ACLU Admits Trump’s Travel Ban
Would Be Legal - With This
One Condition
Trump’s executive order banning travel for several Muslim countries would be
legal—if only Hillary Clinton was President. At least, according to the ACLU
attorney currently arguing against the ban in the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Omar Jadwat, the ACLU attorney, argued that Trump’s campaign promise to
Omar Jadwat, the ACLU attorney, argued that Trump’s campaign promise to
ban Muslims from entering the country motivated the travel ban, which made it discriminatory.
Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer challenged that claim, using point blank:
Fourth Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer challenged that claim, using point blank:
“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 the question, and asked for clarification, but Niemeyer was
Jadwat dodged the question, and asked for clarification, but Niemeyer was
persistent:
“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than
“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 rephrased. “Do I understand
that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
Jadwat was forced to admit: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be
Jadwat was forced to admit: “Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be
constitutional.”
Trump’s travel ban has been currently put on hold, after a federal judge in
Trump’s travel ban has been currently put on hold, after a federal judge in
Hawaii blocked it. After the Fourth Circuit makes its ruling, the case will
likely go all the way to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.