Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Left’s Best Freak Outs to SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Travel EO

The Left’s Best Freak Outs to SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Travel EO

Ninth Circuit Court hardest hit?

In the wake of the Supreme Court reinstatement of substantially all of President Trump’s travel Executive Order, the left is responding as expected.

Left-wing and Islamic groups are outraged and don’t seem to understand the ruling . . . or the judicial role of the Supreme Court, while lefties on Twitter are in full meltdown mode.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement that appears to be premised on the 9-0 Supreme Court decision’s failure to weigh the socio-cultural climate CAIR perceives rather than the law and Constitution.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, said today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a limited version of the Trump administration’s “Muslim ban” executive orders to take effect ignores the Islamophobic origins of the policy and emboldens Islamophobes in the Trump administration.

. . . .  “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court ignores the anti-Muslim bigotry that is at the heart of the travel ban executive orders and will inevitably embolden Islamophobes in the administration to expand efforts to target the Muslim community with unconstitutional and counterproductive policies. It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus.

“While the court continued blocking those parts of the Muslim ban that would prevent entry for anyone with a ‘credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,’ it has opened the door to legal chaos and official overreach in embassies and at the border.

“We will work with our civil rights partners to offer a legal and legislative response as the Muslim ban moves forward on the ground and in the Supreme Court.”

Awad said today’s decision was particularly disturbing for American Muslims, coming as it does on the Islamic end-of-Ramadan holiday of Eid ul-Fitr.

In a similarly emotional and ideological response, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) released a statement focused on the “ideals” of the country (as they define them) rather than the rule of law.

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), a national South Asian racial justice and civil rights organization, strongly objects to the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate part of President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”. It is disappointing that the highest court in our land will hear the federal government’s appeal despite federal appellate courts repeatedly striking down and staying key parts of the “Muslim Ban” as unquestionably unconstitutional.

“Reinstating any part of this administration’s patently discriminatory ‘Muslim Ban’ is contrary to the values of the United States and the ideals this country was founded on,” stated Suman Raghunathan, Executive Director of SAALT. “The President’s executive orders, and the Supreme Court’s decision to partially reinstate the ban, amounts to government sanctioned discrimination. It does not make America safe, it makes America afraid.”

Individuals from the six majority-Muslim countries identified in the President’s executive orders who do not have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or organization in the United States will be barred from entering the country. This administration’s dogged pursuit of a “Muslim Ban” has provided a prominent platform for white supremacists and anti-immigrant voices.

Meanwhile, the knee-jerk outpouring of outrage and indignation on Twitter is quite hilarious.

This doesn’t mean there isn’t a great deal of support for the Supremes’ decision and for President Trump’s travel EO.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Funk Ramadan.

    Conan in reply to Rick. | June 26, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    Is SCOTUS suppose to decide differently because it was Ramadan?

    Only a Muslim would be thinking this is a sharia country now and would think Ramadan should be considered in the decision because that IS how it works in Islam. Islam is everything and US Constitution be damned I guess.

    This what the progressives have taught these immigrants about how America works for 240 years. You come here and we suddenly follow the Quran instead? No Way.

“This is not the America I know.” “This will lower of standing in the international community” “This goes against everything Jesus taught.” Etc etc.

Great arguments from people who spend their lives mocking traditionalism, patriotism & religion.

World wide, there are 50 Muslim majority countries. The temporary travel ban applies to six of them. There will be zero impact to the vast majority of Muslims world wide. Maybe someone ought to explain math to our friends on the left. They seem to have skipped out on Math, Geography and History in school.

    randian in reply to Sanddog. | June 27, 2017 at 12:04 am

    The ban will have no effect. Muslims take care of each other and do not recognize the legitimacy of infidel law. Furthermore, Muslim countries are notoriously corrupt. Unless you stop travel from all of them, those where travel is allowed from will be infection vectors, trading in false documentation for their Muslim brothers. I use “false” in the sense that the person pictured isn’t who they say they are, even if the documentation isn’t counterfeit.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Sanddog. | June 27, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    The temporary travel ban applies to six of them.

