Watch
Posted on 08/27/2019 10:23:58 AM PDT by BurgessKoch
On in court room right now @prageru’s case against @Google. Full house packed with supporters ... America is tired of big tech censorship!
Google attorney says “only handful” of PragerU videos restricted.... over 200 videos is a handful?
Google’s attorney is up. Says YouTube is not discriminating against @prageru. Judge Bybee says, “If that’s your opening line you’re inviting us to make that judgment.”
Context: In the Ninth Circuit today, @prageru is challenging a federal judge’s dismissal of its First Amendment lawsuit against Google (YouTube), claiming it restricted access to its videos as a “political gag mechanism” against conservative content.
They’ve completed their session.
Have they completed the arguments or are they just taking a break?
.
They have completed their arguments I believe ... but one can go back and watch the proceedings via the link ... it’s towards the end of the session.
And now we find out if the 9th (and Google) wants to risk this going to the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court which might be minus Justice Ginsburg soon.
I think most of the arguments are submitted in writing, including all the pertinent case law precedent. These hearings give the court to ask questions and hear from the parties verbally. IIRC even USSC hearings only go 2 hours max.
The 9th has several new Trump appointees on it - looked like this was a 3 judge panel so I don’t know the ideological make-up. That said, the 9th still has/had a few old school liberals who look down at censorship.
Man... I hope that first guy is not representing Prager U. He is almost inarticulate and very poor representation because of it.
Judge M. Margaret McKeown was appointed by Clinton. Judges Jay S. Bybee and Fernando Gaitan, Jr. were appointed by Bush. Keep in mind that judges appointed by Bush were subject to the “pink slip” system, that is, Dem Senators could veto their appointment. Hence, they are probably liberal judges, especially if Feinstein and Boxer approved them.
Thank you. A case to be watched.
I had the same response to him. His rebuttal was stronger than his main presentation .... both were very weak IMO.
When orating a sales pitch there is a rhythm and flow that makes the point and impact of that point. That was just a broken up mess with too many self interruptions that degraded his whole argument and made no sense, almost cryptic as a result.
Sounds like he may have been a stutterer when he was young and he learned to insert “Um” repeatedly to prevent the stutter. But this was just as bad or worse, just about three Ums to every one legible word in ratio. Far too much and it removed the seriousness of the statements he was making. He steps on his own feet in delivery.
Good attorney or not, that inability to articulate a sales pitch would have had me looking for someone else to represent me. What good are skills if you can’t cleanly clearly communicate and deliver those skills.
He laments a popularly elected Senate and the harm it has done to America. He supports repeal of the 17th Amendment, followed by state power to recall senators.
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1365&context=facpub
Thank you for stating so well what I was thinking.
For reference, the firm representing PragerU is Brown George Ross. Former CA Governor Pete Wilson was a part of the team in court today but from what I could tell Peter Ross was the lead attorney representing PragerU today. His bio can be found here: http://www.bgrfirm.com/attorneys/peter-ross/
Thank you for the link!
It’s 5 pm EST are they taking a break right now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.