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

[ColonelAngus]

The left stacks the courts with like minded people who ignore the Constitution and judge politically.

It was a 100% Constitutional travel ban from 7 nations.

 

[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.

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

I don't believe Trump hates Muslims. I believe he knows his supporters hate Muslims, and pandering to his supporters is job 1. If banning Muslims will get him 1 more standing ovation, he's doing his best to ban them.

 

[martybegan]

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 **** any sense or reasoning" but knows that makes them look like a drooling partisan hack-****.

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

it was a very rational and on point post, one you obviously couldn't comprehend.

Maybe the Hello Kitty Message Board is more your speed.

 

[BULLDOG]

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 **** any sense or reasoning" but knows that makes them look like a drooling partisan hack-****.

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

it was a very rational and on point post, one you obviously couldn't comprehend.

Maybe the Hello Kitty Message Board is more your speed.

You were on point, but the rational part is debatable. The courts have determined that it was illegal. If Trump would have consulted the experts he has access to, instead of arrogantly consulting only people like Bannon, and his own campaign rhetoric, perhaps he could have written one that Yates could support.

 

[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.

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

Even in the context of "national security" - it doesn't matter if his intent was a complete ban on Muslims. His INITIAL ban also specifically made exceptions for the entry of non-muslims from those countries.

 

[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.

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

Actually, we've always given a priority to PERSECUTED people and/or groups- not necessarily minorities.

In the original EO 13769:

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

Specifically, in (b) - he is authorizing a prioritization that did not exist before and is worded so as to prioritize on the basis of religious persecution and to exclude those who belong to the majority religion, regardless of persecution (the vast majority of ISIS' victims have been Muslim). Section (iii) further illustrates the claim that an animus towards Muslims IS behind the EO when he orders them to collect information on a particular type of (rare in the US) crime specifically associated with SOME Muslims.

Trump's own "clarification" and his intent:

President Trump has signed an executive order that temporarily suspends the U.S. refugee program and bars Syrian refugees. It will likely suspend immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and bars the admission of anyone who engages in “acts of bigotry or hatred,” including “the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own.” It also allows the the secretaries of State and Homeland Security to jointly admit individuals on a case-by-case basis, “including when the person is a religious minority ... facing religious persecution.”

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday, Trump clarified what this means: Christians refugees will be given priority status. “They’ve been horribly treated,” the president said. “Do you know if you were a Christian in Syria it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States? If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” People overseas “were chopping off the heads of everybody, but more so the Christians,” he added, “so we are going to help them.”​

Is this a Muslim ban? Trump's executive order explained

Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin. This provision would allow the White House to prioritize Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. In fiscal year 2016, the US accepted 37,521 Christian and 38,901 Muslim refugees. Since 2001, the US has accepted nearly 400,000 Christian refugees and 279,000 Muslim refugees.​

Most interestingly, Trump has never repudiated or retracted his comments on a Muslim ban.

Instead of trying to spin it, or claim Trump has no animus towards Muslims (something that his comments are pretty clear on) - accept it for what it is - the best attempt to get a LEGAL Muslim ban in place because in the end - no matter how much lipstick you put on it - it's still a pig. (no pun intended)

 

[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.

Post the EO that lists a religion. Flipping moron.

The original EO is worded in such a way that it effectively bans Muslims from those countries. You don't have to be overt to get that accomplished.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's either constitutional or it isn't. Period.

 

[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.

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


What Trump did was legal.

You miss the point. It's not just campaign rhetoric - it's what he's said after he was sworn in, and what ordered Guiliani to do.

Now - the first EO was blatently bad, poorly thought out and easily challenged. The second one is better put together, and doesn't single out Muslims as obviously. The challenge to it is being based on Trump's rhetoric and statements both in the campaign and in office and is using "intent". I don't think that's a very strong argument but we'll see.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

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.

You miss the point. It's not just campaign rhetoric - it's what he's said after he was sworn in, and what ordered Guiliani to do.

Now - the first EO was blatently bad, poorly thought out and easily challenged. The second one is better put together, and doesn't single out Muslims as obviously. The challenge to it is being based on Trump's rhetoric and statements both in the campaign and in office and is using "intent". I don't think that's a very strong argument but we'll see.

It's nonsense.

 

[Tom Horn]

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.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your Rat elites judge-shopped until they found fellow-travelers in the 9th Circuit in a totally political decision based on your identity politics. Your kind would gladly try to register muslim terrorists if you thought they would vote before they started shooting Americans. A President's campaign promises have NOTHING to do with the president's powers as president and President Trump clearly has the authority to block immigration for any reason he deems necessary. Now that Gorsuch is on the USSC bench, this horseshit ENDS.

 

[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 "?

 

[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 ?

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

Crimes depend on what you think . It's called motive .

A shoots B . That could range from justifiable homicide all the way to murder one dealt penalty depending on what the thoughts are.

 

[USApatriotz]

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!!

 

[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.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your Rat elites judge-shopped until they found fellow-travelers in the 9th Circuit in a totally political decision based on your identity politics. Your kind would gladly try to register muslim terrorists if you thought they would vote before they started shooting Americans. A President's campaign promises have NOTHING to do with the president's powers as president and President Trump clearly has the authority to block immigration for any reason he deems necessary. Now that Gorsuch is on the USSC bench, this horseshit ENDS.

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.

 

[Tom Horn]

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.

 

[Coyote]

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

 

[Tom Horn]

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

I got you to admit doing it.....I shoulda been a homicide detective.

 

[Coyote]

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

I got you to admit doing it.....I shoulda been a homicide detective.

 

[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.

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.