Posted on 2/7/2017, 10:33:14 PM by TigerClaws
Watch live: 17-35105 State of Washington v. Trump 3:00 PM 2/7
Xorrection: 2 to 1 to keep most of the *atay*.
That’s ridiculous. So essentially, a plaintiff can invalidate a first-rate US attorney by hiring counsel who has ties to a former employer of the AAG?
Remember these judges’ names and info
“Behead them in their own homes”: Pennsylvania Muslim’s assassination list of US military personnel
http://pamelageller.com/2017/02/pa-muslim-behead-us-military-soldiers.html/
8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens as a starting point for you.
If you think she would be swayed by a better prepared attorney, I have a bridge to sell you. I agree he wasn’t strong enough, BUT then again he wouldn’t benefit by lecturing that court. He knew who he was dealing with, perhaps a good strategy.
Rather striking, but apparently that’s the practise.
In the Liberals cross eyed mystical world it depends what the word is is ... you and I read the constitution exactly the way it was intended to be read by our founding fathers but the Liberals for some reason( logic and sensible thinking do not exist in their pea sized brain) take it out of content flip it around and toss it in the air and shake it all about and say it’s unconstitutional!!
The law is so clear on this that I see no way this court can rule againt the president and not obviously be making a purely political decision.
Any appeal for stay goes to Kennedy who oversees this appeals court. I don’t see how he could deny a stay to Trump until this is heard by scotus.
Did the judges give any indication on when a ruling might come?
None I know of.
Rather striking, but ...
“It’s standard practice for lawyers who join a new administration to distance themselves from any matter that involves their law firms.”
I suddenly remembered what I heard at today’s White House meeting with law enforcement. The Acting Attorney General selected today’s lawyer, and referred to him as a career employee of the Justice Department.
Sabotage?>>> maybe but trump doesn’t have an AG or his own staff yet.
This is easily demonstrated by asking a leftist why they claim something is not constitutional. They will give moral arguments with perverse monomaniacal exaggeration of egalitarianism at the expense of all other virtues, but will invariably never cite anything from the constitution.
More sadly, if you actually do cite the constitution in your own argument they will denounce it as an outdated document written by slave owners.
Essentially they hold the constitution to be "unconstitutional".
either 3-0 or 2-1 continue the stay.
Heard it would be tomorrow.
Hope you are wrong. If the Patriots can come back.....
They said they recognize the need for a quick decision. Despite the fact that they don’t have an actual harmed citzen from Washington nor the power to make a ruling on a nationwide basis.
I suspect you are right, they will maintain the stay. Just because they don’t want to really make a decision. Full 9th or USSC. Really sad what our judiciary has become.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.