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. Here is a portion of the audio from today’s hearing:
The last part of the audio is rather funny. Jadwat, asked whether the order on its face is valid, says No. Why? “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?”
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.
The sad fact is that Democratic presidents appoint Democratic judges who are willing to subscribe to such lawless nonsense.