Originally Posted by
Xyzzy
Of course the administration hasn't backed off of the 'temporary' nature of this -- the whole goal is permanency. But they can't admit that... Aye -- there's the rub.
Right... so why did Jadwat refer to it as temporary? Surely the ACLU must recognize what is going on. Why are so many of the mainstream, respectable "fake news" outlets using the word "temporary" in their reporting? Are we all taking the bait?
Have we abandoned any pretense of "rule of law" versus the politics of the situation? That's outrageous.
I'm no lawyer, but it sounded to me like the poor guy was caught off guard from the beginning with the questioning about whether he had standing to represent NIV cases (for some reason he went into the details of the individual John Does instead of simply arguing that it shouldn't matter), and never really regained his footing.
From reading the subsequent reporting tonight, though, it sounds like a lot more judges were grilling the government attorney than Jadwat. It was easy to forget how many judges were in the room without a video feed.