Trump followed established, clear cut law in his EO. I hope you’re not saying he needs lawyers who are good at making law to fight other lawyers good at making law. Isn’t that the problem? Lawyers who think their job is to make laws? Maybe I misunderstood you.
I did not intend to imply that there was anything wrong with the EO or with implementation of it. The problem was in failure to anticipate the opposition it would encounter and properly prepare to deal with it. I concede that circumstances may have required that they not wait for their own team to be in place in the Justice Department, but they could have mitigated the damage by having a non political US Attorney acting as Attorney General rather than the openly partisan hack who was acting in that capacity. After the debacle with her openly opposing the EO and her subsequent dismissal, they should have anticipated a court challenge and had a competent team prepared to present a vigorous defense. Certainly when the appeal was made, a competent legal case should have been presented.
I know this is easy to second guess the action by someone else but I only hope our side learns from this rather than just dwelling on how unfair it is. The opposition is not going to quit nor are they going to worry about fair play. Whether this should be or not, it is now a legal matter in the courts system and will be played out under the rules of the court system. My point about hiring a lawyer well versed in this type litigation rather than depending on Justice Department lawyers who may not have your interest foremost in their minds is only common sense. While Attorney General Sessions is now on the job and is very good, he has not practiced law for over 20 years and has many other things on his plate. Regardless of anyone’s opinion of lawyers, the stakes are too high in this case to not get the best hired gun available.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. I believe we have the same goal in mind.