For John, BLUF: Soon politicians, like military commanders, will need a lawyer at their side, advising them what they can and cannot say. Nothing to see here; just move along.
From Mediaite and Mr Josh Feldmank posted on 18 March 2017, we havre this worrisome comment from a Harvard Law Professor:
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,So, we either have a new legal theory or we have judges who have become partisan hacks.If Obama had issued the very same order with the same words it would be constitutional, but if Trump issues it it’s unconstitutional.
I guess that if we accept this as a new legal theory, if coal mine owners and coal miners had known about it they could have gone to court and had all of President Obama's anti-coal actions thrown out.
Be careful what you say on the campaign trail, because anything you say can and will be used against you.
The big thing is precedent. Just as then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's suppression of the filibuster—once upon a time a favorite parliamentary tool of Senate Democrats—opens up room for current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to push through the nomination of Federal Judge Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court on a simple majority vote, so this ruling, if allowed to stand, opens up the whole area of Federal Regulations to the question of what the President said while running for office. If it can be shown he expressed some prejudice, then the issued rule is unconstitutional.
But, we still have the "partisan hack" alternative. I think I like that better than this other weird theory.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff