in , , , ,

On Travel Ban, Supreme Court Must Restore Sanity

The infamous “Trump Travel Ban” case went before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, setting the stage for a ruling that will either give extraordinary legitimacy to the liberal activists on the 9th Circuit or restore executive power to its rightful place. While we won’t know for some time how the court will come down on the ban, we have a few clues that could give us some insight. One of those clues comes in the court’s willingness to lift injunctions against the ban that have been placed against the administration by the lower courts. Another, though, comes in the reaction several of the conservative Justices had to the case during Wednesday’s hearing.

The heart of the case is whether or not the latest version of the travel ban, which affects travelers from five majority-Muslim countries (as well as North Korea and Venezuela), is rooted in a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, is this travel ban in effect the “Muslim ban” that Trump called for on the campaign trail? Or is there enough daylight between that campaign rhetoric and the executive order to let the ban stand as it is?

According to Hawaii’s lawyers, who are the plaintiffs in the case, the answer is clear.

“Any reasonable observer who heard the President’s campaign promises, read his thinly justified orders banning overwhelmingly Muslim populations, and observed his Administration’s persistent statements linking the two, would view the order and each of its precursors as the fulfillment of the President’s promise to prohibit Muslim immigration to the United States,” they said.

But the Court’s justices seemed hesitant to swallow that view. Justice Neil Gorsuch said it was not within the scope of a federal judge’s purview to suspend the travel ban nationwide, which could give us a hint as to where his sympathies lie. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito remarked that while five of the countries on the ban list were majority Muslim, the Trump administration had left another 45 or so majority-Muslim countries off the list.

“This does not look at all like a Muslim ban,” he said.

We’ll find out in June how the Supreme Court rules, but to us, this is an open-and-shut case. Frankly, we think a solid legal case can be made even for a full and complete Muslim ban, the kind of which Trump talked about on the trail. Certainly, there is ample evidence that Muslims as a group are more likely to be engaged in anti-Western terrorism than any other single religious sect. A temporary shutdown would not necessarily be out of bounds, even if it would be difficult-to-impossible to actually enforce.

But that’s not what this is. Like Alito said, there are dozens of Muslim countries that are not on the list and two non-Muslim countries that are. Furthermore, no Muslims from any other country are affected by any iteration of the ban. To rule against Trump in this case, you have to use his campaign rhetoric. To do that, you must establish the legal precedent that if a candidate says something (potentially) unconstitutional at any time, it invalidates his right to take any action in that area, no matter what the action is or how legal it might be. That’s absurd. Even so, we’ll look forward to seeing how many of the court’s liberal justices beclown themselves by arguing that exact point.

What do you think?

21 points
Upvote Downvote

Total votes: 25

Upvotes: 23

Upvotes percentage: 92.000000%

Downvotes: 2

Downvotes percentage: 8.000000%

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Until and unless the Supremes place their hearing in order of importance it will take months to solve this current problem of overreach by justices. In the meantime, Americans will have a higher risk of being murdered, raped, or robbed.
    Time to clean up the Department of Justice. Perhaps a refresher course for judges will be necessary. Short of that replacement seems to be indicated!

  2. It is imperative that the Supreme court come down hard on the lower courts that are acting as activist pawns. No Judge has the ability to rule on national security issues they are supposed to rule on constitutionality not campaign or rally nonsense of candidates or politicians. Security and diplomacy are not for judges they are for Presidents.

  3. Sanity in these cases is the strict avoidance of policy based of prejudice against anyone’s race or religion and the being careful not to divide families.

  4. The “Muslim Ban” should be enforced against those countries that support terrorism, however, the President should be able to add other countries as well as remove those on the list if necessary

  5. IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO SET HIS OWN STANDARDS, UNLESS THEY OUTRIGHT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION….WHY DID WE ELECT HIM ?? CONGRESS , AND THE COURTS WILL “HAVE THE LAST SAY IF THEY ARE NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF WE, THE PEOPLE……SO IF TRUMP FEELS WE WOULD BE AT RISK, THEN HE SHOULD RULE…… COURTS SHOULD BACK HIM UP….THE 9TH IN SAN FRANCISCO IS A LIBERAL STACKED COURT AND DEFINITELY SHOULD BE SPLIT UP AND RESET WITH ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE APPOINTEE…..

  6. The ban is related to religion. Religion teachings can affect brains of gullible people. This happens in all religions: Muslim, Catholic, Methodist, Buddhism and even Paganism. Somehow people get hooked or brain-washed by religious beliefs. When growing up I as Catholic would go to heaven. I did not know people in other faiths had same belief – heavenly life. But with KKK and Far-right groups which are brain washed by their religious faith, I found people can behave as wackies and sometimes violent because of their faith. I don’t know how counsel people once they are hooked to religious faith to destroy people of other faiths.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEUe3iHxfo&list=PL10168A5BCDEAA3C8&t=263s&index=273

  7. No problem with families being divided. They can continue as a unit in their own country.
    Until those religions that seek to destroy us change their stance or philosophy, they should be banned.

  8. Just everybody wait just one minute….whatever happened to the 1952 Law expressly PROHIBITING ALL MUSLIMS from entering these United States??? There is a Law on the books signed by the President in 1952. WHY is that law not upheld????

      • ray ray ray that was the democratic party that did that, what do you have to say now Mr Ray the lib. The USA is the baby sitter for the whole and we have enough people USA citizens in the USA that need help before helping every foreign gangsters, killers & drug dealers of other countries . We have lawyers, judges, politics who swear on the bible that will obey the constitution. But the liberals just lie and form opinions that do not agree with any part of the constitution. If they do not obey it they need to be removed from office and have their license revoked.

  9. Courts unwaveringly framed Islam as hostile to American ideals and society, casting Muslim immigrants as outside the bounds of whiteness and a threat to the identity and national security of the United States

  10. The whole investigation of no evidence to warrant the start of investigation is a criminal offence as it is in fact the political black mail and extortion. The accountability for this whole mess is to condemn these law breakers by existing laws, the same laws that apply to us for this treason and imprison them for life as a conspirators. The master minds of this deep state movement must be executed with out of delay to serve the justice and to save the tax payers money. Theirs property should be confiscated and fund the executions, co those are dirty money to start with.

  11. All judges need term limits and a solid retirement age. No more sleeping on the job. No more lifetime offices. There needs to be a requirement of proof of ongoing education related to the constitution every 2 years. They need to show published contributors and political contributions. They need to update their oaths and understanding of their role in government after being re-certified. They do not write the laws, but do impact whether they are upheld. We The People also need the right to file grievances to congress recommending impeachment to congress when individual rogue judges show bias and try to make power grabs. They should not be involved in any decision not made in their own court on their own cases. They do not rule America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

“Finally Back to Work”: Trump Celebrates Reduction in Food Stamp Dependence

Ugh: Bipartisan Senate Panel Tries to Block Trump From Firing Mueller