Most of the preliminary injunctions issued by federal courts against President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration are based on the issue of religious discrimination as evidenced by the supposed discriminatory intent of statements by Mr. Trump during his presidential campaign in advocating for a "Muslim ban." How a person advocates a position during a political campaign would thereby cogitate such statements as lawfully significant regardless of any scripted letter of law. After all, words matter.
Just prior to the election, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called Mr. Trump "a faker, with no consistency about him." In a subsequent interview she stated, "I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president."
Also trying to upend President Trump's temporary travel ban, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh used his newfound power to sue the federal government. In a WBAL radio interview, Mr. Frosh failed to express any legal grounds for his "legal action." He did however repeat his primary goal to "go get him," referring to the president.
If the bogus lower court rulings should be upheld, it is eminently apparent the rulings should also apply to the bias-revealing statements by Ms. Ginsburg's and Mr. Frosh. I therefor look forward to both recusing themselves when the issue comes before the Supreme Court.
Dennis Peltz, Perry Hall
Send letters to the editor to email@example.com. Please include your name and contact information.