REACTIONS to Trump Travel Order Victory
Left loses its mind
Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s third travel order. After two failed attempts, the administration scrapped the first two in favor of a third, which they believed would stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. Looks like they were right.
The order which sought to temporarily curb immigration from states with long-standing records of sponsoring or engaging in terrorist activity was painted as anti-Muslim, based on statements Trump made during the presidential campaign.
But the SCOTUS had the final word in a 5-4 decision.
Needless to say, Trump was thrilled his executive action was validated by the SCOTUS decision.
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2018
Moments ago, the White House released a statement from President @realDonaldTrump about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the travel ban on five Muslim-majority countries. https://t.co/YJoYrCncJe pic.twitter.com/1auTmx9Wi1
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 26, 2018
And Senate Majority Leader McConnell contributed this lovely little piece of trollery.
— Team Mitch (@Team_Mitch) June 26, 2018
The left is not handling is so well. It’s a common side effect of a personal identity enmeshed in politics.
But Merrick Garland!
As one after another 5-4 rulings of this SCOTUS on voting rights, abortion rights, the travel ban and more are announced, the full meaning of @SenMajLdr ‘s unconscionable, nearly year- long blockade against the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland is manifest.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) June 26, 2018
Schumer, either willfully or otherwise, ignored the entire point of the challenge, which centered around Executive Power:
The president’s travel ban doesn’t make us safer, and the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t make it right. This is a backward and un-American policy that fails to improve our national security.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 26, 2018
The ACLU compared the decision to Japanese internment camps:
In 1944, the Supreme Court allowed the US government to imprison Japanese Americans solely because of their national origin and ethnicity, based on empty claims of national security.
It’s one of the most shameful chapters of US history, and today’s decision now joins it.
— ACLU (@ACLU) June 26, 2018
Linda Sarsour’s outfit, MPower, released this statement, which claims the decision is bigoted:
On Tuesday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Trump’s Muslim Ban, an executive order that suspends refugee resettlement and permanently prohibits citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States on the basis of their nationalities.
Linda Sarsour, Executive Director of MPower Change released the following statement:
“This is a sad day in our nation’s history. Rather than reinforcing the notion that America welcomes people regardless of where they were born, what they look like or how they pray, the Supreme Court instead upheld a Ban, driven by anti-Muslim sentiment, that devalues equality.
Today’s decision not only attacks our community but also opens the door to government and court-sanctioned discrimination of other ethnic groups and religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court has been wrong on major decisions before, and so our fight continues. The right to live in peace and be treated justly no matter one’s race, ethnicity or religion is too important to let one person, one decision, destroy it.
We will protest, we will vote, and we will organize against this bigotry until we have reunified our families and communities and overturned the Muslim Ban once and for all. Most importantly, we will continue mobilizing and defending our communities from un-American, bigoted policies—whether they are endorsed by the Supreme Court or not.”
ALL the protests.
Muslim Advocates claim the decision puts “the Basic Rights of All Americans at Risk,” and likened the ruling to slavery and segregation:
“In affirming President Trump’s bigoted Muslim Ban, the Supreme Court has given a green light to religious discrimination and animus. Not since key decisions on slavery, segregation in schools, and Japanese American incarceration, have we seen a decision that so clearly fails to protect those most vulnerable to government-led discrimination. Trump may have won this round, but we are focused on the next round and will continue to fight until justice prevails and his anti-Muslim agenda is overturned for good.
Since the Muslim Ban was allowed to go into effect late last year, the administration has separated families and loved ones; and denied people opportunities to work, travel, study, seek medical care, and better our nation, simply because of what they believe and where they come from.
This decision puts the basic rights of all Americans at risk. It says that even when an administration is clearly anti-Muslim, when it targets Muslims, when it insults Muslims, and when it puts a policy in place that specifically hurts Muslims – that the Court will let it stand. If it can happen to Muslims, it can happen to anyone.
Today’s decision is deeply disappointing, but our work is far from done. But this is just one fight in a broader battle against Trump’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant agenda. We will continue to fight for the lives still imperiled by this reckless ruling. We will continue to fight in the courts, we will urge our members of Congress to serve as a meaningful check on the administration, and we will speak out online, and in our communities to declare that this Ban is a shameful betrayal of our nation’s commitment to equal protection under the law for all.”
