I have been listening a little to the 9th Appeals Court Hearings for the travel ban. And the Washington State attorney sounded really lame. Now I am listening to the attorney for D.C. He sounds much more sure of himself even though the judges are grilling him relentlessly.

This is quite interesting.

Wow, they gave the state of Washington a minimum of 3 to 4 times as much time to state their position and questioned the state quite a bit. The attorney stumbled a lot and tried to convince the judges not to judge on constitutionality.

They questioned the attorney for D.C. pretty good as well. But no where near as much or as long.

We'll see what the outcome is.

Wow, they gave the state of Washington a minimum of 3 to 4 times as much time to state their position and questioned the state quite a bit. The attorney stumbled a lot and tried to convince the judges not to judge on constitutionality.

They questioned the attorney for D.C. pretty good as well. But no where near as much or as long.

We'll see what the outcome is.

how come DC is at the 9th circuit?

how come DC is at the 9th circuit?

D.C. is defending Trumps executive order. It is Washington state against Washington D.C.

D.C. is defending Trumps executive order. It is Washington state against Washington D.C.

ooh, cool
rap battle!

tried to convince the judges not to judge on constitutionality.

if they are not judging on constitutionality, what are they judging on?
feelings and participation awards?

if they are not judging on constitutionality, what are they judging on?
feelings and participation awards?

Sorry Mac I can't remember the term the lawyer used. The D.C. lawyer was all about constitutionality.