ACLU: Why, Yes, The Travel Ban Would Be Constitutional If A President Hillary Enacted It

Surprise?

(NTKNetwork) ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

So, essentially, this is all about Trump Derangement Syndrome, as well as Liberals, Democrats, and groups like the ACLU being against whatever a Republican president does simply because that person is a Republican. (there’s audio of the exchange at the link).

(Powerline) The Democrats who attacked President Trump’s travel order in front of carefully-selected Democratic judges made the extraordinary claim that the President’s statements on the stump, as a candidate, were somehow relevant to whether the order was constitutional. This claim implies that an order may be unconstitutional if issued by one president, while the exact same order would be perfectly fine if issued by another. This is an absurd result.

It may be absurd, but it is what the Democrats believe. ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing today before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, told the court that President Trump’s travel order “could be constitutional” if it had been written by Hillary Clinton.

Also in the audio, Jadwat is asked if the order was valid, and answered no, because “the order was unprecedented”, to which a flabergasted justice answered “So the first order on anything is invalid?”

Unless it was President Hillary giving the order. Then it would have been cool with the ACLU and liberals.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “ACLU: Why, Yes, The Travel Ban Would Be Constitutional If A President Hillary Enacted It”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Yep.
    Try and make sense out of this answer about the PDT executive order.

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/337868-cornyn-shows-yates-overruled-office-of-legal-counsel-which-found-trump-order-legal/

  2. Jeffery says:

    Of course, Democrats would not write such a stupidly worded policy. trump et al are rank amateurs.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9280 access attempts in the last 7 days.