Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban, Prove at Least Some of Them Can Read a Federal Statute

Last updated on: June 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm by Mark Meckler

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban, Prove at Least Some of Them Can Read a Federal Statute 2018-06-26T19:41:00-06:00 Mark Meckler

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

That cry of angst you hear coming out of every leftists’ keyboard is a collective groan over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Donald Trump’s “travel ban.”

Trump v. Hawaii involved the third iteration of Trump’s executive order attempt to limit entry of people into the United States from people originating from the following countries: Chad, Iran, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. No, that’s not because he’s hateful or full of bigotry. It’s because these nations wouldn’t provide enough data about security risks or presented more risk factors. In fact, it wasn’t really a “ban.” It didn’t bar entry to everyone from a these nations and allowed for case-by-case waivers.

Thankfully, there was a very clear federal statute that applied:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Five of the justices proved they could read and apply this federal statute, while four justices attempted to circumvent the will of “we the people.”

Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, explained that foreigners don’t actually have a “constitutional right to entry” into our country, and the court won’t recklessly “inhibit the flexibility” of the president “to respond to changing world conditions.” That’s a reminder liberals need to hear. Oh, and he also provided another nice flourish. Roberts included in his writings a dismissal of the dissent’s comparison of Trump’s travel ban to Japanese internment:

Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission. See post, at 26–28. The entry suspension is an act that is well within executive authority and could have been taken by any other President — the only question is evaluating the actions of this particular President in promulgating an otherwise valid Proclamation.

Exactly. Good for Roberts for calling them out, and good for Trump for sticking to his principles.

This is a great day in Supreme Court history.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 26, 2018

Phony Tough Guy on Morning Joe Calls Trump Supporters 'Nazis'

Next Post

June 27, 2018 McCain's Staff Used the IRS to Target Tea Party Groups

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Gospel is addressed to "Theophilus"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

John Matthew Mark Luke