I don't think there had been an immigration ban on Muslims before. ("this kind of context.")
I don't think there had been a context on muslims before at all.
I don't think the judicial system is where it's at.
How close do you mean to be to "this kind"? Philosophically speaking it's like asking how long is a string. You can be close, you can be far, but there is always farther away then far, and there is always (sometimes) closer than close.
So please specify the outer limit of how far away you want to include judicial decisions to be similar to this. Within half a mile? Within five kilograms? within twenty-five parsecs per fortnight?
I don't understand your question about distances, weights and timescales.
My questions was this:
A judge is trying to decide whether some proposed legislation (in this case an order from the executive branch of government) complies with the US Constitution. Should the judge consider words that were spoken during the presidential campaign to be relevant to gaining an understanding of the meaning and purpose of that proposed legislation?
-- Updated March 16th, 2017, 6:21 pm to add the following --
I like the rock/paper/scissors analogy but I don't think it really works.
In rock/paper/scissors each item beats one and is beaten by the other. In the US form of trias politica the three branches are the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. As I understand it, each of these is supposed to act as a check on both of the other two. So it's more like as if rock, paper and scissors all kind of beat and kind of are beaten by the other two.