Oral argument in Washington v. Trump

[markpkessinger]

(I cannot recommend this highly enough. This is the oral argument that took place in federal court in Seattle, in which the State of Washington sought a temporary restraining order on Trump's travel ban. Note that this is a CONSERVATIVE judge, appointed by George W. Bush. He listens fairly to the arguments of both sides, and he challenges the arguments of both sides, before rendering his decision in favor of the State of Washington, effectively blocking Trump's travel ban until the case can be heard on appeal and decided on its merits. This is a fine judge, who understands what the role of the courts is, and what its limitations are, and he rules accordingly.)

https://www.facebook.com/geekwire/videos/1436942129662862/

[pfitz59]

1. That's my state

The OTHER Washington!

[flor-de-jasmim]

2. So the govt attorney does not believe the judge should worry about whether

the request is WHOLLY rational, it could just be partially rational? Reminds me of the old expression "good enough for government work". Sigh...

[markpkessinger]

3. If I understand the U.S. attorney's argument correctly . . .

. . . it's even worse than that. The argument is that the courts have no right even to review the matter!