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) accused the Supreme Court of endorsing discrimination, dragging Dred Scott into the discussion:
Today, U.S. Representative Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) released the following statement condemning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii to uphold Trump’s disgraceful, racist, and discriminatory Muslim Ban:
“This is a sad day for America and it smears our nation’s reputation as a welcoming and tolerant society far and wide. I am deeply disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has, once again, fully and completely endorsed discrimination. History will look back on this day with shame and it will join other reprehensible decisions, such as Dred Scott v. Sanford and Korematsu v. United States.
“Despite the racism coming from the White House, Americans — and the world — should know that religious freedom remains a fundamental right and a major component of the core values in our nation and we must not allow anyone or any court from tearing apart that central American creed.
“To Muslims around the globe, know this: You are welcome here and are respected. To our Muslim-American family, friends, neighbors, and communities: You are very much a part of our shared American story and I am saddened by this decision that puts the religious liberty of all Americans at risk. This decision will do nothing but push us further down the path of injustice and intolerance.”
“I call on the American people to hold this dishonorable Administration accountable and I call on my Congressional colleagues to finally exercise our authority as a coequal branch of government and act as a check on these antagonistic attacks on religious freedom. Since the courts refuse to act, we must.”
At least Democrats are considering the whole coequal governance thing again?
People For the American Way, “a progressive advocacy organization founded to fight right-wing extremism and defend constitutional values,” dropped the bigotry bomb and accused SCOTUS of, “a total abdication of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to act as a guardian for the rights and freedoms of all Americans.”
“Today’s decision is a shameful endorsement of religious bigotry and a total abdication of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to act as a guardian for the rights and freedoms of all Americans. There’s simply no question that Donald Trump’s order did exactly what he promised on the campaign trail and after taking office: it specifically targeted individuals based on their religion. This decision is a gross violation of the First Amendment and makes a mockery of the court’s commitment to religious freedom.
“We should be clear: American Muslims are part of our communities and our country. No matter what bigots in the White House may say—and narrow-minded elitists at the Supreme Court may co-sign—Muslims have the same constitutional right to religious freedom as any other American. It’s up to Americans regardless of religion to make clear that this decision is as dangerous and as wrong as Trump’s ban itself.
“In November, every American who cares about the Constitution needs to show up at the polls to throw out elected officials who won’t stand up to Trump’s hateful, unconstitutional, un-American Muslim ban. The future of our country depends on it.”
It’s possible to disagree with the travel order as a matter of policy without descending into accusations of bigotry and religious discrimination.
As a matter of policy, vetting people knocking on America’s door is in no way tantamount to Japanese internment camps, which remain a stain on America’s past. The latter rounded up otherwise innocent American citizens, stripping them of their rights in the name of national security. The former addresses those who have not yet been granted a ticket (a visa) to request entry to the United States. They’re not the same. Not even close.
But I don’t expect any of this to matter when there are political points to be scored and outrage continues to escalate on all fronts.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Wailing to the tune of a an out of tune violin.
Womp womp!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJxCdh1Ps48
More like Boom Boom Boom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K096sx5whTE
Keep ’em coming.
The effects from this ruling combined with Maxine Waters’ call for activism is going to destroy thousands of entry level jobs for baristas, wait people, chefs and servers all across the nation.
The American Left and the European ruling elites have a lot in common. They’d rather see dead citizens blown up or run over than be thought of as not politically correct enough. Glad to know my life is worth that little to them.
Bobby Rush (D., Tax&Spend-ville) said, “I call on the American people to hold this dishonorable Administration accountable.”
Bobby, Couldn’t agree more. We’ll do what you asked by sending more GOPers to DC come this November who’ll help make America great again which will be further enhanced when Trump wins his second term in November, 2020. You’re invited to watch all our festivities. From the outside.”
Oh, boo frickin’ hoo. Elections have consequences and reason prevailed here. No wonder lefties are soiling themselves.
We NEED two more Trump SCOTUS appointments. 5-4? We’re always 1 vote away from disaster.
As long as those two more are of the same quality as Gorsuch, I’m good with that.
Thomas. Mostly.
We should be clear: American Muslims are part of our communities
The travel restrictions apply to Americans? What a bizarre claim.
and here stupid me thought that the Supreme Court was established to uphold the Constitution. I do not ever recalling reading in that document that they are guardians of anything but it. I know that through the years they have drifted far from their stated purpose, but thanks to P. Trump they are getting back to their purpose
This isn’t a ‘win for President Trump’, this is a win for our Constitutional Republic, and a win for our representative government.
No matter when in the last 1400 years; no matter where in the world, one constant prevails. Find Muslims, find trouble.
Gee, wonder why these leftist twits aren’t squawking SETTLED LAW! SETTLED LAW! like they did when John It’s Not A Tax Roberts became their new best friend?
