Larry Klayman’s got his dander up again, this time over a federal judge in Hawaii issuing an injunction on the enforcement of Trump’s Muslim ban 2.0 pending further argument. Given that he’s the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver, it’s no surprise that his analysis of the ruling is positively ridiculous.
Thanks to yet another runaway hack federal judge, now all of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims have a constitutional right to enter the United States – unrestricted at any time. That is the shocking but preposterous ruling of Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii v. Trump, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) against President Trump’s rewritten executive order temporarily suspending travel from the world’s most dangerous terrorist countries, to allow time to devise a strict means to vet potential terrorists. As even the Honolulu Star Advertiser is cynically reporting, Judge Watson was a classmate of President Barack Hussein Obama at Harvard Law School. “Quel coincidence,” as the French would say sarcastically.
Thanks to Watson’s disgraceful corrupt ruling – not based on the four corners of President Trump’s clearly constitutional executive order but on comments The Donald made during the presidential campaign, as well as alleged injury to Muslims – any Muslim on the planet can now find some willing mosque in the United States to claim that their religious sensibilities are insulted by not allowing him or her to wander freely through our country. Judge Watson’s nationwide TRO is based in part on the ridiculous claim of discrimination against Ismail Elshikh and his mosque. Elshikh is the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii. His mother-in-law is a Syrian national with a pending application for a visa, who last visited the family in Hawaii in 2005 (and is therefore eligible for a waiver under the new executive order).Therefore, under Watson’s analysis, there is no Muslim who would not be eligible, because some Muslim U.S. citizen or resident somewhere might be offended by President Trump’s executive order. In short, Watson has effectively given all the world’s Muslims constitutional rights by claiming that their family, friends, or co-religionists in the USA would not feel good if a foreigner isn’t allowed to visit.
Oh for crying out loud. First of all, calling the ruling corrupt just shows that he has no idea what that word means. Where is the corruption, exactly? The judge has no conflicts of interest here, no stake in the outcome of the case. He’s just throwing out negative-sounding words that don’t fit. Second, the notion that the ruling was based on some Muslim in America being “offended” at a relative not being allowed in is the kind of analysis that would get you an F in any con law class in any law school in the country — even Liberty U or Regent.
Nothing in the ruling prevents the government from not allowing specific people, Muslim or otherwise, into the country for a vast number of reasons. That’s what vetting is for. The government has absolute power to keep people out that present a threat to the country if allowed in. But it can’t just do a blanket ban on all Muslims, or all people from a particular country. Klayman is dead wrong, as he pretty much always is.