Appeals Court Panel Appears Skeptical of Trumps Travel Ban

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I agree with the NYT's reading of the tea leaves:

WASHINGTON — A three-judge federal appeals panel voiced skepticism Tuesday at the Justice Department’s broad defense of President Trump’s targeted travel ban during arguments over the president’s power to impose immigration restrictions based on national security concerns.

Mr. Trump’s executive order, issued without warning on Jan. 27, disrupted travel and drew protests at the nation’s airports. The order suspended entry for people from seven predominantly Muslim countries and limited the nation’s refugee program.

Several courts around the nation have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s order, but the broadest ruling was the one at issue Tuesday in the arguments in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The three-judge panel was considering an earlier ruling by Judge James L. Robart of the Federal District Court in Seattle, which allowed previously barred travelers and immigrants to enter the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/us/politics/trump-immigration-ban-hearing-appeal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Hokie]

1. Rouge POTUS Staff thinks the hearing was a disaster for Trump

Link to tweet

[Hamlette]

2. Decent panel, if we lose this, it won't be because the judges were biased

Canby is a notoriously decent guy and Friedland was appointed by Obama. Fingers crossed. Would LOVE to win this one.

[Hamlette]

3. I loved this part:

“Are you arguing, then, that the president’s decision in that regard is unreviewable?” Judge Michelle T. Friedland asked.

The Justice Department lawyer, August E. Flentje, paused. Then he said yes.

As a lawyer for 40 years I can tell you, telling a judge he or she cannot review an order is suicidal. Basically what Trump's attorney is arguing is that no court can review an EO. Uh, can you say "balance of power"

[Gothmog]

4. I agree with the NYT's analysis