'Words matter': Katie Pavlich notes that campaign talk of Muslim ban haunted Trump in court

Truth:

Media replaying this like it's the moon landing. comically horrendous.

— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) February 10, 2017

There’s a party on Twitter tonight, and everyone who opposed President Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees is invited, now that the 9th Circuit Court has ruled a judge’s stay on the order will not be lifted, at least for now. It’s a little bit like the celebration liberals had expected to have had the night of Nov. 8, and even 2016’s biggest loser is having a chuckle.

Decisions by the 9th Circuit are overturned more often than not, and it’s worth noting just what Thursday’s ruling meant, and what it didn’t.

Remember, this ruling today was not on the merits – this was just on whether the stay of the order should be lifted

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) February 10, 2017

And speaking of the merits:

9th Circuit ruling says gov't produced "no evidence" that no one from countries in exec order "perpetrated a (US) terrorist attack"

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 9, 2017

White House argument on the merits: This is about *preventing* an attack https://t.co/F4M2HLouCN

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) February 9, 2017

Believe it or not, Townhall editor, White House correspondent, and BuzzFeed-triggering conservative opinion commentator person Katie Pavlich and the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman came to the same conclusion, though, on Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric coming back to haunt him.

Words matter https://t.co/o2rtglabzm

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 10, 2017

In which the President is reminded again that words matter https://t.co/uXDZ7FGIRl

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) February 9, 2017

Recommended

ROASTING Rick Wilson is all the RAGE After Video of His FL Dems Speech Goes Viral for the WRONG Reasons

Sam J.

Advertisement

Uh-oh:

Part of the argument hinges on the fact that Trump has referred to the order as a "Muslim ban" frequently. https://t.co/ImQBLr91tU pic.twitter.com/E8FpFHW8S0

— Gideon Resnick (@GideonResnick) February 9, 2017

In declining to restore travel ban, 9th Cir. invokes "numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban'" pic.twitter.com/XYHThrVtnB

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) February 9, 2017

As Twitchy reported, one judge of the three behind Thursday’s unanimous ruling distinguished himself in court by clarifying that the Muslim ban of which Trump spoke on the campaign trail was not the travel ban of his executive order; millions of Muslims from countries not specified in the order were unaffected, while non-Muslims from seven countries were … and those countries weren’t drawn from a hat.

Still, it’s clear that the appeals judges were concerned about the idea of a Muslim ban, regardless of the text of the order.

soooo the Court is relying on the words of the President rather than the actual law and order….am I the only one disturbed?

— Loren (@LorenSethC) February 9, 2017

https://twitter.com/DrTabio29/status/829838314127683586

I thought they were supposed to rule on the law, not campaign rhetoric? Expect a lot of action in 9th Circuit in Trump admin.

— Steve Hartkopf (@srobhartkopf) February 10, 2017

9th Circuit Had NO basis for looking at campaign rhetoric. They are to look at law. #ImpeachThem

— Jaxmobile ?? (@JaxMobile) February 9, 2017

That has nothing to do with the case and in any other court, would not be considered.

— LopRidgeway, Wilbury (@LopRidgeway) February 10, 2017

Anyone w/ a law degree – and w/o a bias to reach an end result – knows that statements outside the EO don't matter. So, no.

— VP of Common Sense (@FanOfWords08) February 9, 2017

https://twitter.com/windh1/status/829861513670303744

if a Muslim ban, I wonder why all countries with majority Muslim populations weren't on the list then.

— Robt V (@Robt_VC) February 9, 2017

If President's words mattered, ppl could go to court to get their $2,500 Obamacare savings. EO words matter. Thats it.

— ?? Afterseven ✝️ (@Afterseven) February 9, 2017

https://twitter.com/chrisflory/status/829838606260912128

the court has now set the standard that politicians are liable for statements made;
Woulda been Useful 8 yrs ago

— Intellectual Lee Honest (@LastWheatPenny) February 10, 2017

Let's stop pretending the 9th Circuit Court was ever going to rule in his favor from the moment this started.

— Meier Ben Avraham (@hebrewservative) February 9, 2017

https://twitter.com/jagnp99/status/829838587264905216

That’s probably why progressives are squeezing as much enjoyment out of the ruling as they can for tonight.