Nowhere else to turn for judge-shopping liberals

In 7-2 vote, Supremes let Trump’s travel ban go into full effect

By —— Bio and Archives--December 4, 2017

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

In 7-2 vote, Supremes let Trump's travel ban go into full effect
There’s no running back to Judge Derrick Watson anymore. He’s been overruled, and the law matters once again:

The nine-member court, with two liberal justices dissenting, granted his administration’s request to lift two injunctions imposed by lower courts that had partially blocked the ban, which is the third version of a contentious policy that Trump first sought to implement a week after taking office in January.

The high court’s action means that the ban will now go fully into effect for people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen seeking to enter the United States. The Republican president has said the travel ban is needed to protect the United States from terrorism by Islamic militants.

The ban was challenged in separate lawsuits by the state of Hawaii and the American Civil Liberties Union. Both sets of challengers said the latest ban, like the earlier ones, discriminates against Muslims in violation of the U.S. Constitution and is not permissible under immigration laws.

Trump had promised as a candidate to impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” Last week he shared on Twitter anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right British party leader.

“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret - he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter,” ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat said.

The left-wing argument, actually affirmed by some left-wing judges like Watson of Hawaii, was that because Trump supposedly has a bias against Muslims, his enactment of the travel ban could not be legal.

Even putting aside the fact that claims of such a bias are hard to support with facts, the argument was irrelevant. Trump is the duly elected president and he took a legal action well within his authority. If we can start striking down legal presidential actions because of suspicions about the president’s secret motives, then no president can govern.

That’s why even liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elana Kagan couldn’t abide the left’s arguments on this one.

Regardless of whether you agree with the ban as a matter of policy, the rule of law won today

Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: