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

[GURPS]

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



“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.

The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination.

 

[littlelady]

Yes, indeedy! The ole double standard is alive and well. Apparently, some don't mind admitting as such. Unbelievable! Oh wait, never mind. It is believable!

 

[awpitt]

Yes, indeedy! The ole double standard is alive and well. Apparently, some don't mind admitting as such. Unbelievable! Oh wait, never mind. It is believable!

It's not a double standard. Trump spent a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc. That's the basis as to why his executive order, so far, is loosing in the courts. His statements show intent. Hillary, with all her problems, managed not to spend a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc. Which is why had she won and issued the same executive order, that intent would not be shown. It's interesting that over the last few days, the Trump people are sanitizing his Website of all the statement he'd made. Too bad they don't understand that once something is published to the Internet, it's there forever.

 

[GURPS]

It's not a double standard. Trump spent a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc. That's the basis as to why his executive order, so far, is loosing in the courts. His statements show intent.

A has nothing to do with B ... no legal basis for including anything stated during any campaign stop, and when not used Trumps EO stands as it did IN VA

 

[SamSpade]

It's not a double standard. Trump spent a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc. That's the basis as to why his executive order, so far, is loosing in the courts. His statements show intent. Hillary, with all her problems, managed not to spend a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc. Which is why had she won and issued the same executive order, that intent would not be shown. It's interesting that over the last few days, the Trump people are sanitizing his Website of all the statement he'd made. Too bad they don't understand that once something is published to the Internet, it's there forever.

I just don't see the rationale on declaring something unconstitutional based on something the order neither says nor does - but on what someone may have SAID months earlier but which is not contained in the order.
Maybe that's why I am not a lawyer - it seems to me that a law is based on what it says, not what someone else thinks it might do.
I know I prefer to be judged on my actual actions, and not what I said last year but didn't do today.

 

[Grumpy]

It's not a double standard. Trump spent a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc.

But perfectly fine for Hillary to say Donald Trump's supporters belong in a "basket of deplorables" characterized by "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic" views??

 

[vraiblonde]

Hillary, with all her problems, managed not to spend a campaign making derogatory statements about certain races, nationalities, religions, etc.

No, she just spent her campaign making derogatory statements about middle class Americans who have traditional values.

That's why she lost.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's not a double standard.

And PS, stop it. It's a double standard and you know it is.

 

[Wishbone]

No, she just spent her campaign making derogatory statements about middle class Americans who have traditional values, jobs, loyalty to the principles of their nation and respect.

That's why she lost.

 

[SamSpade]

No, she just spent her campaign making derogatory statements about middle class Americans who have traditional values.

That's why she lost.

Oh heck - did you hear the other day how backward she considered folk in flyover country because she couldn't get cell service?
And any such place needs to keep pace with the 21st century?
There's at least a half dozen stupid condescending things right there alone.

(I GET the context - still reeks of condescension. You know - based on stuff she said previously. Ha!)

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh heck - did you hear the other day how backward she considered folk in flyover country because she couldn't get cell service?
And any such place needs to keep pace with the 21st century?
There's at least a half dozen stupid condescending things right there alone.

(I GET the context - still reeks of condescension. You know - based on stuff she said previously. Ha!)

And we paid her back by keeping her out of the White House. SCORE!!

 

[Bann]

And we paid her back by keeping her out of the White House. SCORE!!

Thank ya,JEEE-sus!!!!

 

[Toxick]

It's not a double standard.

It's actually the definition of a double standard.

 

[Gilligan]

It's actually the definition of a double standard.

Exactly. Something no amount of obtuseness can change.

 

[Wishbone]

Exactly. Something no amount of obtuseness can change.

Don't underestimate how much they can generate.

 

[itsbob]

I just don't see the rationale on declaring something unconstitutional based on something the order neither says nor does - but on what someone may have SAID months earlier but which is not contained in the order.
Maybe that's why I am not a lawyer - it seems to me that a law is based on what it says, not what someone else thinks it might do.
I know I prefer to be judged on my actual actions, and not what I said last year but didn't do today.

And nobody who's testified so far has the duty, responsibility or constitutional mandate to declare anything unconstitutional..

Legal Counsel at Justice reviewed it, deemed it legal AND constitutional, and Sally Wetherpants decided she just didn't want to enforce ANYTHING from that bad man..

She's a government employee.. refusing to do her job, and in so doing breaking the law. Arrest her. You want to play adult games, time to treat them like adults and punish them like adults.

 

[Inkd]

No, she just spent her campaign making derogatory statements about middle class Americans who have traditional values.

That's why she lost.

At least she didn't refer to black youths as "super predators". I mean, she didn't do it during the campaign.

 

[Clem72]

I just don't see the rationale on declaring something unconstitutional based on something the order neither says nor does - but on what someone may have SAID months earlier but which is not contained in the order.

Oh come on now. If upon being made manager of a bar you fired your bartender Jose with the statement "I'm sorry, I just don't think we work well together and I am going to have to let you go" you would probably have no issues. If the previous three weeks during every morning team meeting you made the statement "If I ever get promoted to manager, all you wetbacks are toast", you may have a problem. Sometimes intent matters.

 

[Gilligan]

Oh come on now. If upon being made manager of a bar you fired your bartender Jose with the statement "I'm sorry, I just don't think we work well together and I am going to have to let you go" you would probably have no issues. If the previous three weeks during every morning team meeting you made the statement "If I ever get promoted to manager, all you wetbacks are toast", you may have a problem. Sometimes intent matters.

In a trial, it might. But that's not what this was. Note even close.

 

[This_person]

Oh come on now. If upon being made manager of a bar you fired your bartender Jose with the statement "I'm sorry, I just don't think we work well together and I am going to have to let you go" you would probably have no issues. If the previous three weeks during every morning team meeting you made the statement "If I ever get promoted to manager, all you wetbacks are toast", you may have a problem. Sometimes intent matters.

I have to agree with the concept that intent matters, but I would think you'd have to agree with the concept that what actually was done matters, too.

For example, using your analogy, if you spent weeks saying stuff about "wetbacks", and then refused to hire anyone from an area that said they would kill you because of your comments about "wetbacks" - whether they were Mexican, American, regardless of race, sex, or any other category besides coming from the area - and you said that ban on hiring was only until you could reliably decide who said it and whether the person who wants to be hired is one of those people....then you'd have a more accurate analogy, and I think it would be legal to do so. Your comments, in the analogy, would be a valid discussion point if your act of not hiring were directed at exclusively Mexican men who are here illegally (isn't that the definition of a "wetback"?), but since your actions are not directly proportional to your statements (in the analogy), they really don't matter except as a motive for some of the people in the area to hate you enough to want to kill you.