Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

markpkessinger

(8,935 posts)
Mon Feb 6, 2017, 03:56 PM Feb 2017

Oral argument in Washington v. Trump

(I cannot recommend this highly enough. This is the oral argument that took place in federal court in Seattle, in which the State of Washington sought a temporary restraining order on Trump's travel ban. Note that this is a CONSERVATIVE judge, appointed by George W. Bush. He listens fairly to the arguments of both sides, and he challenges the arguments of both sides, before rendering his decision in favor of the State of Washington, effectively blocking Trump's travel ban until the case can be heard on appeal and decided on its merits. This is a fine judge, who understands what the role of the courts is, and what its limitations are, and he rules accordingly.)

https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1436942129662862/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oral argument in Washington v. Trump (Original Post) markpkessinger Feb 2017 OP
That's my state pfitz59 Feb 2017 #1
So the govt attorney does not believe the judge should worry about whether flor-de-jasmim Feb 2017 #2
If I understand the U.S. attorney's argument correctly . . . markpkessinger Feb 2017 #3

flor-de-jasmim

(2,289 posts)
2. So the govt attorney does not believe the judge should worry about whether
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 11:24 AM
Feb 2017

the request is WHOLLY rational, it could just be partially rational? Reminds me of the old expression "good enough for government work". Sigh...

markpkessinger

(8,935 posts)
3. If I understand the U.S. attorney's argument correctly . . .
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 09:32 PM
Feb 2017

. . . it's even worse than that. The argument is that the courts have no right even to review the matter!

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Oral argument in Washingt...