The supposed evidence that Trump “discriminates” is based on campaign rhetoric.
First, that ignores his refinement of his rhetoric as the campaign progressed and even moreso afterward.
As a political neophyte, it takes pure mind-reading to suggest that isn’t what he meant all along and what he believes.
Second, it is irrelevant compared to the power of the presidency to control security of the nation.
There is nothing about this order that is not security based and on the nature of the security status in each of the affected nations.
All of the judges of the 4th circuit will sit en banc. 2 conservatives have recused themselves, one because of a family relationship to the solicitor arguing for the government.
The 2nd...there is no info that I have seen.
Please note: “within its jurisdiction” does not equal “within its borders”. Immigrants still fall under the jurisdiction of their native countries and are not therefore afforded Constitutional protection of their God given rights by the USA. Only U.S. citizens fall under the jurisdiction of any or all of these United States.
The court only struck down the temporary travel ban.
It was a 90 day travel ban that would have expired by now.
The author of the article seems confused.
Extreme vetting has been in place for a while and the travel ban is not needed. This is moving forward only as a PR stunt at this point.
The supposed evidence that Trump “discriminates” is based on campaign rhetoric.
And of course we had a sitting POTUS who said: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Tantruming Democrats best be careful here. What’s good for the goose...
Trump's political naivete is irrelevant to the question. No executive order has ever been interpreted on the basis of the intent of its issuer made before he had executive authority.
It's nice the libtards have discovered Originalism, but Originalism doesn't extend to comments made when Trump was a child, a student, a real estate developer, or even a campaigner.
If this logic were applied to 0bamacare, a judge could strike down the law on the basis of fraudulent claims made by Pelosi, Reid, and 0bama while they were campaigning for national healthcare. The district ruling on "intent" made on the basis of campaign rhetoric is a short, straight road to chaos.
It is extremely discerning that there are so many in our country who try to hinder Trump’s attempt to keep the nation safe from terrorism.
All this legal maneuvering can be circumvented if we can designate Islam to be a political movement instead of a religion of peace. Best solution would be to reject it altogether.
“The supposed evidence that Trump “discriminates” is based on campaign rhetoric.”
If the court buys that, then they are saying that all politicians speak the truth and all of their campaign promises are fulfilled.
This will open up a lot more lawsuits for all politicians based on their promises- “if you like your doctor/plan, you can keep them”, “save $2500 a year”, ...