits — finding against the Muslim Ban. The rest of my updates will appear in the comment box below, as the plaintiffs lawyers get underway. End updated portion.

Overnight, the plaintiffs in the Muslim Ban 2.0 case (appeal set to be heard this afternoon) replied in an appropriately tart fashion (a four page PDF file) — to the Trump Administration’s earlier suggestion that it may “re-write the executive order” — simply by saying that one date, set certain by the order. . . means. . . a different date.

This is endemic of 45’s arguments on matters constitutional. He seems to think that he can simply make words mean something other than what they mean (a la “alternate facts“). Do go read it all, and I will post something later today, based on how the argument streams out.

And the list of able jurists, hearing argument today, En Banc: Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory; Judge Paul V. Niemeyer; Judge Diana Gribbon Motz; Judge William B. Traxler, Jr.; Judge Robert B. King; Judge Dennis W. Shedd; Judge G. Steven Agee; Judge Barbara Milano Keenan; Judge James A. Wynn, Jr.; Judge Albert Diaz; Judge Henry F. Floyd; Judge Stephanie D. Thacker; and Judge Pamela A. Harris.

Be well.

Be American.

Tell everyone you meet today, that the life sciences industry, in America (along with all other sciences, truth told) would be largely. . . non-existent, without our policies of pluralism.

To quote Lin-Manuel: “. . .Immigrants: they get the job done!”

नमस्ते

Advertisements

One Response

  1. Anonymous said…

    Thoughts on this?

    MAY 8, 2017 AT 2:04 PM
    condor said…
    More evidence that the Trump Administration is facing very long odds, on current US constitutional case law, here — so it reaches back to discredited law.

    Mr. Wall (for 45) is being peppered by the en banc panel. He didn’t get one sentence out, before the jurists were down his throat, with hostile questioning.

    Hilarious — he has about 20 minutes of his allotted 30 left to go.

    Great find, Anon.!

    MAY 8, 2017 AT 2:39 PM
    condor said…
    LATER UPDATE: If I am hearing the voices clearly enough — I’ve heard at least seven voices that are VERY skeptical of 45’s claims here — and there are only 13 jurists on the en banc panel. I think Mr. Trump’s chances are evaporating — we may see unity in both Circuits — finding against the Muslim Ban.

    This Fourth Circuit appeal may end up going against Trump — and I am virtually certain the Ninth will, too.

    Of course, Mr. Trump may still seek review by the Supremes (even if both Circuits hold against him), but I’d say his Muslim Ban is nearly dead — as of 3 PM Eastern; 2 PM Chicago time.

    MAY 8, 2017 AT 3:01 PM
    condor said…
    The panel is letting Mr. Wall run much longer than his allotted time — due to the various able jurists forcefully beating back his mantra that “courts aren’t allowed to review executive action, on national security.”

    He hasn’t been able to answer any question that aims at the President’s actual intent in signing the executive orders.

    Under Lemon, that will be. . . fatal.

    And now, the Fourth Circuit (Judge Davis, I believe) is asking how it comports with the Johnson era amendments (we’ve discussed previously) — those of 1965 — it plainly does not.

    It’s. . . toast. [Condor predicts, of course.]

    Namaste

    MAY 8, 2017 AT 3:11 PM
    condor said…
    The plaintiffs are underway now — and I’ve heard at least three distinct voices that are skeptical of the claims. SO — as of now, I have it 7-3 in favor of enjoining Muslim Ban 2.0.

    That leaves three voices I cannot identify, or three who haven’t asked questions.

    Even if all three are pro Trump Administration votes, the case is likely to come out 7-6 AGAINST Mr. Trump.

    We shall see.

    Soon it will be on to the Ninth, next Monday — then likely on to the Supremes, in all likelihood.

    Again, I predict there are 5 (and maybe 6) solid votes in the US Supreme Court — to strike 45’s executive order permanently.

    Onward.

    Namaste. . .

    MAY 8, 2017 AT 3:33 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: