General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's words come back to bite him in court hearing
As a federal appeals court heard arguments over the validity of President Trump's executive order temporarily banning travel from seven mostly Muslim countries, some of the strongest evidence for his opponents came from the president's own words.A key argument in the case is whether Trump's executive order violated the Constitution's ban on religious discrimination. Lawyers for the states of Washington and Minnesota have alleged that the order was designed to discriminate against Muslims.
Asked for evidence to support that claim, the lawyer for Washington pointed to "the public statements from the president and his top advisors," which he described as "rather shocking."
Trump called for a "Muslim ban" during his presidential campaign, Noah G. Purcell said. And the day he signed the order, he gave an interview to a Christian television network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christian refugees.
The evidence indicates that the order was "intended to favor some religious groups over others," Purcell said, which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment's ban on an established religion.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-trump-s-words-come-back-to-bite-him-in-1486511992-htmlstory.html
manicraven
(901 posts)He's managed to skate through, along with the Deplorables, and not had to face consequences.
central scrutinizer
(11,661 posts)If something bad happens
Cha
(297,650 posts)'Bout time that useless coot's words came back to bite his fascist ass.
Yup!
malaise
(269,157 posts)Takket
(21,625 posts)where, unlike your idiot filled campaign rallies, people won't cheer and accept outright bullshit as the truth simply because you said it. here you must embrace every republicans worst nightmare: Fact.
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)suing some luckless contractor Trump's trying to screw. And it's not necessarily about who has the deepest pockets.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,281 posts)and blaming the outcome on the judge
Sweet little innocent
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)loL
Grammy23
(5,813 posts)If the court rules against his "ban"?
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I will respect the court ruling. Herr rump will appeal if it is not in his favour.
I wish Ari Melber was representing US.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)it will go to Supreme court... and he may simply defy any ruling
Marthe48
(17,018 posts)and other government agencies will heed the law. Here's hoping the court doesn't cave.
Bob Loblaw
(1,900 posts)to appeal lost rulings and the case winds up in front of the Supremes. If that case winds up in a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling stands. How funny would that be?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)BuddyCa
(99 posts)this sets a dangerous precedent.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)and thats what I refer to it as. Even though, I find it to be an anti Christian order 1. Christians are always for refugee's because 2. they would like to at least try to convert them. (try not force them to convert, the ultra right would probably like to force them to convert) Most just try. Thats just how that runs. The same as it is with any other religion. Each trying to convert one another. Some do some don't.
Because if the courts see it as a Muslim Ban, that is illegal hands down. Even though I find the concept of a refugee ban totally pointless and counter productive..
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)But the court system is part-and-parcel with the rule of law, of which Republicans claim to be so fond, and is one of the pillars on which democracy rests.
=================
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)Is that Guiliani (a former prosecutor) said it while being interviewed by "judge" Jeanine both Trumpsters, both lawyers! Yet they are going to sink his ship.