Wow. This is quite the admission here from an ACLU lawyer arguing against Trump’s travel ban before the fourth circuit of appeals.
Listen:
NTK – 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?” 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.
Here we go again. Just like liberal hack Sally Yates, the ACLU is pinning its whole case on comments that Trump said during the campaign trail and not on the order itself.
But as Alan Dershowitz has explained in the past, the Supreme Court has taken the attitude in its rulings that you don’t look at the motive or the intent of an order, you look at the actual order itself as to whether or not it is lawful.
And in this case the ACLU hack attorney suggests that the EO could be legal if another candidate, say Hillary Clinton, had purposed it.
Motive is always difficult to prove, even in criminal cases where the act is unlawful. In this case, the order is lawful, yet the ACLU is trying to prove that the motivation is unlawful.
Is the dog wagging it’s tail or is the tail wagging the dog?
(h/t: Hotair)