Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Upholds Trumpís Travel Ban
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | June 26, 2017 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 06/26/2017 12:06:04 PM PDT by Kaslin

RUSH: The Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, has upheld Trump’s travel ban and has reinstated it. To me, this is an example of how silly and stupid we have been since Trump was — not us. There has been no question that Trump was totally constitutionally within his rights to issue this travel ban.

An act of Congress that we read to you many times explicitly granted to Trump the official constitutional powers to do exactly what he did and more if he wanted to in his travel ban. It was stayed by all these lower courts and then upheld by the U.S. Ninth Circuit. And it was only a matter of time before it got to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reinstated it and said they’re gonna hear arguments in October.

What this means: Trump was right, Trump had full authority to do what he did. The media experts were wrong, all of this in-depth analysis, all the panel discussions, all the people supporting these judges who said that they were going to stay the travel ban because of what Trump had said during the campaign trail, and all of this enlightened intellectual hemming and hawing back and forth on cable TV, which was an embarrassing joke to anybody who knows the Constitution and the law has just been blown to smithereens.

Now, the Supreme Court, given that courts, including the Supreme Court, allow or deny stays based upon the likelihood that the issue in question will be found to be constitutional or not, this unanimous decision to allow the Trump travel ban to be implemented shows that the court thinks it’s highly likely that Trump will eventually prevail during oral arguments and the formal presentation of the case when the court hears it in October.

The only exception here that the court carved out is that immigrants and refugees and others entering the country cannot be kept out if they can show a definite link, familial or some other type of relation, to somebody who is a citizen living in America.

Now, what’s gonna happen here, remember, now, the left never just says, “Oh, we lost? Oh, okay.” That’s not how they do it. So what’s gonna happen here, the left is gonna go out and find a bunch of people who may or may not have friends or family living in America who are citizens. They’re gonna try to get in, they’re gonna be denied by the ban and then they’re gonna file lawsuits.

I know this because I saw some left-wing commentator on CNN today discuss the likelihood and the possibility, which means they’re already thinking about it and probably already have the process ready to go. Just flood the courts with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit. After attempts to enter the country are denied on the basis of the ban, the left will get into gear and file massive lawsuits against us Trump and against the DOJ and against the government for this.

But all that aside, it is something to feel comforted about and revealed about because the Supreme Court — it’s kind of like the Florida recount. The recount in 2000 that the Florida Supreme Court continued to authorize was just crazy. It was asinine. Over and over again the definition of hanging chads changing, and basically the Florida Supreme Court was allowing the recount to go on and on and on until the Democrats could find enough votes for Algore.

And after a time the U.S. Supreme Court shut it down using the law and common sense because the law had been satisfied long before — I’m giving you the Cliffs Notes version of this — and of course the Democrats went nuts claiming the Supreme Court interceded to choose Bush when Bush had already been certified as the president. It was a big argument over nothing except the left turned it into a giant political issue in order to delegitimize Bush for his entire presidency, which they immediately embarked on that course and that political procedure.

Same thing here. There was never any doubt that this travel ban was constitutional. The very federal statute that exists, we read it to you I don’t know how many times, Trump totally satisfied it with this travel ban. The only reason to stop this was political hacks that have been appointed to the judiciary by Obama and other Democrat presidents. And they were simply implementing personal political policy preferences to stop the travel ban rather than looking at is as a matter of law.

It was only a matter of time, folks. I never doubted this. When the Supreme Court saw this, the law is the law, the statute’s the statute. And the Supreme Court was gonna slap this down in no time, and it did. Now, the fact that they’re gonna hear it formally in October doesn’t mean that they’re gonna overturn it. It means they want to probably officially hear this thing and give it the official stamp of approval once it’s all said and done, because this is explicitly about the Constitution and separation of powers. And the judicial branch was way overstepping here for personal political policy reasons on the part of all the judges who decided this. Unanimous.

By the way, as the Supreme Court goes, the media is beside itself today. I’ve seen several leftists in media in a panic over the Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch. You know why? Because Gorsuch, they thought he was a moderate for some reason, Gorsuch was a moderate, they held out great hope that Gorsuch was not actually gonna be a Scalia, and there might be a slight change in balance. And then they found out that Gorsuch has agreed with Clarence Thomas four different times so far on four different cases, and they’re livid now.

They’re claiming there’s nothing moderate about the guy. He’s just as insane, he’s just as wacko, he’s an extremist and we were fooled. All because he agreed with Clarence Thomas four times. Look, the Democrats are in trouble in more ways than one. I know it’s not fashionable to portray them that way because of the history that they have, seemingly on a whim, being able to win and overpower their opponents, but they are encountering a lot of problems. They’re in the midst of tremendous problems and I’m gonna continue to point them out when I see them.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT ¬¬

RUSH: Now, the Supreme Court, the decision today on the travel ban actually warns nonprofits about setting up phony relationships in order to secure entry by foreigners banned by the travel ban. This is anybody who can claim a legitimate relationship with somebody living in the country now can be exempted from the ban. And I saw some eager beaver leftist on CNN earlier today talking about all the lawsuits that are waiting to happen, which told me they’re already lining them up.

And so the judiciary has been warned for this, and the court, Supreme Court has even warned nonprofits against trying to do this, ’cause it’s the one opening that has been left for people to get in. You mark my words. And the mainstream media anger over this… There’s more outrage from the Drive-Bys over the travel ban than we saw from them after any recent terror attack. They’re livid here. They thought they had Trump boxed in. And Trump just keeps prevailing. It’s one of the reasons I think the worm’s turning.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, one thing about the Supreme Court ruling here on the travel ban, if I may briefly return to that. And of course I can; it’s my program; I can take it anywhere I want it to go. The court said that essentially Trump’s travel ban stands, that it is constitutional. They left one category of foreigner protected: those with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. It’s an unsigned opinion. It’s unanimous. It really makes the last however many months since the first travel ban, it makes these last months just a total joke.

