President Trump’s executive order limiting travel to the US from failed states and state sponsors of terrorism was on the agenda with the Fourth Circuit today and the challengers did not have a great day. Perhaps for the first time, the travel executive order case was heard by a judge who didn’t get his law degree from a box of Cheerios. The highlight of the day came when Judge Paul Niemeyer was questioning a stooge from the ACLU named Omar Jadwat. He trotted out the bizarre attack line that has been used by many of our robed would-be masters that Donald Trump’s campaign statements in favor of restricting Muslim immigration make the order illegal despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world is not affected by the order.
All of this is good but skip to 0:46 for the fun.
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.
And there is this classic:
The last part of the audio is rather funny. Jadwat, asked whether the order on its face is valid, says No. Why? “I don’t think so, Your Honor, because the order is completely unprecedented.” To which one of the Fourth Circuit judges replies, with astonishment that seems mostly genuine: “So the first order on anything is invalid?”
This argument reveals the corrupt reasoning demonstrated thus far in the legal battles over what are clearly legal and proper executive orders. The bottom line is that a portion of the judiciary opposes Donald Trump. Period. And they are willing to use their power to pervert the course of justice in order to hand Trump a defeat. That’s it. This travel ban is going to be found legal and when it is there should be impeachment waiting for any judge who ruled it was illegal.
The post ACLU Says One Simple Thing Would Make Trump’s Travel Ban Completely Acceptable (AUDIO) appeared first on RedState.
Read more here: http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/05/08/aclu-says-one-simple-thing-make-trumps-travel-ban-completely-acceptable/ by streiff Originally posted on http://www.redstate.com