ACLU lawyer admits Trump travel ban would be constitutional if Hillary had issued it

An ACLU lawyer arguing against the Trump travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday told a federal judge that the executive order initiating the ban would have been constitutional if a President Hillary Clinton had issued it.

The lawyer cited Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric as demonstrating "animus" thus delegitimizing the order. The judge was understandably perplexed.

NTK Network:

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.

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.

Liberal judges are banning the travel order based on specious grounds; that campaign rhetoric should carry weight when determining the constitutionality of an executive order.

Candidates say many things to get elected. Trump himself first proposed banning all Muslims from travel to the U.S. -- rhetoric that has now been deleted from his campaign site. The executive order that was issued after Trump took office, however, proposed no such thing. Citizens from the three most populous Muslim majority countries in the world are still free to travel to the U.S., making the idea of a "Muslim ban" ridiculous. 

But liberal judges are desperately casting about for legal reasoning that would allow them to prevent the travel ban from going into effect. That's why it's a virtual certainty that the executive order banning travel to the U.S. from certain countries will end up before the Supreme Court.

We should thank that ACLU lawyer for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when trying to explain why the travel ban is "unconstitutional." In fact, as Powerline puts it, "The only thing wrong with Trump's travel ban is Trump."

An ACLU lawyer arguing against the Trump travel ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday told a federal judge that the executive order initiating the ban would have been constitutional if a President Hillary Clinton had issued it.

The lawyer cited Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric as demonstrating "animus" thus delegitimizing the order. The judge was understandably perplexed.

NTK Network:

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.

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.

Liberal judges are banning the travel order based on specious grounds; that campaign rhetoric should carry weight when determining the constitutionality of an executive order.

Candidates say many things to get elected. Trump himself first proposed banning all Muslims from travel to the U.S. -- rhetoric that has now been deleted from his campaign site. The executive order that was issued after Trump took office, however, proposed no such thing. Citizens from the three most populous Muslim majority countries in the world are still free to travel to the U.S., making the idea of a "Muslim ban" ridiculous. 

But liberal judges are desperately casting about for legal reasoning that would allow them to prevent the travel ban from going into effect. That's why it's a virtual certainty that the executive order banning travel to the U.S. from certain countries will end up before the Supreme Court.

We should thank that ACLU lawyer for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when trying to explain why the travel ban is "unconstitutional." In fact, as Powerline puts it, "The only thing wrong with Trump's travel ban is Trump."

RECENT VIDEOS