The Supreme Court just handed down a big win for President Trump by upholding his infamous travel ban on Muslim-majority countries.
The travel ban, which drew massive liberal protests when it was first enacted last year, has been the subject of a lot of legal scrutinies. The High Court just made it clear: the Executive Branch has the authority to limit travel into the United States for national security reasons.
Politico reports:
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order, handing the president a major legal win on one of his highest profile and most controversial policy moves and reversing lower court decisions that blocked the policy.
The court divided 5-4 along its usual ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices in the majority insisting they were not endorsing Trump’s campaign-trail rhetoric calling for a ban on Muslim immigration to the U.S.
BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban
https://t.co/MwUmM0EpRh— POLITICO (@politico) June 26, 2018
We knew this ruling was coming. Back in April, we reported that during oral arguments over the case, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices were leaning towards siding with President Trump. (RELATED: Supremes Lean Toward Trump In Travel Ban Hearing).
And last December, as the Court decided to hear the case, it allowed the travel ban to go into effect, a tacit approval of the executive’s authority on the matter. (RELATED: Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect).
There is a long history of the executive branch having authority to restrict travel into the country. That authority has never been questioned. What was in dispute regarding Trump’s travel ban is his religious-centered proposal during the campaign that would target all Muslims. A ban such as that wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.
When he first passed the travel ban, Trump cited the high prevalence of terrorism in the countries listed to justify it. The Supreme Court has upheld the ban on the basis of executive power alone.
See the latest
The Supreme Court decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban is only a short-term victory, but it might prove a long-term defeat. Justice Roberts dismissed the claim that Trump’s travel ban was anti-Muslim, despite Sotomayor’s insistence that it was anti-Muslim. It looks like Sotomayor and Roberts agree that being anti-Muslim would be grounds for lifting the ban. This could eventually prove fatal. The president’s right to exclude any aliens whom he finds detrimental to America must include the right to exclude Muslims because Muslims adhere to a religion which is also a totalitarian and imperialist ideology. There is no way to vet potential Muslim immigrants properly without vetting those aspects of their religious belief which call for hatred of non-moslems and war against them until Islam rules the world. Any sensible vetting of potential Moslem immigrants must include asking those Moslems whether they agree with specific jihadist passages in the Koran and the Sunnah. Essentially, that is a religious test; and it is wholly proper that Moslems are put to this test. The Supreme Court decision could, unfortunately, be seen as a prohibition on such a religious test.
Analysts like Kilcullen, a person who’s in depth knowledge of terrorism and the global war on terror is only flawed in one respect but a critical one. He fails to perceive that all religions are not the same, nor societies he seems to track the crisis in the same manner socialists do, all religions are the same and poverty is a greater motivator and cause of violence than religion in this case Islam. Christians know the cost of state religions, (Although lately Spain seems to be going the way of the Alhambra Decree.) the history of the Christian church and its dubious ties to kingdoms kept wars on the Continent going for centuries. It was one of the reasons the USA was founded and why separation of church and state was an element included in the Constitution. Yet it seems that socialists and prevaricators of the humanist social Gospel would have us believe the false negative Islam is progressive and more compatible with socialist themes as if separation of church and state does not apply to Mosques.
We have not witnessed the same degree of reform in Islamic States if anything we are seeing the opposite effect and Muslims in growing numbers worshipping their maker with acts of death.
It isn’t simply that radical Islam a term not to be mentioned under the Obama admin, which he found personally offensive, it is the general momentum Islam gains when demographics shift and Muslim majorities near 30-40% locally or in larger regions to push shariah law and nullify civil law either by actual amendment or a de facto imposition. Similarly when the UNHRC attempted to pass a Resolution to make criticism of Islam a criminal act across the globe Obama acted against the passage of the Resolution but his policies also seemed in accord with its passage.
Likewise the DNC radial wing of some 60 representatives attempted to forward a similar Bill in the House. All the Congressional reps who are supporters of Farrakhan and other black supremacists advocated the Bill. The same cabal was also behind the attempt to bring 200,000 Syrian refugees to the USA.
