If it could be Constitutional if enacted by Clinton, then it’s Constitutional when enacted by Trump. Trump’s “campaign animus” against Muslims is a fiction of the media and political elites. Neither Trump nor anyone else would have any “animus” against Islam or Muslims were it not for jihad terrorism. The idea that Trump was motivated by “racism” or “bigotry” is palpably absurd; he was trying to act in defense of national security. But that is not acceptable to the Left these days.
“ACLU Lawyer Says Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton,” NTK Network, May 8, 2017:
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.
Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim….
pfwag says
More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.
mortimer says
At its core, LIE-BERAL REGRESSIVISM is SADOMASOCHISM. At its core, Islam is SADOMASOCHISM…master and slave, dominants and submissives, sadists and masochists. Cultural Marxism’s agenda is anti-life… so is Islam’s. Motto of Jihadists: “WE LOVE DEATH!”
Joseph R. says
Mortimer, you’re okay… actually much better than okay in my book… and my book isn’t the Koran. If only the jihad would trow progressives off the roofs instead of innocent people… hey, if somebody out there just has to be victimized… why not???
blitz2b says
As a liberal leftist would it not strike you as odd that Muslims by virtue of Islam would me more conservative, rather than liberal, and should by default all be voting as Republican rather than Democrat?
I mean what do these minions of the slave god Allah who’s laws are so stringent that freedom of thought and action are forbidden in their ideology, doing in the liberal Democratic party?
What do the feminist and Islam have in common? What do the LGBT and Islam have in common? What do liberal-Israel-hating Jews and Islam have in common? All the former groups fit well with liberal democratic values however, where does Islam meld into this unhealthy concoction, is mind boggling.
clap says
The Left will oppose Trump no matter what he does. He could call for muslim “refugees” to be brought over by the boatload, and the Left would scream that he’s ignoring the persecuted Christians.
jim conch says
I would disagree only because the liberals would never defend Christians.
Joseph R says
Dear Clap, I agree with jim conch regarding your post: The new left would never defend Christians under any circumstances, even with the clear evidence of their mass persecution and murder by Muslims. That’s demonstrably correct right now. It hasn’t been a hypothetical position for a long time. It’s right in front of our faces. In addition, Mr Trump never misses an opportunity to publicly celebrate Christian values… progressives aren’t going to even be indirectly supportive of any Trump outreach to any group.
Donald R Laster Jr says
The “Left”, or “Progressives”, never deal in fact or fact based opinion. Their agenda is all that matters to them. Until we get rid of fake Judges put in the fake President, yes Mr Obama, the country and rule of law is meaningless. Islamics only consider Shar’iah law to valid and it is prohibited by Article 6 of the US Constitution. And we have 1400 years of history that show what they believe in and are what their intentions are. No country is obligated to let invaders in for any reason.
Arthur says
Oh, come on Omar, tell it like you really mean it: “Your Honor, if President Trump was a Muslim, which he is not, then any action he takes would be Constitutionally legal as long as it was in compliance with Sharia Law.”
From
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/his-name-omar-jadwat-and-hes-aclu-lawyer-arguing-against-muslim-ban-heres-what-he
“I’ve personally seen how, for my Muslim family members overseas, the ability to come to the United States, be treated fairly and decently in the process, and experience our pluralistic, multicultural society, does a lot to counteract anti-American propaganda. The idea we would take away this powerful and important example of religious tolerance and replace it with an unjustifiable form of discrimination is something that honestly worries me.”
Aussie Infidel says
Treating Omar’s family members “decently” is simply a case of common courtesy. You can be courteous to someone without accepting their religious or political beliefs. Why should Americans tolerate a religion like Islam which will not tolerate them – no matter how nice individual Muslims might be? That’s not “unjustifiable discrimination!” That’s simply self preservation!
If Muslims find that offensive, they need to take a good long hard look at the tenets of their faith. They might just discover why Westerners find Islam so distasteful. It’s difficult to be more than courteous with someone whose religious beliefs command them to kill you.
