All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Court upholds travel ban

"We cannot substitute our own assessment for the executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy," the Supreme Court ruled today.

And with that, the justices recognized that the president is the commander-in-chief just as the Constitution says he is.

Justices voted 5-4 to uphold President Trump's travel moratorium on Iran and five war-torn countries.

The press was wrong.

The experts were wrong.

That idiot judge in Hawaii was wrong.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision. His law clerks were up to the task.

"Precursor provisions enacted during the First and Second World Wars confined the President’s exclusion authority to times of war and national emergency," the decision said.

"When Congress enacted §1182(f) in 1952, plaintiffs note, it borrowed “nearly verbatim” from those predecessor statutes,and one of the bill’s sponsors affirmed that the provision would apply only during a time of crisis. According to plaintiffs, it therefore follows that Congress sought to delegate only a similarly tailored suspension power in §1182(f).

"If anything, the drafting history suggests the opposite. In borrowing “nearly verbatim” from the pre-existing statute, Congress made one critical alteration — it removed the national emergency standard that plaintiffs now seek to reintroduce in another form. Weighing Congress’s conscious departure from its wartime statutes against an isolated floor statement, the departure is far more probative."

There was buried in the decision a warning on illegal immigration challenges.

"For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a 'fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,'" the ruling said.

Hahaha. The court challenges to the enforcement of immigration laws should be entertaining.

Part of the decision echoed what Trump bloggers (including me) wrote when the swamp ginned up this controversy in 2017.

"The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices. The text says nothing about religion. Plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasize that five of the seven nations currently included in the Proclamation have Muslim-majority populations. Yet that fact alone does not support an inference of religious hostility, given that the policy covers just 8% of the world’s Muslim population and is limited to countries that were previously designated by Congress or prior administrations as posing national security risks," the majority decision said.

The decision itself lifts a temporary injunction on the travel moratorium, and effectively ends any and all challenges to presidential discretion over visas — a discretion granted by Congress.

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

21 comments:

  1. Unfortunately activist Resistance Judges will ignore the ruling and continue to legislate from their bench.

    Bucky

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless the renegade judge is very creative in forming objections ther may be grounds for judicial malpractice. I'm no expert here, but persistence in defying SCOTUS on major issues without proper grounds can be used in arguments for removal.

      Delete
    2. This is correct. It isn't just incompetence it is malpractice. This is also grounds for impeachment.

      Delete
    3. I just thought up a handy one that nails it:
      "Malignant Activism"
      ...and I believe it is only a matter of 'when' the other shoe drops.

      Delete
    4. Thomas told then to cut that out or he'd make then cut it out.

      Delete
  2. Gorsuch was one of the 5. How would a Clinton slave have voted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There would have been no travel moratorium

      Delete
  3. Good! I would prefer a bigger margin, though. Let us pray Trump gets 2 more appointments, soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My thoughts exactly. What should be unanimous decisions are 5-4. That is sad.

      Delete
  4. Ruth (master) Bader Ginsburg is another person on my list of People Who Oughta Be Dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is 'dead' from the neck up!

      Delete
    2. It seems every time I get a good chuckle or agree completely with a poster on here, I look up and see its from zregime. Kudos and thanks for the chuckle

      Delete
    3. Thanks TT! I do what I can to support Big D.

      Delete
  5. The Supreme Court. understands that foreign nationals access (and US attorneys in their employ) to US court system will render it useless by virtue of strangling it with suits that it is not intended to deal with. The warning has been issued. The next warning will not be very polite or subtle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And four "justices" voted against this.

      Delete
    2. The women are aligned against the men on the bench. It pits the alliance of pussy hat wearing judicial Sisterhood against the cigar smoking stalwarts of the Old Boys Club.

      Delete
  6. This answered a Constitutional question about the powers of the President. The President's intent is irrelevant and those four Communist fools on the court should have known that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It took from March of 2017 to June of 2018 for this decision to be made?
    That's way too long.
    Things like this should be handled much more quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied, right?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If a case went before the Supremos calling for mandatory murder of all Trumpsters, Sonia Sotomayor would vote yes. WORST judge in the history of this country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine who Hillary would have put on the bench and count your blessings.

      Delete