Given his performance and the court’s response, perhaps he was placed a bit too high in the batting order. It wouldn’t be surprising if General Manger Obama demands Mr. Jadwat be replaced with a designated hitter. Apparently Omar has trouble with the curve.
Facing questions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ACLU attorney, also a NYU Adjunct Professor of Law mounted a spirited if not totally ignorant attack on President Trump’s constitutional right to invoke an Executive Order restricting entry to the U.S. from seven Mid-East countries.
The Democrats who attacked President Trump’s travel order in front of carefully-selected Democratic judges made the extraordinary claim that the President’s statements on the stump, as a candidate, were somehow relevant to whether the order was constitutional. This claim implies that an order may be unconstitutional if issued by one president, while the exact same order would be perfectly fine if issued by another*. This is an absurd result. It may be absurd, but it is what the Democrats believe. ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing today before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, told the court that President Trump’s travel order “could be constitutional” if it had been written by Hillary Clinton. (Emphasis mine)*
Why doesn’t the ACLU just get it over with and argue that Trump’s guilty — of being Republican? That’d be more honest.
Poor Omar can’t be completely blamed for that line of attack, it had previously found friendly ground with US District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang in the Maryland federal court. (WaPo-March 16, 2017)
A second federal judge issued an injunction Thursday blocking enforcement of one of the critical sections of President Trump’s revised travel ban, using Trump’s own comments against him in deciding that the ban was likely to run afoul of the Constitution. “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban,” Chuang wrote.
Jadwat, asked whether the order on its face is valid, says “No, I don’t think so, Your Honor, because the order is completely unprecedented.” To which one of the Fourth Circuit judges replies, with astonishment that seems mostly genuine: “So the first order on anything is invalid?” (Emphasis mine)
If this wasn’t so pitiful, it would be alarming. This wasn’t a legal argument at all. It was a blatant racist dog whistle, meant to shame the justices hearing the appeal. Because apparently what Team Resistance would like to say is this:
The only possible reason for the President’s Executive Order is because Republicans want to tear down and destroy our first black president’s legacy. Oh, and they hate Muslims as well!
That’s what they really want to say, but its just too harsh. So, they couch it in terms such as “unprecedented” trusting their sycophants to understand and be far more direct and mean spirited on Twitter.
The Muslim ban is either constitutional or it’s not—and Donald Trump’s words on the campaign trail don’t settle that question one way or the other.
As usual, the liberals have no coherent theory. Basically, they believe that anything they don’t like is unconstitutional. And “unconstitutional,” for them, has nothing to do with the actual written document called the Constitution, the charter on which our nation is founded. “Unconstitutional” merely means something they don’t like.
Somehow I find it difficult to believe Mr. Jadwat will be up to bat when the game moves to the Supreme Court. He’s a minor league player at best.