Court Hears Arguments on Trump Travel Ban: Live Analysis

[riversedge]

Audio plus some analysis...........

linkis.com/ZEmPD


February 7, 2017




Live
Court Hears Arguments on Trump Travel Ban: Live Analysis



Last Updated Feb 7, 2017 at 6:40 pm ET

The Justice Department asked an appeals court to reverse a lower-court order barring travel-ban enforcement. The oral arguments are being heard. Washington State Solicitor General Noah G. Purcell is speaking now and being questioned by Judges William C. Canby Jr., Michelle Friedland and Richard Clifton.
SHARE

Updates
Highlights
1m

Washington State's Purcell: U.S. Hasn't Shown 'Irreparable Harm'
3m

A Telling Moment in Trump Administration Lawyer's Remarks
8m

Washington State Lawyer Purcell: Court Shouldn't Reinstate Chaos
10m

Flentje on Defense
13m

Judge: Does President Have Authority to Ban Muslims Outright?
18m

On Standing, Judge Clinton Cites States' Claims of Direct Harm
See only Highlights
1m
Highlights
Washington State's Purcell: U.S. Hasn't Shown 'Irreparable Harm'

Mr. Purcell argues the government hasn’t shown what problems will arise if the court doesn't immediately reinstate the executive order.

The government showed “no clear factual claim or evidentiary claims from what that irreparable harm would be,” he says. He is getting fewer questions from the panel than Mr. Flentje.

And many of those questions have been on more technical legal matters as opposed to the states' core claims for why the executive order should remain on hold.

Aruna Viswanatha, Brent Kendall

Highlights

3m
Analysis
A Telling Moment in Trump Administration Lawyer's Remarks

Looking back quickly, here's one telling moment from DOJ's argument time. Mr. Flentje at one point, scrambling near the end of his time, said, "I'm not sure I'm convincing the court."

Brent Kendall

Highlights

8m
Highlights
Washington State Lawyer Purcell: Court Shouldn't Reinstate Chaos

Washington state’s lawyer Noah Purcell starts his argument. He tells the court that granting the government’s request would throw the immigration system back into chaos.

“The court should decline that invitation,” he says.

Aruna Viswanatha

Highlights

10m
Highlights
Flentje on Defense

Mr. Flentje is clearly playing defense at this point. He falls back to some of the Justice Department's arguments that that trial judge's temporary restraining order is far too broad.

At the very least, the president's order should apply to people "who have never been to the United States," and don't have connections to the states, he says.

And with that, Mr. Flentje's presentation ends. He saves a few minutes for rebuttal at the end of the argument.

Brent Kendall

Highlights

13m
Highlights
Judge: Does President Have Authority to Ban Muslims Outright?

The justice department lawyer says the president's power to exclude aliens is virtually unlimited.

Judge Canby wants to see how far the Trump side will take that argument, asking Mr. Flentje a provocative question: Would the president have legal authority to impose an outright ban on Muslim entry?

"This is a far cry from that situation," Mr. Flentje replies.

Jacob Gershman, Brent Kendall

Highlights

18m
Highlights
On Standing, Judge Clinton Cites States' Claims of Direct Harm

Judge Clifton goes on to cite the states' claims that they are being directly harmed by the travel ban because students and faculty abroad are unable to return to state universities.

"In this case, the state of Washington is claiming its going to hurt the university... That sounds very much like the same kind of right that was asserted” in a previous case, he says.

Brent Kendall, Aruna Viswanatha

Highlights

18m
Highlights
Constant Interruptions of Government's Lawyer Flentje

Mr. Flentje, arguing for the government, is getting interrupted consistently by the judges, all of whom have questions about the breadth and scope of the underlying order. The judges are going after the executive order itself, not really so much the stay at this point.

Jacob Gershman

Highlights

19m
Highlights
Judges Push Back Against Claim States Have No Standing.

The Ninth Circuit judges push back against the claim that the states have no standing to challenge the order.

