ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton

[dcbl]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

 

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

 

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

 

[dcbl]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

so, my understanding is that immigration policy is in the purview of the president

in fact, that law is pretty clear - I really wanna see this go to SCOTUS

 

[Ringel05]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Careful, your partisan slip is showing........
Actually the law is the law, interpretation hypocrisy as what you're promoting here as no " discrimination intent" as implied would ever pass legal muster in a much higher court of law (SCOTUS).

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not unconstitutional for Trump to do it. Unless you agree with that idiotic decision that claims national security is not a secular issue

 

[Timmy]

A law can be OK on its face , but unconstitutional if used for a bias reason.

Do you tools think the courts haven't dealt with Jim Crow laws before ?

 

[ColonelAngus]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Campaign Rhetoric?

Holy Shit.

What a load of crap. The travel ban was from 7 nations.

Can a Muslim from Canada enter the US under the ban? YES
Can a Christian from any of those 7 nations enter the US under the ban? No

Well, then it's not a MUSLIM ban, is it?

 

[EnterSandman]

A law can be OK on its face , but unconstitutional if used for a bias reason.

Do you tools think the courts haven't dealt with Jim Crow laws before ?

 

[JBond]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Post the EO that lists a religion. Flipping moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Since when do we use campaign rehtoric to go against the US Constitution?


What Trump did was legal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

Look, the Republicans stopped Obama picking a Supreme Court Justice. Once that happened it's fair game to fuck the other side over, because the other side would do exactly the same thing. Politics just got dirty, and the right can't complain about it.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

Look, the Republicans stopped Obama picking a Supreme Court Justice. Once that happened it's fair game to fuck the other side over, because the other side would do exactly the same thing. Politics just got dirty, and the right can't complain about it.

Yes we know that, but to win it you had to throw snake eyes with dice.

I would have gave Trump a 1000 to one shot at winning.. even he didn't even really want to win.


I guess that's why the demcrats blame Russia.

 

[Coyote]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

It's a difficult argument to make, while I oppose the ban because I do believe the intent is clearly what Trump had said, I'm not sure if that can be used or how far it can be taken.

 

[CowboyTed]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

It's a difficult argument to make, while I oppose the ban because I do believe the intent is clearly what Trump had said, I'm not sure if that can be used or how far it can be taken.

I oppose the ban becuse:

• It is totally infectual at offering security
• It is a campaign tool to ISIS and extreme Islam.

Why do the Trumpettes want to make ISIS larger with more support?
Why do they not support the moderate Muslims who are actually doing most of the fighting and sacrifice in the war against extreme Islam?
Why are you playing for the other team?

I suggest you look at history, the IRA needed Thatcher to recruit, Al Queda were on there last legs during 911 and Bush was a campaign poster for them... Why are you playing stupid?

 

[Political Junky]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

Keep reading Alt-Right news, it's already shrunk your brain.

 

[vlad_hombre]

Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

coming to SCOTUS this summer?

Omar Jadwat, arguing before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, admitted that President Trump’s order could be constitutional if Hillary Clinton had enacted the same order.

ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton | Need To Know Network

Putin's cock-holster is becoming a problem??

That's a shame.

Hahahahahaha ...

 

[jknowgood]

It's not hypocrisy - it's the basis of the court argument - that Trump's campaign rhetoric, and statements early in his administration indicate an intent to discriminate on the basis of religion when he made the EO. Since Clinton had no such baggage - if she had done it, it couldn't be challanged with that argument. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

That argument doesn't hold water in the 4 corners doctrine. I think the 4th will uphold it.

.

It's a difficult argument to make, while I oppose the ban because I do believe the intent is clearly what Trump had said, I'm not sure if that can be used or how far it can be taken.

I oppose the ban becuse:

• It is totally infectual at offering security
• It is a campaign tool to ISIS and extreme Islam.

Why do the Trumpettes want to make ISIS larger with more support?
Why do they not support the moderate Muslims who are actually doing most of the fighting and sacrifice in the war against extreme Islam?
Why are you playing for the other team?

I suggest you look at history, the IRA needed Thatcher to recruit, Al Queda were on there last legs during 911 and Bush was a campaign poster for them... Why are you playing stupid?

Did you support it when Obama did the exact same thing?

 

[CowboyTed]

Everytime I read this type crap I just think how much trouble must they be in with Russia...