It’s supposed to be about the law and if it is constitutional.
Alan Dershowitz said on Fox News this morning that because court rulings against President Trump‘s travel ban are bringing up his own past rhetoric, the argument is basically, “If Obama had issued the very same order with the same words it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional.”
This week a federal judge in Hawaii and a district court judge in Maryland both ruled to block the revised travel ban, with the latter saying in his decision, “The history of public statements continues to provide a convincing case that the purpose of the Second Executive Order remains the realization of the long-envisioned Muslim ban.”
Such statements include President Trump’s initial call during the campaign for a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on” and Rudy Giuliani saying on Fox a few weeks ago that after Trump announced that call, he asked him for the right way to do that legally.
Dershowitz said this morning that rulings based on campaign rhetoric is “not the way the law is supposed to operate.”
He predicted that the Supreme Court would end up upholding the “major provisions of this ban.”