As Twitchy reported, Judge Derrick K. Watson on Wednesday issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Trump’s revised travel ban just hours before it was to take effect nationwide.
Much like the judge who blocked Trump’s original executive order, Watson cited statements made by Trump when he was a candidate in making his decision.
https://twitter.com/Cookiemuffen/status/842158991358722049
“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, citing quotes from the debates, “Anderson Cooper 360,” and “Meet the Press.”
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
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/842154791891529728
Based on campaign rhetoric. The judge should be impeached. https://t.co/cuDhR5QcJ8
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) March 15, 2017
Is it just us, or does that make anyone else nervous? Politicians sure as hell aren’t held to actually keeping the promises they made on the campaign trail, but judges can use that same rhetoric in rendering decisions like this one? If so, it’s definitely time to revisit some other executive orders and legislation.
Recommended
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/842158960765480963
We should challenge every gun control law passed before about 1970.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) 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
Like when Obama said he didn't have the power to do what he eventually did with DACA. https://t.co/xUo2Ai3wUt
— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) March 15, 2017
To be fair, what the president says has always been more important than a law’s text, which is why the Obamacare “it’s a tax” argument—wait.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/842157227989471235
"It's not a tax"
"It's a tax"
"It's not a tax"
"Wait am I talking to the courts or the American people? I forget what I'm supposed to say" https://t.co/xF5Eqxi9hx— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/842159852352880640
If intent and "context" is now a justification for striking down laws, rather than the laws themselves, we have a whole lot of laws to gut.
— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 15, 2017
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
Don't forget LBJ's social safety programs, which in his own words were about targeting a race of people for political ends.
— Nick Pappas (@NickAPappas) March 15, 2017
https://twitter.com/sunnyright/status/842155000960847872
Join the conversation as a VIP Member