It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7 Oral arguments to the 9th circuit

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   


The arguments were live streamed so here is the recording. Each side gets 30 minutes to argue their case and to answer questions posed by the 3 judge panel. The federal government goes first followed by the solicitor general of the state of Washington, speaking on behalf of all parties to the lawsuit.

As a person speaks you will see their name in the upper left corner of the screen.

Judge Canby and Judge Friedland were appointed by democrats.
Judge Clifton was appointed by a Republican.

The livestream was audio only but since there has been a lot of interest I thought I would post it in its own thread.

In my opinion the federal government did a better job making and supporting their argument than the state solicitor general.

These are just the oral arguments. The 9th circuit stated they will issue a ruling as soon as possible.

The fundamental argument is to stay the ruling by judge Robart under the premise his order was to broad and exceeded the claims made by the state. The foundation for the state of washington centered on lawful aliens inside the US being denied due process. Judge Robart's order went beyond the lawful aliens, affecting everyone in the order (improperly).

The Federal government wants the order removed OR at the very least restricted to lawful aliens only.
edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't think good argument will have anything to do with the decision.

Could be wrong, but I think the decision will be based on the ideology of the judges.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I just made a thread about this in the mudpit.

They actually went back to what was said on the campaign trail to 'prove' their case!

If that TRO doesn't get lifted.

That's some next level bullsnip.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

and when the judge challenged the solicitor general on how many people were affected from just 7 countries as opposed to the world wide total I saw their case go down the drain.

You cant argue a ban when 1.2 billion arent affected.

I also dont think the judges bought the establishment clause violation either.
edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

YouTube link shows "removed by user."

I wasn't able to hear the arguments, but I certainly would like to. If it went as I expected, Trump's team's arguments made the other side look silly.

neo96: Mud-Pit thread? Nah, thanks, I prefer reasoned debate to childishness. Maybe later.

TheRedneck



edit on 2/7/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That is called animus and valid in court



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I a mobile now and can't embed.. but here is a link

Actually the link I found doesn't work...real clear politics has a replay
edit on 7-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96

That is called animus and valid in court


Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.

The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

link fixed.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96

That is called animus and valid in court


Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.

The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.



Trump as Potus said christians would be given preference...Giuliani said the aim was to make a Muslim ban legally defensible..and yes candidate trumps words are admissible as well.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't think good argument will have anything to do with the decision.

Could be wrong, but I think the decision will be based on the ideology of the judges.


I have a feeling that might happen too because isn't this the one that is taking place on San Francisco?

But then they know full well that this is going to the supreme court no matter what their decision so they may choose to not look so stupid if they rule against Trump knowing the supreme court is going to do the opposite.

Here is to all the liberals that said this little tidbit would be tied up in the courts for longer than Trump would be in office! Haha



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Well it comes down to interruption of the ban and that is what the judges wanted to do due to pressure by those behind the cases.

But if the 9 circuit stands by definition of the law the ban will stand, with emphasis as to respect those that already were accepted in the country prior to travel, like those with existing visas and green cards.

But if the 9 circuit wants to play around this will end up in the supreme court as a constitutional crisis of definition of law.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Interesting.



If you CTRL+F this document, you won’t find the words “Christian” or “Muslim.”


www.npr.org...



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yes I am afraid that democrats have no regards for the safety of the nation and those that are voters and tax payers.

More crap on their backs, still the issuing of new visas and green cards can be made very difficult until the case is resolved.

And as for refugees that can be made soo slow that we may no see many within the end of the year or when Obama quota ends.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96

That is called animus and valid in court


Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.

The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.



Trump as Potus said christians would be given preference...Giuliani said the aim was to make a Muslim ban legally defensible..and yes candidate trumps words are admissible as well.


Giulianis quote was edited and morning joe of MSNBC called out the people who do that.



As for candidate Trump and what he said actually they arent according to Judge Robart.
edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If is not in writing It doesn't mean a thing.

The EO have not references to religious ban neither to preferences to Christians.


edit on 7-2-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

It will end up at Scotus regardless considering the side that loses will surely appeal.

If the 9th circuit relies on law they TRO will be thrown out OR restricted to the core of Washington States case, applying only to lawful resident aliens with green cards already in the US.
edit on 7-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes that is how I see it, because after all the ones behind the restrictions of the ban wants this to be dragged in the supreme court indefinitely.

But is many other ways to put a halt to the issuing of visas and green cards and also the refugees coming in.

So it may backfired.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Indigo5

If is not in writing It doesn't mean a darn thing.

The EO have not references to religious ban neither to preferences to Christians.





When it comes to law it's literally to the letter.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Indigo5

If is not in writing It doesn't mean a darn thing.

The EO have not references to religious ban neither to preferences to Christians.



If the plan is to flame me for simply telling you what is legally admissible in court??
Wow..
I'll leave the right wing angry nuts to it...

Let the judges rule on it..

Sucks when ATS has become this..

Later folks..



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join