Tuesday, November 13, 2018

[U: Video On Monday!] The Government Must Answer The TRO Motion, In East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump In Under Two Days...


. . .and then the plaintiffs, including the ACLU, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant and Innovation Law Lab, will have an opportunity to reply by this Friday. Expect then that one Donald "Dotard" Trump will be eviscerated, in prose, and in perpetuity -- in the able court's written recorded orders (yet again!), no less.

UPDATE @ 2 PM CST -- 11.14.18: I forgot to mention that this is one of only a handful of trial level federal courts participating (on an experimental basis) with video feeds of the proceedings. And so, I will stream it all, right here -- come Monday. Prepare to see a particularly bad version of "Apprentice Lawyers for 45" -- and do pop the popcorn. His team will be pinned, right out of the gate. [End updated portion.]

The full-on TRO argument will be heard on Monday -- on the "rocket docket". Excellent. Bring it on -- this was just entered a few hours ago, in San Francisco's federal District courthouse:

. . . .SCHEDULING ORDER re [8] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab, Central American Resource Center, Al Otro Lado. Responses due by 11/15/2018.

Replies due by 11/16/2018. Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2018 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar.

Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 13, 2018. . . .


Now you know -- wow. . . this is light-speed law practice. And. . . I (for one) love it.

नमस्ते

2 comments:

condor said...

Once we have the plaintiffs' reply, I will comment on this rather silly Trump team opening forray:

https://anewmerckreviewed.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/life-trump-asylum-no-11-15-18.pdf

In essence it argues that 45 may ignore treaty level obligations, may suspend (without even notice or comment rulemaking procedures) entire sections of US Congressional statutes -- ones granting a right to a "credible fear" hearing, as to each asylum seeker, and may summarily bar all asylees who approach from the southern border, without any showing of "particularized dangerousness."

That is pure. . . poppycock.

More -- at end of day Friday -- with a new post on all of it.

Namaste.

condor said...

New post is up over the weekend on the plaintiffs’ reply brief supporting the TRO motion — and it turns out that the video of today’s arguments will only be available online, after the fact (not streaming), as an archive.

Now you know.

Namaste!