Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Supreme Court Goes Trump Tribal

The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's anti-Muslim travel ban.

The ruling was 5-4 along partisan lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the conservative majority.

"The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority," Roberts wrote.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, said "The majority here completely sets aside the President's charged statements about Muslims as irrelevant.that holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the court elsewhere has so emphatically protected."

The American Civil Liberties Union also condemned the court's ruling, writing on Twitter that "this is not the first time the Court has been wrong, or has allowed official racism and xenophobia to continue rather than standing up to it."



  1. Under what concept of Constitutional law is it not in the President's authority to restrict travel from certain countries for reasons of national security? Sotomayor's feelings not withstanding?

    1. The enumerated powers doctrine?

    2. Thank you! To these Globalists there is no such thing as national security. It consistently amazes me that knowing the US govt in it empire building terrorism creates a huge amount of international blowback and these liberal leaning quite bright individuals dont even want to acknowledge the issue.

    3. @Evan, how quaint of you to think that anyone pays attention to the Constitution anymore, let alone the Supreme Court justices. But let me rephrase that: A very good Constitutional case can be made for the President having that authority.

    4. Robert What?

      I am not a constitutionalist but, since you asked...

      Under Article 1, Section 8, the federal government has no constitutional power to deal with immigration; historically and constitutionally, that has been/is a state matter. The federal government has constitutional power over granting US citizenship, but that is a separate matter from immigration.

      The President is the C-in-C of the armed forces, and can act militarily without the legislature's approval in emergencies related to actual wars. In non-emergencies, only the legislature can declare war.

      Individuals traveling to the US do not constitute a war / an invasion. Any violent crimes they might commit would be the province of state-level police action.

    5. @Napster, you sound like a college professor. Let's see what your thoughts are when tens of millions flood in and start to exert their group and tribal "rights"? They won't give a damn about your non-aggression principal.

    6. Robert What?

      (Ouch, low blow on the "college professor" thing. That's worse than TLM's insults.)

      I didn't mention the NAP; I was merely responding to your question about the Constitutional position. It would seem that neither you nor I support the Constitution.

      I'm used to living among folks who don't give a damn about the NAP; 99% of Americans don't, including many of western European descent.

    7. @Robert What?

      Your posts make no sense. You ask specifically about the US Constitution and then you respond that it doesn’t matter what the US Constitution actually says.