Popular vote loser Trump is beloved by his supporters for his so called straight talk and anti-PC statements, no matter how hateful. Well, such talk has consequences.
No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.
And that’s exactly what’s happening now in the epic court battle over his travel ban, currently blocked by a temporary order set for argument Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric stretches back years, and now his words are circling back to bite him where it counts.
The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.
...
The states offer a multitude of exhibits, starting with a December 2015 release from the Trump campaign calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
They cite his August speech advocating screening out people “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”
Another exhibit: His Jan. 27 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christians in Syria.
They even hauled out Rudolph W. Giuliani’s comment on Fox News that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”
Naturally, government lawyers would like the court to exclude such statements:
It is inappropriate and contrary to precedent, they say in their brief, for the court to “’look behind’ the stated basis for the Order to probe its subjective motivations.
However, there is very recent precedent for “looking behind” the stated basis for an Executive Order. In a case from 2015, President Obama’s words were used successfully in court against him.
When Texas and 25 other states successfully sued to temporarily block Obama’s attempt to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation in 2015, among their chief arguments was that the president’s executive actions were an overreach, an end-run around the Republican-controlled Congress that had refused to go along with his proposals.
Among their best pieces of evidence were some of Obama’s own words, uttered at a moment of frustration when he was getting heckled for his deportation policy: “… I just took an action to change the law,” he responded.
Both the U.S. district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used those and other words against him when they ruled against Obama.
When the Supreme Court deadlocked in the case, the lower court decisions stood.
This indeed will be some sweet, sweet justice if Trump’s Muslim ban is ultimately brought down by his own hateful speech.