Judge Who Will Rule on Trump Travel Order Won ACLU ‘LGBT Award’

Judge Michelle T. Friedland, who is on the three-judge panel that will rule on President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at stopping terrorists from traveling to the United States, won the ACLU of Southern California’s LGBT Award in 2009, according to the Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

“She received the President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 2013 from the State Bar of California and the LGBT Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of South California in 2009,” Leahy said in the U.S. Senate on April 10, 2014, stating his approval of Friedland’s confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

2 thoughts on “Judge Who Will Rule on Trump Travel Order Won ACLU ‘LGBT Award’”

  1. The problem is that the immigration law Mr. Trump refers to is in plain English and easy to understand.
    Setting a precedent that overcomes a direct executive order from the President of the country based on alleged discrimination that in itself is based on campaign language will not work.
    President Trump only has to sit back and let it happen.
    Because the moment that someone dies at the hands of one of these “immigrants” then these judges have blood on their hands. They have second guessed the President on a matter of national security if they rule against him.
    The language used in the executive order does not mention any religious group. It does mention 7 nations listed by a previous president as a possible security risk. Places where radical terrorist groups may come from.
    If the people guilty of terrorism happen to be of a Muslim group that does not mean all Muslims are terrorists.
    It does mean that Europe has had a problem and the problem arises from people that happen to be Muslim. The problem does not just extend to people being murdered. It extends to women being raped.
    President Trump is not dealing with Muslim prejudice he is dealing with people that just happen to be Muslim.
    When one can not tell the difference between a terrorist and an innocent person that happens to be of that faith then the only alternative is to keep them all out.
    The real crime here is second guessing the highest elected official of this land. No commander of any group needs to be second guessed and treated in this manner.
    I think if these judges make the decision to counter-command then they are going to be guilty of people being sacrificed because they did second guess the President.
    ‘When that happens, I hesitate to think what people will do to them. People will blame them if the end result is people getting hurt or murdered.

Comments are closed.