Show

QUESTION: Would The Left Deem The Travel Ban ‘Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary?

Has the ACLU just tipped their hand, showing their REAL motives?

It’s no secret that the Left loves to use the judiciary to press their agendas when they don’t yet have popular public support. Sometimes, even using them to overturn the explicit will of the people. (Prop 8 comes to mind.)

Watch the ACLU lawyer’s answer when asked if the same law would be different if a DIFFERENT President had made a similar order.


[For his argument against the order to hold up, remember it had to be based on his alleged bias against Muslims.]

If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim. — NTKNetwork

When you really get down to it, this is the just the logical next step in the Left’s weaponizing of the Judiciary against ANY Republican policy they oppose.

Share if they aren’t even TRYING to hide their bias anymore.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.