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

[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

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

When are you folks going to understand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the freaking world and no wishing or judge can make it so.

.

 

[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

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

When are you folks going to understand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the freaking world and no wishing or judge can make it so.

.

That's not the argument. The gov can't discriminate on religion, race or establish or target a religion without a very good reason . A real high standard to hit.

Trumps reasons all were shot down easily .

 

[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

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

When are you folks going to understand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the freaking world and no wishing or judge can make it so.

.

That's not the argument. The gov can't discriminate on religion, race or establish or target a religion without a very good reason . A real high standard to hit.

Trumps reasons all were shot down easily .

Actually they can discriminate against anyone for any reason they want if they have, no legal US standing, just ask the different terrorist organizations around the world how extreme that discrimination can be.

.

 

[Timmy]

it could have been constitutional if trump didn't run around asking to "ban all muslims" his entire campaign.

Only thing I can suggest is hillary is not so stupid and naive to our constitution.

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

When are you folks going to understand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the freaking world and no wishing or judge can make it so.

.

That's not the argument. The gov can't discriminate on religion, race or establish or target a religion without a very good reason . A real high standard to hit.

Trumps reasons all were shot down easily .

Actually they can discriminate against anyone for any reason they want if they have, no legal US standing, just ask the different terrorist organizations around the world how extreme that discrimination can be.

.

No they can't . Just ask the fed courts .

 

[OKTexas]

The flaw in your argument is it didn't apply to "all muslims".

.

but trumps language did. He referred to it repeatedly as a "muslim ban," it shows his intention is to target them by religion. Unconstitutional.

When are you folks going to understand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to everyone in the freaking world and no wishing or judge can make it so.

.

That's not the argument. The gov can't discriminate on religion, race or establish or target a religion without a very good reason . A real high standard to hit.

Trumps reasons all were shot down easily .

Actually they can discriminate against anyone for any reason they want if they have, no legal US standing, just ask the different terrorist organizations around the world how extreme that discrimination can be.

.

No they can't . Just ask the fed courts .

let's wait and see what the final decision is, if it turns out the way I suspect it will, you can apologize for being so ignorant. My prediction is SCOTUS will uphold it 7-2.

.