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

[Timmy]

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

There should be an ENRAGED emoticon! Trump's order IS constitutional because he was NEVER under oath NOR President when he commented during the campaign so those statements are NOT legally binding!!

Yes yes yes . Amazing how so many righty meatheads know the law better than experienced federal judges !

Hey, why doesn't trump take the case up the appeal ladder if he doesn't like it? Oh, cause he knows the other courts will throw him out on his ass too.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You're being silly.

No. Nix that. Stupid.

No one "gladly" registers muslim terrorists. Not to mention, nothing you said address' what what I said.

No, I'm trying to get even for you merging my thread on Yates yesterday with FAKEY'S.

ohhhh...well shoot, you should have beat him to the topic punch, then you would have had the headline

speaking of merging i looked up 'travel ban' before i posted a thread on this same topic and this thread did not come up....oh well....

ACLU lawyers are the dregs of the legal world......the guy basically admitted the travel ban as written was OK.....he only had a problem with the issuer which imho is discriminatory....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

LOL.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

You can't make a court argument that an action is legal--- except we don't like the guy who said it! So it is just illegal for HIM! What is at question is the legality of the BAN, not the person invoking it. The ban is the SAME no matter who is using it. The travel ban was based on an Obama determination that a certain set of countries were high risk of ISIS member invasion. And baring people from those countries is no more a religious exclusion than baring Germans from Hitler's time---- because Islam ISN'T A RELIGION, it is a political system! This is just another case of judicial activism. It will be overturned.

 

[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).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

No, I'm saying the argument that intent is invalid from an unbiased, impartial legal standpoint. In the post I was responding to you made no statement of; "I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched." so that wasn't a caveat available to me when I posted my response.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

 

[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 ?

Irrelevant. national security is not a bias reason

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/---- But Obozo's rhetoric during his campaign never influenced a court. Ever notice that?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----- Does Obamas campaign rhetoric mean I finally get my $2,5000 savings for healthcare?

 

[WEATHER53]

Gotta love how emotion stoked libbie take off the cuff remarks and act like they are some iron clad commitments

 

[Timmy]

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.

/----- Does Obamas campaign rhetoric mean I finally get my $2,5000 savings for healthcare?

WHat did you pay for healthcare?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/----- Does Obamas campaign rhetoric mean I finally get my $2,5000 savings for healthcare?

WHat did you pay for healthcare?

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.

/----- Does Obamas campaign rhetoric mean I finally get my $2,5000 savings for healthcare?

WHat did you pay for healthcare?

/----- Only sniveling little cowards answer a question with another question. So once again: Does Obamas campaign rhetoric mean I finally get my $2,5000 savings for healthcare?

 

[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.

.

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.

Even in his earliest comments saying there should be a muslim ban he included the caveat, until we can figure out what the hell is going on. Is intent was always a temporary suspension and that's what the EO did for a few predominately muslim countries. If you read the law he has every authority to do that.

.

 

[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.

.

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.

Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ reviewed the order before it was signed and said the order was legal.

.

 

[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.

.

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.

Who form those countries presented a security threat? He is authorized by law to exclude any CLASS of aliens he determined to be a security risk. He didn't exclude all muslims, just ones form countries without stable central governments, where records weren't available to properly investigate them.

.

 

[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.

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).

Actually no, not in this case. Read what I said (no one else did).

I'm not saying whether or not the court argument is valid - in fact, I think it's kind of stretched. I'm utterly opposed to the ban, for a variety of reasons, and I have no doubt about what the intent behind it is - but unlike the first EO, the second one is better crafted legally. OK?

What I said was if Clinton had put out that EO - the same argument can't be used to bring it down - ie "intent" expressed in campaign statements or statements she made while in office because she hasn't made any regarding banning Muslims. But Trump has. So if it were a Clinton EO, you'd have to find some sort of other argument to attack it with.

There's no hypocrisy - unless Clinton had been making comments on completely banning Muslims, and she hadn't. So you'd have to find another argument.

If you listen to the audio in the OPs link, Clintons name was never mentioned, just if another candidate had become president and done it, would it be legal. After some dancing the ACLU attorney admitted it would be.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

There should be an ENRAGED emoticon! Trump's order IS constitutional because he was NEVER under oath NOR President when he commented during the campaign so those statements are NOT legally binding!!

Yes yes yes . Amazing how so many righty meatheads know the law better than experienced federal judges !

Hey, why doesn't trump take the case up the appeal ladder if he doesn't like it? Oh, cause he knows the other courts will throw him out on his ass too.

Poor timmy, he doesn't know the 4th circuit court of appeals IS UP THE APPEALS ladder. ROFLMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

So the prez can effectively ban guns and claim "national security "?

Guns are a constitutionally protected right. Immigrations isn't. Geeze.

Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. Establishment cause ring a bell?

An example : Obama bans all Christians From immigrating and only allows Muslim to come into America because he wants a Muslim country. Constitutional??? Of course not !

Trump didn't exclude all muslims, just ones where there was no adequate central government with sufficient records to properly investigate them.

.

 

[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.

/---- But Obozo's rhetoric during his campaign never influenced a court. Ever notice that?

Whatboutisms

 

[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.

You can't make a court argument that an action is legal--- except we don't like the guy who said it! So it is just illegal for HIM! What is at question is the legality of the BAN, not the person invoking it. The ban is the SAME no matter who is using it. The travel ban was based on an Obama determination that a certain set of countries were high risk of ISIS member invasion. And baring people from those countries is no more a religious exclusion than baring Germans from Hitler's time---- because Islam ISN'T A RELIGION, it is a political system! This is just another case of judicial activism. It will be overturned.

Actually Obama's ban had substantial differences, which is why it wasn't challenged.

Just because you don't like Islam doesn't suddenly make it "not a religion" after 1300 years