There’s an interesting quirk in the way SCOTUS (and other courts) make decisions about the constitutionality of laws. I’ve never seen it remarked before, but I’m sure it has been (I just can’t imagine I’m the only person to notice). If anyone can direct me to something scholarly about this view, I’d appreciate it. I’m sure it has a name, I just don’t know what it is.
When a court in this country rules on the constitutionality of a law, it does not rule “this law is constitutional.” Rather, when ruling in favor of the government, it rules against the claimant, in effect ruling “this law is not unconstitutional for the reason(s) presented in plaintiff’s argument.” These two views of a law’s validity are not the same. The latter is actually a judgment of the argument made against the law, and not a judgment of the law itself (as would be the former). The law may, in fact, be unconstitutional, but upon grounds not raised and therefore not before the court for its opinion. Only one valid argument against a law’s constitutionality need be raised to find the law unconstitutional, but numerous challenges may raise invalid arguments against constitutionality and fail; however even a succession of such failures would not demonstrate the law’s constitutionality.
So, although I believe the Trump order is constitutional, the SCOTUS ruling doesn’t actually say that (no court ruling ever does). The only matter of law that’s “settled” is that the arguments raised by the plaintiff weren’t sufficient to demonstrate the order’s unconstitutionality. Even if you accept the validity of today’s ruling, this does not mean that you must believe the order constitutional, i.e. you may continue to believe that it is unconstitutional for reasons not argued before the courts.
Remember this the next time a court ruling goes against a law you think is unconstitutional!
I’m a dummy but I think the laws are given the presumption of constitutionality until proven otherwise, so maybe that explains it.
In 1944, the Supreme Court allowed the US government to imprison Japanese Americans solely because of their national origin and ethnicity, based on empty claims of national security.
Just like the Japanese internment as they are imprisoned in their home country, except in the travel ban case, the home country isn’t the US
But – remember that 1/3 of the interned Japanese either worked for the Japanese Government or had already applied to be repatriated to Japan. And, several thousand were spies that were caught in the Enigma Decriptions but could not be acknowledged as such due to the secrecy of Enigma.
Your comments are almost certainly unfounded.
First, US Naval Intelligence was commissioned by the Roosevelt administration to determine if the Japanese within CONUS represented a security threat to the United States. That report, released a couple of decades ago, determined they were not. FDR acted against the advice he received from the Navy. If the situation regarding the Japanese population in the US were as you stated (“1/3 of the interned Japanese either worked for the Japanese Government or had already applied to be repatriated to Japan”), Naval intelligence would certainly have been aware. So even if true, the Navy still did not consider them a security threat.
Regarding Enigma – Enigma was used to break the German codes, not the Japanese codes. Japanese codes (military and diplomatic) were broken by US intelligence early in the war (and pre-war, earlier codes had also been broken). The Japanese would have had little operational need to communicate the identities or numbers of their agents in the US to the Germans, and security concerns would have made it highly unlikely for them to have done so. Such information about Japanese spies in the US is unlikely to have been gleaned by Enigma.
I’ve been reading WW II literature since the early 1970s. I don’t recall anything to support your claims. FDR acted against the findings of what was probably the best intelligence-gathering operation in the world at the time, and nothing has come to light since then to support his decision. Even if a portion of the Japanese population in CONUS did present a threat to US security, FDR’s action was still unconstitutional, IMHO.
In a most surprising section of the ruling, the high court explicitly overturned one of its most notorious precedents, Korematsu v. U.S., a 1944 decision in which a five-justice majority upheld the mass internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
The travel ban is sorta like the Japanese internment, except the internment kept them in the US, while the travel ban keeps them outside of the US.
Keeping ’em out .. now OK, but keeping ’em in .. is not.
a 1944 decision in which a five-justice majority upheld
? Korematsu was 6-3.
And it was a rather popular DEMOCRAT that interned them. Didn’t he have a “packed” SCOTUS too?
True to form, the American Criminal Liberty Union makes nonsensical comparisons against America. Muslim is not a race, nor is it a Muslim ban when you do not exclude countries that have the largest Muslim populations in the world.
How stupid are they? (that is a rhetorical question)
Roosevelt the Younger didn’t manage to pack the court (that would have increased the number of Associate Justices past the then and now current eight plus one Chief Justice). He did scare the crap out of the existing Justices who decided the Court surviving as constituted was more important than applying the Constitution to Bad Deal legislation.
And now the SCOTUS has finally gotten back at him by saying, officially, “Oh Yeah, FDR was RACIST!”
that’s gotta really hurt the dems.
