Thread: LIVE Stream: 9th Circuit Oral Argument President Trump Travel Ban

6:00pm Live Stream Oral Arguments Within Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals…

Posted on February 7, 2017 by


Tonight at 6:00pm EST / 3:00pm PST three judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments from Washington State and the President Trump Department of Justice on a motion to stay the previous injunction halting the Trump administration’s temporary visa suspension (90-day travel ban) from seven identified nations.


The appeals court hearing is being held via phone conference and not in an actual courtroom. However, the hearing will be live streamed at the website of the 9th circuit, and also it appears RSBN will be running a duplicate live stream feed.


9th Circuit Live Stream HERE – RSBN Live Stream HERE:
.
The Department of Justice 15 page court brief outlining their position and the request for the appellate stay is available HERE, and is also embedded below for review:

View this document on Scribd

.

• 17

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/07/600pm-live-stream-oral-arguments-within-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals/

<strong> https://youtu.be/DEK8FCBMkMQ






State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

17-35105

Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to provide access to case information.

Date	Document Title
02/07/2017	Medidata Solutions, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Participating Law Firms of the Employment Law Alliance Amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Order re CNN live stream and recording of oral argument
02/07/2017	David Golden Motion to Intervene
02/07/2017	SpotHero, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and District of Columbia, Amended Amicus Motion and Brief
02/07/2017	SoundCloud, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Molecule Software, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Fitbit, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Postmates Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	District court scheduling order on preliminary injunction
02/07/2017	Day sheet: Party and Counsel Listing for Telephonic Hearing
02/07/2017	Akamai Technologies, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	CREDO Mobile, Inc. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/07/2017	Quantcast Corp. Letter Joining Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/06/2016	American Immigration Council Exhibits
02/06/2016	American Immigration Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2016	Jewish Federation Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Link to oral argument live stream
02/06/2017	Order clarifying live streaming oral argument
02/06/2016	Freedom Watch Amicus Motion
02/06/2017	Order re live streaming argument
02/06/2017	Freedom Watch Amicus Brief
02/06/2017	Muslim Advocates Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Anti-Defamation League Motion for Extension of Time
02/06/2017	Anti-Defamation League Amicus Motion
02/06/2017	Groupon Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Reply In Support of Emergency Motion for Stay
02/06/2017	Washington State Labor Council Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	U.S. Justice Foundation, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, English First Foundation, English First, Public Advocate of the United States, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and Policy Analysis Center Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Additional Law Professors Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	National Immigrant Justice Center and ASISTA Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Letter by Additional Technology Companies Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	American Center for Law and Justice Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Vermont Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Pivotal Software Letter Joining Technology Companies Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	SEIU Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	HIAS, Inc. Amicus Motion
02/06/2017	Law Professors Motion to Substitute Corrected Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Anti-Defamation League Amicus Brief
02/06/2017	Constitutional Scholars Amicus Motion and Brief
02/06/2017	Order denying motion to intervene and setting oral argument
02/06/2017	Reply in support of emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017	Exhibits to response
02/06/2017	Exhibit A to response
02/06/2017	Response to emergency motion for stay
02/06/2017	HIAS amicus brief
02/06/2017	Americans United for Separation of Church and State amicus motion and brief
02/06/2017	ACLU amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017	Law Professors amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017	State of Hawaii Emergency motion to intervene and Exhibits
02/05/2017	Korematsu Center amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017	Technology Companies amicus motion and brief
02/05/2017	Revised scheduling order
02/04/2017	Order denying immediate administrative stay pending full consideration of the emergency motion for stay and setting schedule
02/04/2017	Emergency motion for stay
02/04/2017	Video Video recording of hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
02/03/2017	Order Temporary Restraining Order

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content..._id=0000000860

CNN is carrying this, too.

Judge William Canby

Judge Richard

Judge Friedland

August Flent Je - Justice Dept. Attorney

Noah Purcell - Washington State Solicitor General

30mLaura Ingraham‏ @IngrahamAngle
Listening to the judges, I'm reminded of why the justices reversed the 9th Cir so often when I clerked at SCOTUS.


5921,848




32mLaura Ingraham‏ @IngrahamAngle
Just say it: "foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S. constitutional rights."


1,0522,710



42mLaura Ingraham‏ @IngrahamAngle
I'll be on @SpecialReport & @Hannity tonight.


107582




42mLaura Ingraham‏ @IngrahamAngle
We need a confirmed SG to be arguing this case before the 9th Cir.


2701,006








43mLaura Ingraham‏ @IngrahamAngle
Hearing the 9th Cir judges Q the Admin abt Exec judgement re. terrorism risks


https://mobile.twitter.com/ingrahamangle

*********************


(((Mark Krikorian)))
@MarkSKrikorian
8h
@leftwingzealot Prez has plenary power to exclude any/all aliens for any reason. Whether we like the reasons is a political question.
View conversation ·



(((Mark Krikorian)))
@MarkSKrikorian
9h
@leftwingzealot @bertieb35 Anything is "allowed" in deciding who gets to move here. 1st Amendment doesn't apply to foereigners abroad.
View conversation ·


https://mobile.twitter.com/markskrikorian

ACLJ (Jay Sekulow) has filed briefs, too, for the President.


http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/53138...#sp=show-clips

Few notes:

Friedland sympathetic to Washington side. Obama appointee.

