ACLU Lawyer Admits Trump's Travel Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary Clinton

Monday, while the media zeroed in on the Sally Yates/James Clapper testimony before Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee and their own elation over the French election results, quietly the first appeal hearing of the Trump's blocked travel ban began arguments in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. During questioning an ACLU attorney arguing against the ban showed how politicized and a sham our judicial system has become in the hands of democrat appointed judicial activist on the bench following their own version of Blind Justice....... 

NKT - 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?”

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted. 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 they took. Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

Jadwat admitted:

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

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

_____________________________________________________

Unprecedented? Amazingly enough, the ACLU still repeats that lie in court.  A quick key word search for "President" in the US Code brings you to the section pertaining to the legality of the executive order.  And take note that nowhere does it say "Except Donald Trump"........

8 USC 1182-Section 10: Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

(f) "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Thank You MJA and Larwyn's Linx for the Linkage!

'I LOVE BOOBIES' and the ACLU

Okay, we're talking Middle School here, 6th -7th and 8th graders - flowering young ladies and raging male hormones in tennis shoes. Not the halls of higher education. But the self appointed defenders of our liberties at the ACLU believe a school system cannot ban "I LOVE BOOBIES"  bracelets from campus.

I'm a stanch defender of free speech, but I also believe in decorum and appropriateness. We are talking about children for the most part, not socially aware teenagers.  And lest we forget, this is the same organization that has done more then it's share of terrorizing school systems unable to afford the cost to defend themselves over Christmas plays and student discipline.....

Opposing Views:

"After an entire year of deliberation, a U.S. appeals court ruled today that an Easton Pennsylvania school district cannot ban “I (heart) Boobies!” bracelets.

The bracelets are distributed by the non-profit Keep a Breast Foundation and are

 intended to promote breast cancer awareness amongst young people. 

The case began a year ago when two middle school students, Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, filed suit after being suspended for defying their school’s ban on the bracelets. When a lower court judge ruled in favor of the girls, the school district appealed the ruling, eventually brining the case to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The American Civil Liberties Union represented the girls in the case. The ACLU legal team argued that students have a right to discuss important social issues, even when that discussion is prompted by bracelet slogans.

"It explicitly says school children talk about important things, and when they (do) ... that's the kind of speech we want to protect and promote," said Mary Catherine Roper, an ACLU lawyer working on the case."

Who gets to define "Important Things" these days, Ms. Roper. And what about the liberty to set rules and regulations within an organization? And where are you when speakers invited to college campuses are intimidated into canceling their appearance because of there opinions (free speech)?

I believe the ACLU could better serve the defending of our liberties (but I don't believe that is their real intention) by standing up for the civil liberties of people attacked by racist thugs on the streets, or protecting us from blatant intrusions by the government into our private lives. But then again, that's not what it's founders (or useful idiots as Stalin liked called people like them) really had in mind now did they.....