Trump's words come back to bite him in court hearing

[guno]

woooopsie


As a federal appeals court heard arguments over the validity of President Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, some of the strongest evidence for his opponents came from the president's own words.

A key argument in the case is whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution's ban on religious discrimination. Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota have alleged that the order was designed to discriminate against Muslims.

Asked for evidence to support that claim, the lawyer for Washington pointed to "the public statements from the president and his top advisors," which he described as "rather shocking."

Trump called for a "Muslim ban" during his presidential campaign

Trump's words come back to bite him in court hearing

 

[OldLady]

Did you see the oral arguments last night? It seemed like the judges were pretty critical of the DOJ lawyer's points. I'll be interested to know how they rule, but without knowing anything about the case law they were citing, it seemed from the judges' reactions, the stay might be in effect for awhile.

 

[TNHarley]

Considering the halt was based on obamas list, the "words" are irrelevant. IMO anyways.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's an easy argument to make that it's not to ban muslims because it bans Christians from these countries too.

 

[paperview]

It's an easy argument to make that it's not to ban muslims because it bans Christians from these countries too.

No, it fast tracks them in.

 

[tresbigdog]

It's an easy argument to make that it's not to ban muslims because it bans Christians from these countries too.

except for the fact that there is also video evidence of Trump saying Christians will be welcome, and Rudy Giuliani on record admitting that Trump seeked out his services for helping create a legal way to ban Muslims

 

[Markle]

woooopsie


As a federal appeals court heard arguments over the validity of President Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, some of the strongest evidence for his opponents came from the president's own words.

A key argument in the case is whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution's ban on religious discrimination. Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota have alleged that the order was designed to discriminate against Muslims.

Asked for evidence to support that claim, the lawyer for Washington pointed to "the public statements from the president and his top advisors," which he described as "rather shocking."

Trump called for a "Muslim ban" during his presidential campaign

Trump's words come back to bite him in court hearing

The words of President Donald Trump before the elections should have nothing to do with this decision. Their only duty is to decide whether or not the Executive Order is constitutional or not. Also, whether or not the state of Washington or Minnesota has standing. Period.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It's an easy argument to make that it's not to ban muslims because it bans Christians from these countries too.

No, it fast tracks them in.

Proof?

 

[Staidhup]

As I stated the ruling of the 9th will be appealed then decided by the Supreme Court. The role of the court is to weigh constitutionality nothing more nothing less.

 

[paperview]

It's an easy argument to make that it's not to ban muslims because it bans Christians from these countries too.

except for the fact that there is also video evidence of Trump saying Christians will be welcome, and Rudy Giuliani on record admitting that Trump seeked out his services for helping create a legal way to ban Muslims

The move to the front of the line for Christians and Jews is also part of the verbiage in the EO.

 

[blackhawk]

That might mean something if the EO was a Muslim ban it's not.

 

[aris2chat]

woooopsie


As a federal appeals court heard arguments over the validity of President Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, some of the strongest evidence for his opponents came from the president's own words.

A key argument in the case is whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution's ban on religious discrimination. Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota have alleged that the order was designed to discriminate against Muslims.

Asked for evidence to support that claim, the lawyer for Washington pointed to "the public statements from the president and his top advisors," which he described as "rather shocking."

Trump called for a "Muslim ban" during his presidential campaign

Trump's words come back to bite him in court hearing

8 USC SS 1182, 14 f