I've appeared before Judge Brinkema, she's no pushover:
In her opinion, Brinkema wrote that the Commonwealth of Virginia “has produced unrebutted evidence” that the order “was not motivated by rational national security concerns” but “religious prejudice” toward Muslims. She cited Trump’s statements before taking office, as well as an interview in which former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) said that the president wanted a “Muslim ban.”
“The ‘Muslim Ban’ was a centerpiece of the president’s campaign for months, and the press release calling for it was still available on his website as of the day this Memorandum Opinion is being entered,” Brinkema wrote.See, in court, you have to produce "evidence" so that a determination can be made about "facts."
You guys know this, who could possibly swear an oath to the law and yet support this buffoon?
This was my favorite part:
Brinkema rejected that argument. “Maximum power does not mean absolute power,” she wrote. “Every presidential action must still comply with the limits set by Congress’ delegation of power and the constraints of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.”Again, these should be basic agreed-upon rules of the road.
Oh yeah -- Happy Valentine's Day!!!