Equality Before The Law?

a nation of men – not of Laws

In taking their first crack at President Donald Trump’s immigrant travel ban Monday, judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resorted to hypothetical situations to make up for a lack of precedent when forming their questions.

…Judge Paul Niemeyer jumped in with his own hypothetical: “If a different candidate had won the election, and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer clarified that he meant a candidate who did not say anything about the order or Muslims prior to issuing it.

Jadwat said he thought that yes, in that situation, the order could be considered constitutional. Niemeyer appeared to be getting at whether the order, which bans the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim countries for 90 days is legitimate absent Trump’s public comments.

If it were a different person, it would be a different Constitutional question.

hm…

What if he made those statements as a college student?” Niemeyer asked.

The answer was unclear for this one. Jadwat said those statements would likely be “much less probative” than his other statements.

Judge Robert King asked whether the challenge would be legitimate if Trump took back his statements about “the Muslim ban,” which the judges noted the president has not done. Jadwat said he thought that would be significant, but when asked by Shedd if it would change the issue, Jadwat said a “simple repudiation” would not.

“What if he says he’s sorry every day for a year?” Shedd asked, to resounding laughter.

Jadwat said the “establishment clause prohibits targeting and denigrating a religion” and that what mattered was whether “reasonable people” would interpret the president as attempting to achieve that effect with his actions.

But if he were a different person

BTW, the “ban” is a terrible “ban on people of a articular religion” as it fails to ban the majority of people “of a particular religion” in the world. So it isn’t even that.

But if he had been a different person

11 Comments!

  1. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 9:26 am |

    Once again (I’m getting sick of this), Progs say “Laws for thee aren’t for me.”

  2. DougM (flawed)
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 9:58 am |

    Dammit!!!!!!
    I was just gonna post that.
    GMTA
    Anyway, here’s how the post ended:

    My reaction?

    One of my favorite movie gestures, ever.

  3. Posted May 9, 2017 at 10:54 am |

    Leftist ideology is the Great Destroyer of everything. If and when, in some terrible Dystopian future where said ideology rules all, these leftists will then start to cannibalize each other with the least crazy being the first targets, then so on and so on.

  4. OldFert
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 1:51 pm |

    Hasn’t been equal treatment under law for a long time, if ever, but at least it didn’t look so much like “professional studio wrestling” as it does now. The referees seem to look away at juuuuust the right time for the proper villains.

  5. DougM (flawed)
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm |

    If you like lawyerin’,
    here’s an interesting exchange between Cruz and Yates.

  6. Drew458
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 4:00 pm |

    Disrobe this idiot judge right away. If he is considering who made the EO to make his judgement, then he is grossly biased and more than likely corrupt. You’re Fired.

    Personally, if President Trump declared jizzlam as a terrorist screed and not a religion, closed every mosque in the nation and started immediate deportation of every one of them who doesn’t have a MD or a PHD, along with halting 100% of all muzzie immigration, I’d stand up and cheer. He’s already branded as a “fascist”; might as well act like one and get the job done right.

  7. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 7:01 pm |

    ^Drew458 – ***************applause*****************

  8. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 9:08 pm |

    Jadwat said the “establishment clause prohibits targeting and denigrating a religion”

    Bullshit. It doesn’t say any such thing. (And this clot is a lawyer? – I thought they could read.)

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” (Never mind that this “free exercise” bit was intended to apply only to Christian religious denominations – the Founders didn’t conceive of their new nation inviting pagans in…) But there’s nothing there about denigration, especially denigrating a backward Satanic death cult and political system masquerading as a religion. The “free speech” part of that First Amendment specifically guarantees the right to call people names. (Especially when they deserve it.)

    If there were, those afore-mentioned Christians would have a damn-sight more to complain about than the Mohammedans.

  9. Posted May 9, 2017 at 9:22 pm |

    So since Congress can’t make a law targeting a religion that means the POTUS can’t stop immigration from failed states?
    Makes total sense.

    Eh, at least the justification isn’t the pursuit of happiness clause so that’s something.

  10. OldFert
    Posted May 9, 2017 at 10:21 pm |

    Maybe the gov’t can direct the incoming from those places to be settled in Hawaii, California, Maryland, for starters.

    If they want to make the bed, they should have to sleep there, too.

    Maybe Chappaqua and the DC area as well.

    and I second: Drew458 – ***************applause*****************

  11. DougM (flawed)
    Posted May 10, 2017 at 12:34 pm |

    My nomination is Trey Gowdy.