    President Obama identified those six ‘nations’ precisely because of their lack of competent governance. Had little to do with Muslims, except perhaps their participation in or responsibility for the non-governance.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Sanddog. | June 27, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    But Sanddog, Math R Racist!

    English R Racist too!

Here’s some math for the Lefties: 9 to 0

    JOHN B in reply to olafauer. | June 26, 2017 at 10:16 pm

    9-0. If Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotamayor and Kaganvote with this President, you know the lower courts were not just in error, they acted illegally and, in a better world, the judges who did that would be thrown off the bench.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform (a.k.a. refugee crises)

They are known for projecting causes and profiting from treatment of symptoms. Instead of addressing emigration reform, the peace-mongers, anti-nativists, and minority minders are doubling down on immigration reform.

The relies on hyperbole instead of facts. They also like to chastise those who see through the hyperbole as ‘low information voters.’ ‘Muslim Ban’ is itself hyperbole.

Indonesia ia the world’s largest Muslim majority country. There is no ban on travel from Indonesia despite some provinces such as Aceh having been radicalized. India is the world’s most populous Muslim country, but for its majority Hindu population, is not a Muslim majority country. There is no ban on travel from India. Malaysia has a significant Muslim population which controls its government. There is no ban on travel from Malaysia.

‘Muslim ban’ is clearly a misnomer. The EO is a ban on travel from clearly delimited countries harboring those who are very likely to harbor hostile intentions toward the U.S. It is no more a ban on a religion than a ban on travel from Japan or Germany during WWII would be a ban on Shintoism or Lutheranism.

Top Muzzie group said, “It also ignores the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts due to its religious intolerance and racial animus.”

Memo to that so-called “top” Muzzie group CAIR. The institution which spoke today is called the SUPREME Court. Those lower courts to which you refer are called INFERIOR courts. Really, that delineation comes straight from the Constitution.

Really; it’s found in Article III which is NOT part of the Shariah. “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

    pfg in reply to pfg. | June 26, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    BTW, dear Muzzies from CAIR, today’s ruling doesn’t “ignore[] the almost-unanimous rejection of the Muslim ban by lower courts.”

    Rather, today’s Court ruling CORRECTS those courts’ misunderstanding of the law.

    Paul in reply to pfg. | June 26, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    If they succeed in their plans, SCOTUS will no longer be the law of the land….roving bands of sharia enforcing thugs will be.

If a leftist media outlet screeches and none of us is listening, does the screech make a sound?


The leftist media has blown its wad.

And for a new high in stupid … The Jesus card was played … Not well but they trotted it out … No jesus was not a refuge nor a migrant nor an immigrant … He was going home to register for census

I try to care what CAIR, SAALT, and the ACLU think, but there are so many more important things in life. Do I need a haircut?

ugottabekiddinme | June 26, 2017 at 10:31 pm

If the left is so upset at 9-0, maybe they can persuade their favorite justice, the Notorious RGB who joined the 9-0 opinion, to retire! And take Kennedy with her. Ha!

Every country that has ever been invaded by Muslims is Islamophobic. That is called “sane”.

    DaveGinOly in reply to puhiawa. | June 27, 2017 at 12:41 am

    A “phobia” is something feared out of all proportion to the threat of harm it presents. Islam has made itself clear, it is a threat to Western Civilization (and always has been).

    I propose “Islamangst” or “Islamoangst, a true fear of Islam based on the obvious and real threat it presents.

The Supremes declined the invitation to become a glorified administrative immigration court. The intent of the district court and the Ninth was to terrorize every circuit into giving in to avoid being bombarded and overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of specious and loony individual and absurd “classes” of immigrants, migrants and refugees. The Mexican government said that was what they were going to do and CAIR, et al were all in too. The Supreme Court said no.

