Federal Judges: Muslims Can Change Nation’s Security, Immigration Policies Over Campaign Statements

Ten liberal judges in Virginia have ruled that Muslims can request judges to evoke national security protocol and immigration policies if previous campaign rhetoric during democratic elections can be perceived as feeling unfair to Muslims residing in the U.S.

“To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint,” boasted the majority opinion, which was approved by 10 judges on the Richmond-based Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and announced May 25. President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Islamic migration “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” from the 2016 election campaign, the judges insisted.

Three moderate judges on the panel objected to the majority ruling. These brave supporters of sanity and freedom argued the political facade behind the Muslim plaintiff’s shrieks of injustice threatened the U.S. judicial system.

“The danger of the majority’s new rule is that it will enable any court to justify its decision to strike down any executive action with which it disagrees,” says three three-judge dissent, which concluded:

Unless corrected by the Supreme Court, the majority’s new approach, which is unsupported by any Supreme Court case, will become a sword for plaintiffs to challenge facially neutral government actions, particularly those affecting regions dominated by a single religion. Government officials will avoid speaking about religion, even privately, lest a court discover statements that could be used to ascribe a religious motivation to their future actions.

There was an aspect of this case that does “drip with religious intolerances” in regards towards a certain faith. Liberals unwillingness to prosecute Muslims or hold them accountable for the radical teachings of their prophet.

The lawsuit by was brought by Muslim plaintiffs, backed up by a huge array of establishment progressive corporate lawyers, against President Trump’s Executive Order, which merely temporarily blocked or curbed Muslim immigration from six of 50-Muslim-majority countries around the world.

The seven countries listed on the travel ban were not selected at random. This is no longer the Obama administration. Thought actually goes into our national security policies. President Trump doesn’t just practice how he is going to bow before Middle Eastern Leaders and call it a day.

The temporary block is intended to help officials institute new safeguards against Islamic-inspired attacks by the growing inflow of Muslim immigrants, refugees, and their future American-born children, into an increasingly diverse, chaotic and divided nation.

The Muslim plaintiffs were backed by the rich liberal elite deliberately attempting to reduce both national and individual sovereignty.

1. Courts are now enabled to make rulings based on their own personal bias without as much as pretending to base opinions in the law.
2. Any statement made in private, as a joke, or in a public platform can and will be used individuals to courts of law to aggravate or vindicate implied feelings of inferiority.

Liberal bias or “context” was literally the justification for overturning a national security measure the court self-admittedly couldn’t find any fault with besides “speaks with vague words.”

Courts are already using Facebook as liberally dubious evidence of an individual’s perceived racism.  No one is safe anymore. Anyone who dares say anything critical of Muslims is at risk of coming under attack.

Source: Breitbart