Judge Clifton, for example, points to several past court rulings that appear to support the states' ability to bring the lawsuit.

Brent Kendall

Highlights

18m
Who's Talking

For those of you just joining us, Justice Department lawyer August E. Flentje is facing questions from Judges William C. Canby Jr., Michelle Friedland and Richard Clifton. You can read more on the judges here.
Judge William C. Canby Jr. in his office in Phoenix in 2015.ROSS D. FRANKLIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Judge Richard R. Clifton at a 2011 judicial conference in CaliforniaCHARLIE NEUMAN/SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE/ZUMA PRESS
Judge Michelle Friedland, rightERIC RISBERG/ASSOCIATED PRESS

20m
Highlights
Friedland Asking Tough Questions of Trump Administration Lawyer

Judge Michelle Friedland is asking tough questions. She wants Trump administration on the record about whether it thinks the president has unlimited power to deny entry to aliens.

And she wants more specifics about the security calculations behind Trump's executive order.

"We're not acknowledging any review," is warranted, Justice Department lawyer August E. Flentje tells the panel.

Jacob Gershman

Highlights

23m
Highlights
DOJ Lawyer Moves On to Procedural Argument: States Have No Legal Standing

DOJ's Mr. Flentje moves on to procedural arguments, pressing the government's case that the states of Washington and Minnesota don't have legal standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the executive order on behalf of state residents....................

[yallerdawg]

1. CNN and MSNBC are transmitting the argument.

Fox News has talking heads telling us how court should rule (for you-know-who).

Which is FAKE NEWS?

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. The world is watching and judging us, this is ugly, terrible, what a fucking disgrace

we have to have this discussion.

[bdamomma]

3. so is it going our way

thanks for the analysis

[Laffy Kat]

6. It doesn't sound that way to me.

Sure hope you're right.

[Laffy Kat]

4. Listening but I'm dense.

Does anyone have a sense of how it's going?

[madaboutharry]

11. I see a 2-1 ruling in favor of Washington State.

Very typical for the Ninth Circuit.

At least that is what my crystal ball is telling me.

[Laffy Kat]

13. OK, thanks. nt

[grantcart]

5. Link?

[riversedge]

12. Here...

sorry--just realized I must have cut it out when I was editing some junk with it.



linkis.com/ZEmPD

[bdamomma]

7. didn't they

bring up the point how Muslims are excluded and Christians can come right in the country or is that another court hearing.

fucking trump.

[drray23]

8. from the questioning

it is pretty clear the judges are dubious about the argument the justice department is presenting on favor of the ban.
They shot down the claim that states had no standing, they keep asking probing questions to Mr. Flentje who mostly stutters and does not offer much of an explanation.
I would be shocked if they allowed the ban to be reinstated.

[riversedge]

9. Almost 100,000 people watching on the youtube channel alone. Kudos to the 9th Circuit for its commit

JOBoomr Retweeted
Bradley Girard ‏@BradleySGirard 32m32 minutes ago

Almost 100,000 people watching on the youtube channel alone. Kudos to the 9th Circuit for its commitment to access to justice.

[AJT]

10. Sadly BLOTUS has very broad authority to

ban, basically anyone from entering the country under the guise of national security without even having to prove there is a threat. Only American citizens are protected by the Constitution. To prove a state will be gravely hurt by the ban is going to very hard.

[IamFortunesFool]

14. Yep... we will likely win this stay but ultimately lose on constitutionality in front of the SCOTUS

Both sides have tedious arguments to make, and the hurried nature off all this makes the inherent weaknesses in both sides all te more apparent.

[AJT]

15. What are the Constitutional grounds on which

Orange Julius Caesar would lose?

[IamFortunesFool]

17. It would have to be an overreach of power argument

and that is going to be impossible to win in front of a conservative court..especially since he really is granted very sweeping power in this regard.

[bdamomma]

16. Court adjourned

now what they have to deliberate on this? Does it look good for repealing the ban?