Live Blog: Justice Department as Oxymoron

cartoons-twitter_759I’m going to be listening into the Oral arguments made by the Justice (sic) Department appealing the stay on the Immigration Ban.  Right now, Federal judges are hearing arguments about restoring Trump’s immigration and refugee executive order. Twenty-six Judges have now called the Ban unconstitutional.

We have the live audio stream here. There are other places to listen also.

A panel of three randomly selected federal judges will hear arguments from lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota and the Department of Justice. The arguments will be heard over telephone, so the livestream is audio-only. Each side will have 30 minutes to make its case.

 

herocartoons

This case will undoubtedly land on the desk of SCOTUS and this is the first step.

The judges are expected to then rule on the future of the executive order, although the ruling was not expected tonight. While their decision won’t determine the constitutionality of Trump’s immigration ban, it will determine whether a restraining order against Trump’s action, put in place by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, will remain.

The two states have argued that Trump’s order was likely to cause “irreparable harm” to businesses, schools, family relations and state residents’ freedom to travel and is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion. The Justice Department said the travel restrictions are a matter of national security and the administration was excluding people from countries with ties to terrorism, not people of a certain religion.

Today, Trump suggested that the legal battle between the two states and the Justice Department could make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

“We’re going to take it through the system,” said Trump. “It’s very important for the country, regardless of me or whoever succeeds at a later date.”

On Capitol Hill today, Secretary of >Homeland Security John Kelly defended the immigration executive order, calling it “lawful and constitutional.”

Only a week old, the order has sparked protests and outcry across the country. The legal community has been grappling with the order, some travelers have been delayed, and others are wondering if they will be allowed previously approved entry into the United States.

Martin Sutovec / Slovakia

Martin Sutovec / Slovakia

Currently, the Judge is asking if there’s any evidence that the seven countries on the list posed the greatest risk of threat or history of threat.  So far, the judges are skeptical about the proof or rationale. Clifton and Friedland have asked questions so far in the first 1/2 hour of the case provided by the Department of Justice (sic).  Right now they’re asking for the number of Federal Offenses committed by people coming in from these countries.

Judges William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee, Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee, will hear the government’s stay motion and are expected to render a decision by the end of the week.

Canby and Friedland joined to initially deny the government’s request for an immediate stay of the lower court ruling by Judge James Robart, who issued a nationwide hold on President Trump’s travel moratorium. Robart was an appointee of President George W. Bush and ruled in favor of the state of Washington’s challenge to the executive order, which was joined by Minnesota.

The states filed a brief early Monday challenging the ban, and the three-judge panel asked the federal government to reply by 3 p.m. Monday.

A ruling could come any time after that, although likely within a week, experts told the Los Angeles Times.

Of the three judges, Clifton is considered moderately conservative, while the two Democrat-appointed judges are seen as moderately liberal. The 9th Circuit is known as the most liberal federal appeals court, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Clifton, 66, received headlines a decade ago when he was a judge on the panel that upheld the imprisonment of journalist Josh Wolf. In 2006, Wolf refused to turn over videotapes of San Francisco demonstrations.

Friedland, 46, was born in Berkeley and graduated from Stanford as an undergraduate and from its law school. Before becoming a judge, she represented numerous corporate clients, as well as the University of California in constitutional cases. She lives in Mountain View.

Canby Jr., 85, is known as an expert in American Indian law. He garnered headlines in 2001 when he wrote the unanimous decision requiring the Professional Golfers Association to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin the right to use a golf cart when competing, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s just an hour so join us!!!

 

Advertisements

37 Comments on “Live Blog: Justice Department as Oxymoron”

  1. dakinikat says:

    wow, The JD is really screwing this up.

  2. bostonboomer says:

    They refuse to provide any evidence that the order reflects a real need for further restrictions on people from these countries. The lawyer is making circular arguments and he claims they can’t produce evidence because “the proceedings have been moving very fast.”

    • ANonOMouse says:

      The proof should have been there before the EO ban, IF the ban is truly motivated by National security.

      • Fannie says:

        Based on the facts, like the judge presented today, NO, the are not motivated by National Security.

    • Fannie says:

      You mean fast as in a speeding bullet? Or leaping tall buildings, like the Trump Tower? Or like the elevator in Trump tower hitting the basement?

      Those damn corporate lawyers try to tie things up in court for friggin’ years, and that’s how they win.

  3. dakinikat says:

    These judges are really asking tough questions. This is really interesting.

  4. dakinikat says:

  5. Earlynerd says:

    Dang, I didn’t realize you would be live blogging this.

    Can I just post my favorite line from this whole thing? On the question of intent, which -does- bring in statements which would otherwise not be considered, and which -is- very relevant to discrimination based on religion, the Washington State’s attorney said:

    “It’s remarkable to have this much evidence of intent without any discovery”

    IOW, that flapping mouth was just putting this stuff out in public starting with the campaign and continuing right along, yer honor.

    As Dak said, the judges were asking tough questions and I have no idea how this will go, but I really appreciate your posting several ways to listen to this. One of them worked for me.

      • Earlynerd says:

        Thanks! Although the question was along the lines of “Can I just interrupt?” “Ya just did!”

        • bostonboomer says:

          I actually posted a link in the morning reads, but maybe I didn’t emphasize it enough.

          • Earlynerd says:

            Should have said “Y’all”.

            I started trying to use my pre-bookmarked link around 6pm (late as usual), then when that wouldn’t work, remembered BB had posted one, then saw the live blogging post once I got here, and jumped on that.

            Does anyone know how many people listened in? I hope it was a huuuuuge audience.

          • bostonboomer says:

            I heard that it was heavily watched. They ran it on TV too.

          • Earlynerd says:

            Just caught Laurence O’Donnell on TV in the rec. room (If it weren’t for you brave bloggers, I wouldn’t have know to catch that one show on MSNBS – just can’t stand to watch any of the cable stations)

            The 1st segment was going over the hearing with Washington State’s attorney and didn’t seem favorable at all to tRump. Good to see this is generating so much interest and of the right kind.

  6. dakinikat says:

    9th Circuit Court of Appeals says it will rule soon on whether to restore Trump’s travel ban

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-travel-ban-2017-htmlstory.html

    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges sharply questioned lawyers from the Department of Justice and Washington state over a moratorium on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim counties. Now, they’ve taken the case under submission. Stay tuned for further analysis.

    Trump’s words on Muslims come to bite back him
    Judges ask about limiting parts of the travel ban, rather than blocking it entirely
    Meet the three judges deciding whether to reinstate Trump’s travel ban
    Read Trump’s executive order and legal filings for and against the executive order

  7. dakinikat says:

    Evidently, there was a massive audience listening to this!!

  8. dakinikat says:

  9. Earlynerd says:

    Somewhat germane – besides, I just couldn’t resist posting it:

    Talked to a Trump voter dismayed about protests. He said: "I wish the admin would stop being so stupid and reckless so protests would stop."— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) February 5, 2017

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  10. Fannie says:

    PBS has a special program series, starting with Timothy McVeigh……..Oklahoma Bombing, tonight, and then on to Ruby Ridge.

    These are the white days of the future passed………..

  11. Minkoff Minx says:

    Well, not sure if this is for serious. But I just sent this to Spicers cell phone

  12. Earlynerd says:

    Stupid and reckless is fine, it’s those danged protests…

    • Earlynerd says:

      Welp, WP hates me and the feeling is mutual. That was supposed to be a reply to Luna at 11:53. Now lets see where WP puts this one.

  13. NW Luna says:

  14. NW Luna says:

    “She Persisted!” is added to the slogans of the Resistance.