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

[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?

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

There is a difference between acting on active intelligence and having a marketing scam... This give the perception of safety when it actually doesn't really...

Obama was weighting the options, he had active intelligence but also knew there would be a backlash to that type of ban. He did a narrow one for a short period to find the specific problem....

Trump will loose because any common sense will say this offers very little actual security only perceived security... You are trying to equate Obama to Trump and that has been rated mostly false...

Flawed comparison on immigration restrictions

 

[Kondor3]

Time to put the brakes on more Muzzies coming here for a while...

Drumpf is just going to have to channel Andrew Jackson again...

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it."

If the control of immigration is, indeed, the purview of the President, then, the courts can go hang, on this subject; time for a Constitutional Crisis.

That, or accelerate the case, and get it in front of that new 5-4 SCOTUS, pronto... which should put all this LibTurd Happy Hor$e$hit on the sidelines...

 

[martybegan]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

 

[martybegan]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

 

[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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

There is no implied intent, there is leary stated intent, stated on multiple occasions s including the directive he gave Giuliani after he was in office, so please let's not dance around blaming the media when it's Trump's own statements that are causing the problem.

Also intent can absolutely matter. After all intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter under the law.

 

[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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

Except the first attempt did reference religion.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

Then you need to fire off a letter to the courts who didn't quite see it the same as you do. I'm sure they will change their minds as soon as you explain it to them. They might even give you a certificate that your mother can put on the refrigerator door.

 

[Avatar4321]

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 ?

Irrelevant. national security is not a bias reason

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

What the heck are you smoking? Democrats have been dirty with politics for centuries. Ever since Jackson created the party.

 

[martybegan]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

There is no implied intent, there is leary stated intent, stated on multiple occasions s including the directive he gave Giuliani after he was in office, so please let's not dance around blaming the media when it's Trump's own statements that are causing the problem.

Also intent can absolutely matter. After all intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter under the law.

The thing is those statements have no bearing on the orders being reviewed, or at least they shouldn't. The orders stand on their writing and intent, THEIR intent, not Trump's intent.

If he goes beyond the Orders written intent, then the Courts can use his actions, which would be 100 valid.

 

[martybegan]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

Then you need to fire off a letter to the courts who didn't quite see it the same as you do. I'm sure they will change their minds as soon as you explain it to them. They might even give you a certificate that your mother can put on the refrigerator door.

Condescension is the first and last resort of an idiot who has no other retort, or only can respond with "well they did what I liked, so fuck any sense or reasoning" but knows that makes them look like a drooling partisan hack-twat.

 

[Slyhunter]

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 ?

Crimes should be based on what you do, not what you think. We don't need thought police in this country.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

Then you need to fire off a letter to the courts who didn't quite see it the same as you do. I'm sure they will change their minds as soon as you explain it to them. They might even give you a certificate that your mother can put on the refrigerator door.

Condescension is the first and last resort of an idiot who has no other retort, or only can respond with "well they did what I liked, so fuck any sense or reasoning" but knows that makes them look like a drooling partisan hack-twat.

Well, you did make a stupid post. What did you expect?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

What you believe as no bearing on the facts. And the fact is the purpose behind this executive order had always been national security and not banning Muslims.

The ruling in the case was purely political. This is obvious to anyone who read the decision because the judge declared national security to be a non secular issue and declined to do any actual analysis to support his nonsensical claim.

Now if you'd like to explain how national security is solely a religious issue, be my guest. But I suspect that everyone getting upset over the order is avoiding this question for a reason

 

[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.

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?

I agree with you. I totally oppose the ban and for many of the same reasons.

But, I'm not sure how strong the legal underpinning is.

 

[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.

What you believe as no bearing on the facts. And the fact is the purpose behind this executive order had always been national security and not banning Muslims.

The ruling in the case was purely political. This is obvious to anyone who read the decision because the judge declared national security to be a non secular issue and declined to do any actual analysis to support his nonsensical claim.

Now if you'd like to explain how national security is solely a religious issue, be my guest. But I suspect that everyone getting upset over the order is avoiding this question for a reason

That "fact" is not supported by Trump's statements, his directive to Giuliani, and his first attempt at an EO where Muslims were singled out in those countries.

 

[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.

What the heck are you smoking? Democrats have been dirty with politics for centuries. Ever since Jackson created the party.

I didn't say they weren't. I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans. However they've taken it to another level.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

A court is supposed to decide based on the law, not on the media coverage or the implied intent. Intent only comes into play when it comes to criminal law, not constitutional law or figuring out something is constitutional.

A court can't guess intentions, it has to base its ruling on nothing but fact. Even in criminal cases the intent has to be proven as a fact.

Of course. Trump made his intentions very clear at countless rallies.

But the end result was a country specific moratorium, with no reference to religion, that didn't cover over 70% of the world's muslim population.

This is one of the more flimsy rationalizations I have ever seen on this message board.

Except the first attempt did reference religion.

Giving priority to minority religions has always been American policy. We are a refuge for persecuted minorities.

And like prior us law, the order gave priority to Muslim minorities too

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

What you believe as no bearing on the facts. And the fact is the purpose behind this executive order had always been national security and not banning Muslims.

The ruling in the case was purely political. This is obvious to anyone who read the decision because the judge declared national security to be a non secular issue and declined to do any actual analysis to support his nonsensical claim.

Now if you'd like to explain how national security is solely a religious issue, be my guest. But I suspect that everyone getting upset over the order is avoiding this question for a reason

That "fact" is not supported by Trump's statements, his directive to Giuliani, and his first attempt at an EO where Muslims were singled out in those countries.

Actually it is. By looking at the context of his statements.

His statements have always been in the context of national security. Trump was just completely ignorant when he was originally speaking.

As typical of the left, you are assuming trumps statements were his goals. why? Because you naturally assume everyone who differs from you politically is full of hate. Trump wants to bam Muslims because he is a hate filled bigot. Am I wrong?

But trump made it clear that his motivation was national security. Not some hatred of Muslims. You are assuming his statements were his intended goals. They weren't. They were the means he was suggesting to reach the goal: National security.

When he was told he couldn't do they to reach his goal of national security, he, unsurprisingly, changed the means to reach that goal.

But that doesn't fit the political narrative.

I can't help but noticing you wont address how national security is a non secular issue