Well, this was all pretty much implied from the lower courts' reasoning -- which always centered not on the law itself, but on statements Trump made (or was alleged by Rudy Giulliani to have made).Minus those statements, then the EO passes muster. It's facially constitutional. But they're saying a bad man wants to pass it, which makes it unconstitutional by prior statements.There is no such category. Courts distinguish between a law, order, or rule being facially unconstitutional -- the law or order or rule's own words themselves contain unconstitutional directives -- and unconstitutional-as-applied, where a mandate may be written in a way that is perfectly constitutional, but as actually applied by officials, is discriminatory. A good example of this, which courts aren't bothered by at all, is that "hate crimes" legislation is mostly executed in an unconstitutional-as-applied way: It's mostly a crime that only white people can be guilty of.But while those distinctions exist, there is no "facially constitutional but unconstitutional because Trump is a very bad man who uses very bad words" category.And in fact you can't even fault this directive for being discriminatory -- Presidents are permitted to be discriminatory as regards non-US-citizens coming into the country.The ACLU lawyer, quizzed by judges on this strange new doctrine they were arguing for, admitted that sure, Hillary Clinton signing the same EO would be perfectly constitutional, because she's not a Very Bad Man like Trump.
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label courts. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
In Fourth Circuit Hearing on Obama's Travel Restrictions, ACLU Lawyer Admits, Sure, This Executive Order Might Be Legal if Hillary Clinton Signed It
Via Ace of Spades
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Obama Appointee And Bundler Blocks More Video Releases By Group Behind Planned Parenthood Sting
Freedom of speech and the press was a good idea once upon a time.
Too bad it's no longer operative in Age of Obama.
A federal judge late Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the release of recordings made at an annual meeting of abortion providers. The injunction is against the Center for Medical Progress, the group that has unveiled Planned Parenthood’s participation in the sale of organs harvested from aborted children.Judge William H. Orrick, III, granted the injunction just hours after the order was requested by the National Abortion Federation.Orrick was nominated to his position by hardline abortion supporter President Barack Obama. He was also a major donor to and bundler for President Obama’s presidential campaign. He raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting him, according to Public Citizen.
Labels:
Abortion,
courts,
Fascism,
Free Speech,
Obama,
Planned Parenthood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)