When you start by accepting the initial lie, they’ve got you. It’s NOT a “travel ban”.
It is a PROTECTION FROM INVASION (illegal immigration and enemy immigration is “invasion”).
I read it but maybe I am stupid or mentally allergic to legal mumbo jumbo; it sounded like the law firm which did work for Trump couldn’t do work in this regard; so how does that jibe with the misleading article title?
Your case is only as good as the lawyer you have.
Gotta defend a friend here. I play hockey with Augie, and he is a damn fine fellow. Sounds to me like he was put in a bad situation, but what do I know.
He certainly didn’t SEEM competent.
I mean the language could not be clearer.
That EO was going to fail on the basis of of excluding those who had a legal right to be in the United States and also forgot to address those who have been helpful to United States interests and the work they performed.
This one should be clean and fix those issues.
At oral argument, the government was represented by career lawyer August Flentje. As Paul Mirengoff at Powerline says, Flentje “did not argue effectively” -- an understatement, according to my sources.
But why was Flentje arguing the case in the first place instead of Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco, an exceptional lawyer who has argued numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and who filed an outstanding brief in the case?
Because on the day before oral argument, Francisco recused himself from the case.
When will TRUMP FIRE all Obama a]ointees?
IF those lawyers are highly ethical how many have filed a complaint to have Him disbarred?
IF those lawyers are highly ethical how many have filed a complaint to have him disbarred?
August is a LOSER ATTORNEY!
Does a bear_______ in the woods?
Would a Clinton lie?
Very odd indeed.
Jones Day would never make this kind of mistake unless there is more than meets the eye.
Could there have been some reason the administration did not want its most vigorous defense in the initial skirmish?
Could they have wanted to draw the opposition offside in preparation for a much more encompassing order around the corner?
I guess it boils down to whether the government under President Trump is not the same as private citizen Trump.
I guess it boils down to whether the government under President Trump is not the same as private citizen Trump.