Stan Lee says
Jadwat argues against the constitutionality of Trump’s “travel ban”, yet misses the fact that Trump ordered same as a temporary 90 day ban affecting six countries, not all nations with high numbers of Muslim populations. My argument against the same TEMPORARY TRAVEL BAN” is that it doesn’t involve Muslims from more than six countries. Yet, in the past, Pakistanis have been discovered traveling on Saudi visas. Pakistan not only is bigoted to Christians native to Pakistan, but more and more reports of the murders of Christians in Pakistan continue to be reported. It now appears to be an everyday occurrence, yet Pakistan doesn’t make the travel ban list. Why not?
Trump’s naming those six highly-populated Muslim nations was a decent start and was based upon the Obama regime’s investigation of possible Jihadi sources. But, Obama never acted upon his conclusion and if now weighed for accuracy would fail to be an adequate number of jihadi source countries. Furthermore, Trump stated at the time of this order, “We have to better understand what precautions must be taken before anymore Muslim travel admissions are granted” or words that similarly outline the necessity of Trump’s order.
What can be expected from “Jadwat,” possibly Muslim himself? And, no less from the ACLU? Is he making a plea for the safety and security of all America, or just the segment which can be counted as his brethren? Jadwat will receive no counter argument from Leftists who live to sell-out Americans, and especially from the ACLU.
The Judge’s questioning of Jadwat’s motivations, twice, to which Jadwat is described at balking to answer Judge Niemayer,, and Jadwat claimed Trump’s animus drove him to appear in court for an judicial termination of the Trump policy. But, I submit that Jadwat exhibits “animus” towards America and partiality strictly for Muslims. Even in view of a “temporary travel ban” for six named nations, Jadwat and his allies cannot tolerate a President of the United States who intends to protect this country and its citizens. President Trump was elected by patriotic Americans whose interest is peace and security for our homeland. Leftists scoff at such a patriotic motive!
simpleton1 says
Stan Lee says
“six highly-populated Muslim nations was a decent start and was based upon the Obama regime’s investigation of possible Jihadi sources.” Yes.
It be tweaked up to include other countries, or if things were sorted, then deleted from that list.
That 90 days was to allow a learning curve, a warning for all countries to value the passport system, and to care of any problems on their side of the border.
gravenimage says
ACLU Lawyer: Trump travel ban “could be Constitutional” if enacted by Hillary Clinton
………………..
My God, this is blatant.
Ed Lee says
As Dr. Bill Warner talks about often, Islam is a system of dualism.
Francis Merde says
No joke, that court case was some of the most entertaining shit I’ve ever heard. Listen for yourselves. That ACLU lawyer got crushed.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?427706-1/fourth-circuit-hears-oral-argument-travel-ban&live&vod
mortimer says
LAUGHABLE if it weren’t so DISHONEST! They are preposterous frauds! Omar Jadwat, is a mendacious TAQIYYA ARTIST covering for the JIHAD AGENDA that is DEAR TO HIS HEART.
somehistory says
What’s in a name? If moslim, it’s a name full of lies…deceit in every form known to man and demon.
If anyone heard him, or read his *arguments* before the court, and could not see the problems, the evil, the stupidity, the wrongness, of what he was saying, then that one is a fool…as is this jadwat liar.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
I got their crappy survey in the mail today. I need to burn that thing, maybe I’ll buy a bargain Qur’an and I’ll do a light show.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
Mr Spencer,the lawyer is right.the American constitution is based on pragmatic school of law.Its interpretation is colored by circumstances on the ground.mr trump expressed his discriminatory tendencies during campaign.such prejudices have to taken into consideration in the interpretation of any policy he issues visavis the general intendments of the constitution.If mr spencer had followed the proceedindgs at trial court and Appeal he would have noticed this glaring in the arguements and submissions of counsels.thus,mr trump failed to get his way.mr spencer,all your expectations that mr trump will endorse your campaigns of hatred against muslims will also fail in the United states.mr spencer you are the son of immigrants,yet you hate to see others coming into the United states.why?
Francis Merde says
Three words: Rational basis review. GFY.
Carolyne says
The court’s responsibility is not to question the motives of a person who writes a law, but to determine if that law is Constitutional. Mr. Trump clearly has the authority to decide who may enter this country and who may not. That is the only question.
However, he did not ever exhibit animus toward Muslims, but Muslim terrorists.
John A. Marre says
The ACLU hates this country and cannot be expected to favor anything that helps it.