Here is the point to remember the EU is closing its borders to an increasing degree because of the threat of Muslim terrorists, and although Obama did eventually bring over 11,000 refugees, less than 200 were non-Muslims, although they by far suffered the worst deprivations under the Islamic State, even genocide, and were even persecuted in UN refugee camps. The same cabal of US reps claimed that when the GOP objected to the exclusion of non-Muslims and required that more significant numbers be included if more refugees were to be brought over, a fairer balance would refer to the ratio approximately 30% of the refugees were non-Muslim, and aso the fact they were at greater risk, the DNC claimed this was” Islamophobia”.
Among the pedophiles (A former DNC Chair and promoter of Bill and Hillary’s campaigns.) and transgender convicted traitors the DNC allows to run for office are two Islamists with Muslim Brotherhood affiliations. The implications are clear.
No one running for Congress should be considered who holds these positions one being worse than the other. Pedophiles, traitors and associates of Islamic state terrorism and anti- separation of Mosque and state. And the DNC minions appear to be too stupid to see the moral and religious importance, they actually act like its proof of liberalism. And the Guillotine have the revolutionaries. The travel ban is a discriminating defense of our values, morality and way of life, not discrimination in usage as “liberals” woish us to believe.
We should also note when area experts are overly critical of President Bush for invading Iraq they conveniently omit that Hussein annihilated by torture murder nearly 450,000 of his own citizens. That in itself should have been reason to depose the tyrant, but Islamic States stood in the way and continues to be the principle motivator in vilifying Bush.
The travel ban should be absolutely NO ragheads can ever enter the country at all, from anywhere.
Given that the law is clear concerning it being within the Presidents powers to deny any non-citizen they choose from entering the United States for whatever reason they wish, the fact that liberal judges sided against it is a shame and disgrace to both themselves and the country at large. The campaign trail is hearsay and has no legal standing or bearing on the case. The judges that claim it does are incorrect and should be removed from the bench immediately as they are incapable of judging impartially by leaving their partisan antics out of the courtroom. Partisan judges extend the “Swamp” a long ways from DC under the false supposition that a district or even circuit judge has nation wide authority which they were never meant to have. We have a Supreme Court for a reason and it isn’t so any judge in the country can hamstring an entire Presidential Administration with a single bogus ruling.
The decision should have been mute months ago. In the original executive order, the ban was only for 6 months until the ‘Extreme Vetting’ process could be put into place. Since it is now nearly 18 months since the Trump administration, the ‘Extreme Vetting’ process should be in place and no ban would be necessary.
The implementation of a travel ban against majority Muslim nations will probably make our country less safe. Now the Jihadist extremist, some perhaps already in the US and most from nations NOT in the ban, will have a reason to exert their anger against the US.
Are you seriously saying the, without Trump’s travel ban, the Moslem terrorists would not have a reason to murder us?
I am saying that we have now given a group of people that need very little excuse a reason to flex their influence against us. Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.
KOOL!
My comment first requires me to apologize to Independents, Conservatives and Republicans who are dog owners. Our many canine friends gives their undying friendship and loyalty to their owners.
Now I suppose the Democrats and their lap dogs in 99.99% of the media will begin referring to the 5 Supreme Court Justices in the majority as “Nazis” and will encourage their idiotic supporters to “get in their faces”, deny them service at restaurants, etc.
It does not matter to these radical left wing fiends that the Constitution states unequivocally that immigration policy is 100% under the authority of the Executive Branch.
The very fact that it was not 9-0 is a disgrace to the minority faction on the bench.
I am surprised that Ginsberg has not ended up in the hospital for all the hate she carries and spues out.her blood pressure must be in the clouds most of the time.
Soon, the decisions will be 7 to 2 – after Ginsberg descends to meet her maker and Kennedy takes up basket weaving.
Yeah, but the Senate will have to implement the Nuclear Option to get anymore judges approved otherwise they will need a 60 vote majority. I’m not so sure that the reprobate McConnell will agree to a Nuclear Option. He doesn’t like Donald and he’s also power hungry. Wants to run the Senate with no interference from outside. Donald cannot by law force him to implement the Nuclear Option. Just like McCain McConnell could hold up the presidents agenda for his remaining term.
Maybe not – elections have consequences.
Are the Democrats tired of losing yet?
Here goes another uproar, spinning, and twisting things.