@TheCobbler,
Why would the lawyers not take the time educate themselves on such a simple matter before uttering stupid things?
I like this rejoinder in the WP.
Quote:Almost as great as the State of Judaism and the Republic of Hinduism.
What makes the Muslim ban a Muslim ban? Trump.
In any event, the travel ban is going to remain in place. They changed just enough to barely scoot by.
Here is another good bit:
Quote:Justice Elena Kagan asked Trump’s lawyer to consider a vehement anti-Semite who issues a proclamation “that says no one shall enter from Israel.”
Remarkably, Francisco said a president could do that. If the president’s Cabinet were to tell him there was a national security risk, he could ban all Israelis, “even if in his private heart of hearts he also harbored animus.”
Or, as relates to the current president, in his very public heart of hearts.
The travel ban has been revised substantially over time, and now it includes exemptions that, if they are honestly granted, may well be enough to pass constitutional muster. But there is no ignoring the ongoing presidential “animus” in which it — and so much else — is grounded.
Kagan got a laugh when she said the anti-Semitic president in her hypothetical “is an out-of-the-box kind of president.”
Francisco answered seriously: “We — we — we don’t have those, your honor.”
Of course not.