The Left will take no notice of that part of the opinion. In fact they will probably only read Ginsburg’s opinion and let it go at that.
More than 80% of the world’s Muslims are not affected by Trump’s order, so as a “Muslim travel ban,” it’s highly ineffective!
Quit drinking the Kool Aid. In 1944 many of the Japanese interred by the US were American citizens. It would have been perfectly legal and acceptable to inter Japanese nationals, as the US was at war with japan. In the case of the immigration EOs, none of these people are US citizens. None are currently residing in the US. So, there is absolutely NO point of comparison between the two cases.
Any comparison between the two is nothing more than a thinly disguised emotional appeal against the EO having absolutely NO grounding in either fact or logic. Feelings, nothing more than feelings.
This takes me back to the old Monty Python suggestion of solving the budget crisis by taxing all foreigners living abroad. Once it is correctly and completely explained who they were talking about, the decision is obvious (except to liberals).
They are NOT imprisoned in their home country, frau Merkel says they are always welcome in Germany! LOL.
None of the marxists from the DNC-CPUSA will remark on the outrageous decision by Ruth Babykiller Ginsberg to participate in the case and vote in the minority despite her public statements that clearly demonstrate hostility toward Trump and a strong inference of an inability to be impartial.
You didn’t get the memo? Only Republicans or conservatives are required to recuse themselves and only Republicans or conservatives can be accused of bias (and racism, Fascism and any other ‘ism” you wish).
Intellectualism?
The worst of them all.
Darn that racist Clarence Thomas – er – oops
Black people can be racists. Well, they can if they are Republicans or conservatives – you know – Uncle Toms.
How is this a win for “Team Mitch”? Yes. Scarequotes. Suddenly McGollum is in the Trump Vanguard assaulting the Black Gate? Mitch “slow walk” McConnel?
McConnell was responsible for ignoring Tyrant Obama the Liar’s nominee for the SC and approving Trump’s nominee. The vote was 5/4 with Gorsuch supplying the winning vote.
And all over twitter and the MSM, the leftists are out crying “oh this horrible decision only happened because that dirty Trump STOLE Merrick Garland’s seat! ”
To which I can only say “BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!”
It was easy to ignore the lame duck Obama. Even some Democrats did it there at the end.
They thought they were giving Hillary an opportunity to fill a SCOTUS seat.
That the vile professional Muslim “victim” and anti-Semite, Sarsour, attacks the ruling, only serves to underscore that the Court’s ruling was correct.
I fail to see why this is a surprise. The court stayed the ridiculous ruling of the Hawaii judge a year ago. This ruling is in clear accord with the statute. The idea one can negate a statute because a judge determines there is animus to the targeted population is absurd. Why else would one invoke the statute?
What is scary is that some of the SCOTUS Justices are voting based on their “feelings” rather than the law
Like the “wise Latina,” who doesn’t seem to have cracked a law book or read the Constitution in her career. She just let’s her “wisdom” speak for her.
It seems odd that Democrats who worship FDR are saying that the internment of Japanese Americans that he ordered is bad.
After all historically and today the Democrat party is the party of racism and discrimination so rejecting the internment is going against their very nature.
Slavery? Well I do suppose Muslims know all about slavery from the ownership side.
We should encourage all of them to leave this racist, (Muslim is a race?) country.
ACLU – so arresting people because they broke the law is now forbidden?
How is that supposed to work?
Sarsour: “On Tuesday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold Trump’s Muslim Ban, an executive order that suspends refugee resettlement and permanently prohibits citizens of six Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States on the basis of their nationalities.”
No foreign national has a right to enter this country without our collective permission. Likewise no American has a right to enter any foreign country without that country’s collective permission. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand. Except, of course, for those dratted EU countries that have opened their borders, setting a bad example that people like Sarsour (and Soros) would like to see us follow. Remember what your mom used to say? “If your friends all jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?” Sad to say, too many Americans would jump. But it appears that more would not. Hopefully some real disaster will befall a country in Europe due to this nonsense and hopefully it will instill some common sense in more Americans. Know that I only hope such ill upon Europe because I’d rather have the disaster happen somewhere over there than here, but I’m sure a disaster will happen somewhere, at some time.
The Robert’s lesson is quite simple and clear.
If you want to order travel bans, do so.
But any justification is an invitation for litigation.
Don’t even try to defend it.
So, next time,. issue the ban.
Then, let it stand.
“Left loses their minds”
So, what you’re saying is that it was a day ending in a Y?