Alan Dershowitz says Government attorney did not do well. Government has good argument.

Tweets


Byron York
@ByronYork
3h
The WA State challenge to Trump's order? It has a lot to do with money. ow.ly/6Q3R308MUKp
View summary ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
In 9th Circuit hearing, almost no discussion of one of WA State's key motives in lawsuit against Trump: Money. ow.ly/cFgv308MQsW
View summary ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
On the strength of the government's case: ow.ly/MCBc308MP6C
View summary ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
9th Circuit hearing is over. Decision promised 'as soon as possible.'
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
9th Circuit Judge Clifton asks DOJ: Does WH guidance on green cards supersede what's actually in the EO? Why not just amend EO?
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
Everyone on 9th Circuit call acting as if Trump 12/7/15 statement on Muslim entry was last, definitive word. Which is ridiculous.
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
4h
9th Circuit: DOJ lawyer poorly argued a strong case. WA SG poorly argued a weak case.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
Apparently WA State plans discovery to delve into Donald Trump's mind and discover deepest intent behind EO.
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
Two 9th Circuit Dem judges trying to rescue WA SG. But SG really weak on religious question, which is at heart of constitutional case.
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
9th Circuit Judge Clifton to WA SG: 'Do I have to believe everything you've alleged and say, 'Well, that must be right?'
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
9th Circuit Judge Clifton really kicking WA SG on religious question. SG really unprepared.
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
WA SG totally unprepared for questions about fact that Trump EO only affects small percentage of world Muslims.
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
Judge: 'I have trouble understanding why we're supposed to infer religious animus when in fact vast majority of Muslims not affected.'
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
9th Circuit judge asks WA SG: What % of world Islam are represented by the 7 countries? SG doesn't know.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
9th Circuit judge asks WA SG: 'Why shouldn't we limit the TRO to people you've got a strong case for?' Weak answer.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
RT @JeffreyToobin: WA AG lawyer off to weak start on a procedural issue that clearly does not interest the court.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
RT @mg49erfan: @ByronYork @dcexaminer what audio are you listening to? // You can listen here: ow.ly/qX0k308ML9C
View details ·


Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
Justice Department's side in 9th Circuit Trump EO hearing is painful to listen to. Poorly argued.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
Top 2 DOJ lawyers on this case pulled back because their former law firm filed an amicus brief against Trump. Arguing case fell to Flentje.
View details ·



Byron York
@ByronYork
5h
DOJ lawyer arguing before 9th Circuit is August E. Flentje.
View details ·



https://mobile.twitter.com/@ByronYork

For people trying to figure out what the 1965 law is that prevents discrimination in immigration based on national origin, this is the "act" they're talking about. I'm just posting one paragraph, please feel free to read the entire Wiki description of the act.

Legislative history

The Hart–Celler Act was widely supported in Congress. Senator Philip A. Hart introduced the administration-backed immigration bill which was reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee.[9] Representative Emanuel Celler introduced the bill in the House of Representatives, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18.[9] In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10] In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained.[11] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill. Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset".[12]

Michael A. Feighan and other conservative Democrats had insisted that "family unification" should take priority over "employability", on the premise that such a weighting would maintain the existing ethnic profile of the country. That change in policy instead resulted in chain migration dominating the subsequent patterns of immigration to the United States and consequently a more ethnically diverse population.[13][14]

On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the legislation into law, saying, "This [old] system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country".[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ty_Act_of_1965

Briefly skimming over the Act of 1965 it seems like the prohibition on discriminating by nationality applies only to the issuance of immigrant visas. Is this the basis for the challenge of the Executive Order or is it something else?

Yeah, you're right artclam, the 1965 law has nothing at all to do with the Executive Order. The 1965 law eliminated what some felt to be a discriminatory immigration quota from certain countries established in the 1920's. The law had nothing to do with the right of the President to ban all immigration from terrorist countries. The 1965 law also had nothing to do with religion just national origin with respect to quotas for visas and immigration.

What I also found interesting is the BIG LIE told by Kennedy on the Senate floor:

"During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset".[12]"

Of course our cities are in fact flooded with more than a million immigrants annually and the ethnic mix of this country has been upset, changed dramatically, actually.

Democrats have rarely told the truth about anything to do with a lot of issues, but immigration would be at the top of their BIG LIES LIST, including the testimony given by Ted Kennedy when this law passed.

I don't know if now is the time to do it, but at some point, this 1965 law dealing with national origin quotas needs to be clarified with an amendment so there is no muddling of its dispensed quota issue with the 1952 law dealing with public health, public safety and national security.