Omar Jadwat is the ACLU lawyer who has been charged with proving that President Trump’s executive order on refugee travel (from 6 particular Muslim majority nations) is unconstitutional. On Monday, he inadvertently unmasked the truth behind the ACLU’s case and proved that almost everything that liberals do is politically motivated and has no foundation in reality.
While arguing that Trump’s travel order was unconstitutional, Jadwat admitted that had the same exact order been delivered by a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton, it would have been completely constitutional. The ACLU’s entire argument is predicated on the idea that Trump’s order is unconstitutional because it is motivated by a religious animus. Thus far, with liberal judges and courts, this argumentation has worked… which is sad, because our judges are supposed to be ruling on the constitutionality of the orders themselves… not on the motivations of the person delivering the orders.
However, it seems that the ACLU’s strategy may have finally hit a snag as a group of judges who seem more interested in the law than politics, are finally holding the ACLU accountable for their bad legal challenge.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Niemeyer expertly dissected Jadwat’s terrible argument as NTK NEWS explains:
“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.
By this point in the argument, the other judges also began incredulously questioning Jadwat, seemingly in disbelief that this is what the ACLU was arguing.
Jadwat feeling the pressure must have realized that he had backed himself into a corner and switched gears, arguing that President Trump’s order was “unprecedented” in American history (it isn’t), but this just earned even more ire from the judges with one asking if Jadwat thought that every “first order on anything” was invalid? To which Jadwat answered, of course, “No, your honor.”
It should now be obvious, to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention that the ACLU’s case is groundless and without merit.