Replies

I believe Jay Sekulow is the brilliant mind behind this. Here he is on Fox:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52LCXhPqOtU

His third point about merging the incomplete EO with the Directive outlining exemptions and reissuing the EO for relitigation is I think brilliant legally, but I have not thought through yet the optics of it.

The 9th zeroed in on the incompleteness of the EO and ignored the Directive even though the Directive was included in the brief.

Both the EO and Directive cover everything. But the 9th ignored the Directive and attacked the EO.

That’s like reviewing a trial of a woman charged with violently wielding a gun while ignoring the fact that she was defending her young children from an attacker.

It’s like handing the IRS two statements of financials, one of income and the other of expenses, and the auditor reviews the income statement and ignores the expense statement. It’s better to have income and expenses on the same page.

Sekulow brilliantly in my view lays out a simple plan to reissue the EO with the Directive exemptions merged into it and let Washington State refile its lawsuit on the new EO.

Sekulow goes on to say that the 9th may again do their notorious song and dance to support the ‘Ban-the-Ban’ but the new EO will ensure SCOTUS shoots it down without any valid argument to not shoot it down.

I heard a law radio show today that addressed this. They said that the directive was written by an advisor who didn’t carry the authority to have the directive have the same weight as the EO. In other words, it could be ignored. Still doesn’t make the 9th circus right but President Trump will do what he has to.