God dammit! This winning is becoming intolerable!! HAHAHHAAHHAHA!

It was always going to happen, even the lefty liberal loons knew they were on borrowed time since the deacons were indefensible (and now we know just how indefensible they were with the speed of this judgement and almost totality of it!).

October is just a show trial. We all know whats coming and it aint gonna be good reading for the left who actually hate America (funny how those liberals all hate America sooooo freaking much but just not enough to move to somewhere lovely like Venezuela!).

A hypocrite isn’t a 4 legged animal that lives in the waterways of Africa!

kenoshamarge | June 27, 2017 at 9:10 am

The left going crazy about everything has become tiresome even to their voters. If they keep this up it will be very difficult to rouse them to vote in 2018.

Providing the evil Trump hasn’t killed everyone off by then. /s

Henry Hawkins | June 27, 2017 at 10:26 am

“The Left’s Best Freak Outs to SCOTUS Ruling on Trump Travel EO”

Insufficiently Sensitive | June 27, 2017 at 11:59 am

… failure to weigh the socio-cultural climate CAIR perceives rather than the law and Constitution.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the best definitions of social justice ever written. It applies equally to CAIR and lynch mobs and every grievance group in between.

OleDirtyBarrister | June 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Trump should double down and really stir the pot by withdrawing from any and all treaties that require the US to accept refugees. Then let the leftists within and without Congress and the media chew on that. The SCOTUS decision to abstain under the political question doctrine in Goldwater v. Carter and its progeny is still controlling authority and even the oligarchs in black robes in the Ninth Circuit would have a hard time manufacturing a rationale to exercise jurisdiction over a case challenging Trump.

OleDirtyBarrister | June 28, 2017 at 2:09 pm

By the way, does anyone remember the media, lefty mouthpieces outside the media, and Dems in Congress asserting Obama’s public declarations outside of litigation that the ACA was not a tax when civil litigation was pending and the administration took the position that it was a tax? One day, it was not a tax, but when they needed a defense in court, it was a tax, and the federal judiciary did not second guess the defense based on what Obama had said on prior occasions outside litigation. SCOTUS, with the help of Dred Justice Roberts, upheld the ACA and its mandates under the Tax And Spend Clause. The Trump administration let that low hanging fruit evade them.

    Indeed they did proclaim this loud and wide. So what? The whole point of Roberts’s decision is that it makes no difference what they called it; all that matters is what it is. Politicians lie; it’s what they do. Courts should take no account of that.

    That is not relevant to the current case, however, where the key issue is not what the president has done but why he did it. The allegation is that he issued this ban out of an animus against Moslems, and the security concerns are an after-the-fact justification cooked up to make it appear legal. And if this were a topic other than immigration they’d be 100% right to look at everything the president and his advisors have said, both during the campaign and since, in order to determine his true motive.

    Where I think they went wrong is in assuming that a bad motive would invalidate the order; to the best of my knowledge binding Supreme Court precedent is still that Congress’s immigration power (which is not to be found anywhere in the constitution, but that’s a different debate) is absolutely plenary, and the 14th amendment does not apply. Congress may, if it wishes, restrict immigration even on blatantly racist grounds, as it did with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Similarly, the president may exercise the power Congress has given him in the same fashion, and could, if he wanted to, have explicitly banned the entry of all Moslems. Therefore the whole inquiry into his motives by the inferior courts is illegitimate.

    (Bear in mind that the earlier court was far from racist, and in fact stood as a bulwark protecting Chinamen’s rights against racist legislators and officials. But in this instance, it said, it was powerless to do anything because Congress has plenary power over immigration.)

    Of course the Supreme Court itself is not bound by the precedent it set 130 years ago, and now that the is considering the matter it may decide to reverse itself and say that the Chinese Exclusion Act was unconstitutional after all. That would not validate the lower courts’ having ignored the earlier precedent.