Hours before President Trump’s revised travel ban went into effect, a federal judge used campaign rhetoric to issue a restraining order to block it.
In his ruling on Wednesday, Judge Derrick K. Watson from Hawaii cited comments from Trump and some of his top advisers in making his decision, The Hill reported.
Federal judge points to comments from Giuliani, Miller as justification for blocking Trump travel ban https://t.co/rKrPAdQlc5 pic.twitter.com/5RHRr6DBc2
— The Hill (@thehill) March 16, 2017
Federal judge blocks Trump’s new travel ban nationwide https://t.co/i8tO7ecVUb pic.twitter.com/IJGIPll8N0
— The Hill (@thehill) March 16, 2017
He pointed to quotes from Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller saying in a Fox interview that the revised order was fundamentally the same as the first.
Watson, who was appointed by former President Obama, wrote that there was nothing “secret about the motive of Trump’s executive order” and quoted top Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, who had said Trump originally called it a “Muslim ban.”
If judges are going to rule based on campaign rhetoric, maybe it’s time to revisit some other laws https://t.co/LTVRLeS7QA
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 16, 201
“These plainly-worded statements, made in the months leading up to and contemporaneous with the signing of the Executive Order, and, in many cases, made by the Executive himself, betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” Watson wrote.
“A reasonable, objective observer — enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance — would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose,” Watson concluded in his decision, referring to quotes from the presidential debates, “Anderson Cooper 360,” and “Meet the Press.”
Pete Williams: Fed. judge blocks Trump’s new travel ban, says it amounts to religious discrimination; judge cites Trump’s vow to ban Muslims pic.twitter.com/fcbZ0yyTsv
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) March 15, 2017
Federal judge says Trump’s own “Muslim ban” statements + Rudy/Stephen Miller comments “betray the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose” pic.twitter.com/ObZmIpw2qH
— Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) March 15, 2017
Judges using election rhetoric and promises made by candidates on the campaign trail raised eyebrows, and even some alarm.
Let’s start with blue state regulations on firearms. Let’s cut down labor laws that were intended to benefit white union workers.
— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 15, 2017
Let’s toss all legislation/orders if preceded by promises that in theory would have been unconstitutional, regardless of actual text adopted
— Mat (@sunnyright) March 15, 2017
Twitter users reacted to what they saw as a “dangerous” move by a judge who should be “impeached.”
Based on campaign rhetoric. The judge should be impeached. https://t.co/cuDhR5QcJ8
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) March 15, 2017
A judge using campaign and even public relations statements to infer Executive intent is one of the most dangerous developments possible.
— (((≠))) (@ThomasHCrown) March 15, 2017
@ThomasHCrown @PoliticalShort Why can’t these judges just rule on the law as set before them?
— Jim Goolsby (@rrman48) March 16, 2017
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
@TwitchyTeam @1776BetsyRoss Facts and evidence mean nothing to a Liberal judge
— NoMoreLiberals (@cycles13) March 16, 2017
@BraddJaffy When exactly did judges start making ruling based on campaign statement instead of the law?
— Joe (@JoeC1776) March 16, 2017
@BraddJaffy @LeslieMarshall that would never stand in court when studying a document – U can’t use a campaign speech to come against law
— Anne Verebely (@AVerebely) March 16, 2017
@BraddJaffy So then… It was not a tax as Obama had campaigned, and SCOTUS got Obamacare wrong. #judicialactivism
— Tyler (@tyler4587) March 16, 2017
The people now claiming extralegal statements matter more than legal text demanded that we ignore everything Gruber said about Obamacare.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 15, 2017
@seanmdav We should challenge every gun control law passed before about 1970.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 15, 2017
The president said I could keep my plan if I liked it. I wasn’t able to keep it. Who do I sue under this fancy new legal doctrine?
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) March 15, 2017
@thehill Apparently judges don’t need to comply with legal precedents, and can rule based on what someone says.
— Ex-GOP Greg (@Flying59Vette) March 16, 2017
@thehill ignore the judge; Obama did.
Eric Holder did.— kathy wilsin (@WilsinKathy) March 16, 2017
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.
- ‘Do not lose your life over a f-ing car!’ Brazen thieves tell homeowners to stay inside as they swipe Corvette - April 18, 2024
- Sworn in jurist in Trump hush money trial already dismissed as selection becomes growing nightmare - April 18, 2024
- INSIDER: ‘Speaks volumes!’ Biden ignored when he visits Pennsylvania gas station, stark contrast from Trump - April 18, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
