Jetrell Fo said:
CatBus said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Jetrell Fo said:
CatBus said:
SilverWook said:
Seems like some senators are more interested in grilling Sally Yates over her opposition to Trumpy’s travel ban order than the stuff they’re supposed to be talking about today. A–holes.
The one where her views on the Muslim Ban were quickly and repeatedly vindicated by federal court opinions? That one?
Weird because it was never a “muslim” ban and most of the list was sorted by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post…
On July 24 last year, Trump sat for an interview with Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”. Todd prodded Trump on whether his new proposal targeting specific countries represents a “rollback” of his original Muslim ban. Trump denied that it was a rollback at all:
TRUMP: I don’t think so. I actually don’t think it’s a rollback. In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territories. People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.
Not just Trump but Rudy Giuliani also said the whole point was to design a Muslim Ban that could pass legal muster. Of course, they’ve discovered that’s kindof a sticky wicket, designing something whose core purpose is unconstitutional, in a way that’s not unconstitutional.
EDIT: The Trump team just scrubbed the Muslim Ban language from their campaign website. Coincidence I’m sure.
Sure they did, because nobody there had done it yet, and I bet that person got the riot act read to them too.
Federal Legal Counsel again went through the entire executive order regarding what’s on the table. They did not find anything unconstitutional or illegal nor did they find anything that was out of bounds in the regular process.
And yet the courts managed to find something that this stringent exercise missed. And Yates found the same thing. Maybe a sign that a rubber stamp is not the correct tool to use for legal review, see: John Yoo’s torture memo for another example.
EDIT: What’s the thing they found? Among other things, intent. Intent can be nowhere in the text of the law, yet it is regularly taken into consideration by the courts–especially in cases like this where the intent is so well-documented and unambiguous. So if Muslim Ban 3.0 came out and just said “Screw it, we’re closing the borders completely to everyone”, it would still be unconstitutional if the courts found the intent behind the law was to ban Muslims, and everyone else was just collateral damage in an attempt to make that ban look legally justifiable.