It's our first emergency podcast! Right after the full Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Muslim Travel Ban appeal, the Versus Trump co-hosts hopped on the line to do a deep-dive into the argument. The podcast includes audio clips of many key moments from the oral argument audio.
We start off by analyzing what happened when Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall got up to the podium to defend the travel ban [1:20-19:50]. We point out that the court was overwhelmingly populated by Democratic appointees, and they were not afraid to ask hard questions—like how the court could possibly ignore the President's statements that he wanted to implement a Muslim ban. We thought that the Acting Solicitor General did his very best to offer up appealing reasons for upholding the ban, but we all thought that, as Charlie said, the SG made a fantastic argument "about a case that isn't this case." In the end, we doubt his arguments will hold up in light of the extraordinary and unusual clarity of the President's anti-Muslim rhetoric.
We then break down the argument of plaintiff's counsel, Omar Jadwat of the ACLU, who was arguing that the Muslim travel ban was unconstitutional [19:50-30:30]. We wonder why Jadwat wasn't more forceful in pointing out how extraordinary and unusual this case is, and why he seemed to want to evade questions that could have been answered straightforwardly by pointing directly to the President's own clear, anti-Muslim statements. Still, given the strength of the plaintiffs' case and the left-leaning majority on the court, we predict that the court will agree with the plaintiffs, hold that the Muslim ban was unconstitutionally adopted, and continue to prohibit the federal government from enforcing the executive order.
We end with a few final thoughts and a prediction about how the case will come out. [30:30-end.]