While I agree in principle, what many people do not grasp is that with freedom of speech, comes an obligation (of not abusing that right).
Which is what the legal system is for (execute laws that by definition are constitutional, otherwise they should not be laws), and why it is so wrong to politicize it. When I hear people talking about a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge, I have to suppress the tendency to puke. The Law is impartial and unbiased, at least in my country. A system that appoints on the basis of political affiliation is flawed to begin with, and see the mess that it produces.
And discrimination (e.g. on the basis of 'country of origin' or religion) is not constitutional in a real (parliamentary) democracy.
Çheers,
Bart
1. What is the obligation people have regarding freedom of speech that you are referring too? Is that freedom different between the regular public and members of a legislative body? I think it's stricter in Europe. In France for example, laws prevent Muslim women from wearing a hijab. That is unconstitutional in America as it denies expression and is a form of free speech. Again in France, you cannot say good things about the Nazis or support a denial position of the Holocaust. I believe you have similar rules against hate speech in the Netherlands. Those rules would be unconstitutional in America as well. The Constitution in America and the Supreme Court have consistently rules in favor of as free speech as possible other than things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and causing a panic or an immediate incitement to riot.
2. Appointments are not made on the basis of political beliefs but rather constitutional beliefs which may or may not reflect the candidates particular party. They may not be in a party anyway. Of course, selection is often wrong because the justices turn out to change their minds. How do the Dutch assure selection is not effected by what a person believes? It seems like you're asking too much from politicians.
3. Congress has decided in law that immigration should not be based on national origin. But I don't think that limits the Presidents right to block certain immigrants in case of emergency. For example, you wouldn't expect German or Japanese Nationals to be allowed to enter or immigrate to the US during WWII. As one Supreme Court justice once stated, "The US Constitution isn't a suicide pact." We have a right to protect ourselves.
The rules for congressman and senators are even less restricted due to the constitution giving them the authority to write law. An open debate and free speech is paramount to discuss call issues and possibilities before law is drafted, on eof the reason I feel Trump's comments regaridn his Executive Order should have no effect on courts.
