Forzaport
Brownlow Medallist
- Thread starter
- #776
Either/or. The updated ban may be less restrictive but it's no less unconstitutional.
The conspiracy theory falls apart when the same result was reached under substantially the same conditions but without the conspiratorial factor.
Whether both travel bans are constitutional is still up for debate as neither has reached the supreme court.
While the lower courts have blocked the travel bans, the conditions are quite different as are the basis for the judgements. If everything was roughly equal then yes the conspiracy theory would fall flat but things are far from equal here. The ruling in Hawaii specifically has an ideological tone which at face value goes beyond the scope of the applied law, hence why the White House has used the "overreach" statement.
The conspiracy theory is a bit of fun but, on a serious note, the coincidences between Obama's movements and this judge are just staggering. I find it surprising that there's barely any news coverage of this. We have non-stop coverage of Sessions being in the same room as the Russian ambassador at an event but the former president having dinner with the judge about to make a ruling on the travel ban? Silence. It's not honest journalism. The same thing happened at the presidential debates. Clinton had a question leaked to her through CNN by Donna Brazile and barely a peep in news (I brought this up on these boards at the time and it was largely brushed off). Now if Trump had dinner with a judge prior to a highly publicised ruling or had been given a debate question ahead of time, I have no doubt the outrage would be palpable.