it s that question of what does the candidate s statements mean when the candidate becomes president and that president issues an executive order. and the executive order is consistent with the president s campaign pledge to ban muslims. so i think this is the thing about supreme court precedent is that we have a long history in this country of saying if you intend to discriminate, if it s your intent, then it s not constitutional. now, i m oversimplifying a bit because of course there were several issues in the case. but this is what s so upsetting about this case is we actually have evidence of intentional discrimination. as a civil rights lawyer, these are the kinds of statements that we would use all the time to establish intentional discrimination. so the fact and generally, by the way, when there s intentional discrimination, there s still efforts to hide that it s intentional, which is i think to justice sotomayor s
still dirt. so throwing in a few countries that are not in the islamic world in your third iteration, saying that there are national security concerns when two appellate courts said that you didn t really demonstrate that you had sufficient concern, and you promised to do it. you promised to do it, and you had someone after you were inaugurated saying you were going to ban muslims. i think we really have to understand it from that sta standpnt and uerstand that this is really not normal. gene robinson, this is another one of those demonstrations of how republican voters seem to be so concentrated on the supreme court, both when it comes to senate elections so that they can the republicans can control the confirmation process of justices and on republican presidents, who nominate those justices. and i have many times on this program tried to say that, you know, if nothing else interests you in a presidential election, there is always the supreme
but i think they re all, you know, in a sense riding that wave that began with roe v. wade. this latest decision as maya pointed out also, seems to be wildly inconsistent with the gay rights decision recently from colorado in which case they specifically looked at the intent of one of the commissioners who decided the case against the plaintiff, discriminatory intent, and said there the baker doesn t have to make the cake. and in this case they refused to look at the president s clear intent to discriminate against muslims, which he proclaimed time and time again. so, maya, to your point about the rewriting of your executive order three times does not remove the original intent. it seems to have removed it for the majority of the justices. well, this is what s
point. so you can try to dress up dirt and make it look clean, but it s still dirt. so throwing in a few countries that are not in the islamic world in your third iteration, saying that there are national security concerns when two appellate courts said that you didn t really demonstrate that you had sufficient concern, and you promised to do it. you promised to do it, and you had someone after you were inaugurated saying you were going to ban muslims. i think we really have to understand it from that standpoint and understand that this is really not normal. gene robinson, this is another one of those demonstrations of how republican voters seem to be so trated on the supreme court, both when it comes to senate elections so that they can the republicans can control the confirmation process of justices and on republican presidents, who nominate tho justices. and i have many times on this program tried to say that, you
the candidate s statements mean when the candidate becomes president and that president issues an executive order. and the executive order is consistent with the president s campaign pledge to ban muslims. so i think this is the thing about supreme court precedent is thatave a long history in this country of saying if you intend to discriminate, if it s your intent, then it s not constitutional. now, i m oversimplifying a bit because of course there were several issues in the case. but this is what s so upsetting about this case is we actually have evidence of intentional discrimination. as a civil rights lawyer, these are the kinds of statements that we would use all the time to establish intentional discrimination. so the fact and generally, by the way, when there s intentional discrimination, there s still efforts to hide that it s intentional, which is i think to justice sotomayor s point. so you can try to dress up dirt and make it look clean, but it s