HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Oral argument in Washingt...

Mon Feb 6, 2017, 03:56 PM

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, 1109 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Oral argument in Washington v. Trump (Original post)
markpkessinger Feb 2017 OP
pfitz59 Feb 2017 #1
flor-de-jasmim Feb 2017 #2
markpkessinger Feb 2017 #3

Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 02:46 AM

1. That's my state

The OTHER Washington!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 11:24 AM

2. So the govt attorney does not believe the judge should worry about whether

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flor-de-jasmim (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 8, 2017, 09:32 PM

3. If I understand the U.S. attorney's argument correctly . . .

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread