It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96
That is called animus and valid in court
Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.
The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Xcathdra
I don't think good argument will have anything to do with the decision.
Could be wrong, but I think the decision will be based on the ideology of the judges.
If you CTRL+F this document, you won’t find the words “Christian” or “Muslim.”
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: neo96
That is called animus and valid in court
Nothing a private citizen said would be valid.
The only thing that matters is the language contained in an executive order.
Trump as Potus said christians would be given preference...Giuliani said the aim was to make a Muslim ban legally defensible..and yes candidate trumps words are admissible as well.
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Indigo5
If is not in writing It doesn't mean a darn thing.
The EO have not references to religious ban neither to preferences to Christians.