Say “uncle” and you’ll get your way, Trump

This is now, quite apparently, what we’ve come down to in the United States.

We all know about Fake News courtesy of Leftist “journalistas.” There is now, courtesy of Leftist judges and attorneys, Fake Law.

I can’t believe I’m reading the article correctly but, sadly, I am indeed. From Breitbart.com:

Neal Katyal at 9th Circuit: If Trump Says ‘Islam Is Peace’ He Can Have a Travel Ban

by Ian Mason

Neal Katyal made oral arguments for maintaining the injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning migrants from certain Muslim-majority countries Monday before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“He could say, like President Bush did right after September 11th, ‘The face of Terror is not the true face of Islam, that’s not what Islam is about, Islam is Peace.’ Instead, we get ‘Islam hates us’,” Katyal told the bench, answering Clinton-appointed Judge Richard Paez’s question on what, if anything, Trump could do to make the executive order acceptable.

Really? All President Trump has to do, according to Katyal, is cry “uncle” and all is forgiven? Really?

Katyal, former President Barack Obama’s one-time acting Solicitor General, has taken on the representation of the plaintiffs who stopped the executive order’s implementation in March when a federal court in Hawaii ruled in their favor. The Justice Department has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit, seeking to vacate that injunction.

Do you believe Katyal will actually relent and back off the lawsuit if President Trump but says the “magic words”?

Me neither.

The most controversial element of Obama-appointed district court Judge Derrick Watson’s ruling was its justification of the injunction based not on the text or effect of the executive order, but on statements President Trump made during the 2016 campaign.

Precisely. Fake Law. Predicated not upon the documents in front of the court, but on mostly everything but.

According to that ruling, speaking about a “Muslim ban” and speaking negatively about the religion’s relationship with the West meant that the plaintiffs had a high enough likelihood of proving a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to block the order. This is true even though the actual order does not take any action based on people being Muslim because, “[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[.]”

Meaning, again, that the issue was not what was immured on paper but what was said in the ether and not supported by paper. A logical question was then asked.

The argumentation led naturally to the question of what, if anything, could be done to save such a facially neutral order. “Does that mean that the President is forever barred from issuing an executive order along these lines?” Judge Paez asked Katyal. “What does he have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?”

What indeed? Twenty-three Hail Marys? Genuflect towards Mecca? Tap a wrist? Provide evidence of stigmata?

Trump might gain more power to issue executive order if he “disavows,” Katyal argued. “One example would be what Judge Hawkins said about disavowing formally the stuff before.”

You can’t make this stuff up. But wait, there’s more. Let’s just excise whatever unappetizing elements actually exist within Islam, shall we?

In addition to suggesting Trump could save his order by telling the country “Islam is peace,” Katyal also recommended removing references, in the text of the order, to the unsavory elements of Islamic society. “It could eliminate the text which refers to honor killings,” he told the court.

Of course. Let’s just eliminate those niggling little female genital mutilation issues, the misogynist issues, the beheading issues, the Borg issues, the bacha bazi issues, the pedophilia of Islam, the internal combustion of Islam.

By the way, who is Neal Katyal? He’s the man who said this about Neil Gorsuch at Gorsuch’s hearing:

He’s also the man with the god-like endless CV. Superbly humble.

Katyal is the recipient of the very highest award given to a civilian by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Edmund Randolph Award, which the Attorney General presented to him in 2011. The Chief Justice of the United States appointed him in 2011 to the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules, and again in 2014. Additionally, he was named as One of the 40 Most Influential Lawyers of the Last Decade Nationwide by National Law Journal (2010); One of the 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers Over the Last 30 Years by Legal Times (2008); Lawyer of the Year by Lawyers USA (2006); Runner-Up for Lawyer of the Year by National Law Journal (2006); One of the Top 50 Litigators Nationwide 45 Years Old or Younger by American Lawyer (2007); and one of the top 500 lawyers in the country by LawDragon Magazine for each of the last ten years. He also won the National Law Journal’s pro bono award.

And there you have it. The insanity gene.

BZ

 

2 thoughts on “Say “uncle” and you’ll get your way, Trump

  1. I am befuddled, to be sure, how these judges aren’t impeached when they turn total wacko, as in this case. Who is Neal Katyal that he can sway the very direction of a countries policies? If anyone studies Islam to learn how it works, they will find writings to help direct this type of control. Ban them, I say, and to hell with Neal Katyal. The game of chess was originated in the middle east, and the Muslim world learned to use its principles to move Islam forward. Always on their minds is the world domination of Sharia Law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments Protected by WP-SpamShield for WordPress