Look at what this country has been put through. Look at what the people of this country have been put through by decidedly extraconstitutional acts by hack judges in Seattle and in Hawaii and of course the appellate judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There was never any question statutorily, constitutionally, that the Trump travel ban passed every constitutional test. It was 100 percent constitutional. And it was stayed simply because of the personal political policy preferences of individual district court judges and the Ninth Circuit appellate judges.

And everything they did was bogus. Everything they wrote was bogus. Everything they wrote stood the law on its head upside down. When it got to the Supreme Court — and it’s unanimous. You don’t even have the four libs trying to bail these judges out, it’s unanimous. The Trump travel ban is a thousand percent constitutional with the one exception, and that is foreigners with a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States can be permitted entry, which is gonna open lawsuits.

They punted this until October. And one of the original takes on this, “Well, October, that’s the next session of the court. They have gone ahead and implemented the ban, which means that they think that Trump would prevail under a full-fledged hearing,” blah, blah, blah. There could also be something else going on here. It could well be, ’cause the court could have ruled in toto today if they wanted to. They just didn’t want to maybe give the impression of a full-fledged hearing with oral arguments and all the “shebaz” that goes with it. But in truth they’re probably never gonna hear the case.

The terms of the Trump travel ban limit its application to 90 days or four times, 90 or 120 days.

And Trump said he’s gonna implement the thing in a couple of days after any court rules that it’s constitutional, so that should happen this week. And the travel ban itself is 90 days, 120 days, not sure which. And the reason for that, this is in part of the Trump ban, was during the period of the ban the administration is going to develop new vetting procedures. It’s not a permanent ban. It’s not a policy statement or position. It provides a period of time for the administration to change, ramp up, or vet new vetting procedures. And then after those have been developed the ban’s lifted and a new policy gets put into place.

The Supreme Court may be figuring that by the time they get back after their summer recess, which will be October, that the travel ban order will have lapsed, 90 days, 120 days. By the time they get back, it’s over, in which case the case would be over, the case would be moot. And what would be argued about would be the new vetting procedures that the administration comes up with during the 90 or 120 days of the travel ban. They may not even want to hear the case at all is the point. Could be why they happen.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bordersecurity; ruling; scotus; travelban; trumpscotus; trumpvictory; ussc

1 posted on 06/26/2017 12:06:05 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm really smiling today.

Thank you President Trump.

2 posted on 06/26/2017 12:09:57 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Trust me, you are not the only one who is.

Thank you President Trump can not repeated enough.

3 posted on 06/26/2017 12:12:29 PM PDT by Kaslin (The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triump. Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Good news on the ruling. The following is even better news!

By the way, as the Supreme Court goes, the media is beside itself today. I’ve seen several leftists in media in a panic over the Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch. You know why? Because Gorsuch, they thought he was a moderate for some reason, Gorsuch was a moderate, they held out great hope that Gorsuch was not actually gonna be a Scalia, and there might be a slight change in balance. And then they found out that Gorsuch has agreed with Clarence Thomas four different times so far on four different cases, and they’re livid now.

They’re claiming there’s nothing moderate about the guy. He’s just as insane, he’s just as wacko, he’s an extremist and we were fooled. All because he agreed with Clarence Thomas four times.

May all of the Never Trumpsters and fainting pearl clutchers with all of their bs about Gorsuch: Go suck on a steady diet of fresh lemons for the rest of Trumps first and second term!

4 posted on 06/26/2017 12:13:44 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Limbaugh: Democratic Party Has Become Largest Hate Group In This Country! Go Trump MAGA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

‘Rats get powned again ...


5 posted on 06/26/2017 12:32:55 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (FREEP U, Schmucky O'Putz!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All the media headlines are inferring that a teeny tiny bit of Trump’s ban was affirmed. But it was 100% affirmed with stipulation.


6 posted on 06/26/2017 12:42:05 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Sheesh..it was not a unanimous decision as in 9 to 0. Whoever told trump that is making him look like a fool. Doj spokesperson tried to claim it was unanimous as if it was a 9 to 0 vote

It was a per curiam decision. Thomas Jefferson..and ginsburg have had interesting things to say about a court and the justices who hide behind per curiam decisions


7 posted on 06/26/2017 12:51:41 PM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

winning
[win-ing]
noun
1.the act of a person or thing that wins


8 posted on 06/26/2017 12:58:02 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Btw..it takes 4 votes to grant cert. That doj spokesperson should be fired if he/she was indicating the votes were 9 to 0

Someone didnt explain this to trump.or he just ignored the explanation when he heard the word unanimous without understanding what that meant in a per curiam definition


9 posted on 06/26/2017 1:00:21 PM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

“Btw..it takes 4 votes to grant cert. That doj spokesperson should be fired if he/she was indicating the votes were 9 to 0”

Who the F cares. You take a victory dance.


10 posted on 06/26/2017 1:03:48 PM PDT by heights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: heights

Because it gives ammunition to people that trump..and Doj...are clueless about SCOTUS and what per curiam means

I get that rush doesnt know...trust me..people will be correcting him behind the scenes


11 posted on 06/26/2017 1:11:06 PM PDT by RummyChick (can we switch Don,Jr for Prince Kush and his flak jacket. From Yacht Party to Warzone ready to wear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

“May all of the Never Trumpsters and fainting pearl clutchers with all of their bs about Gorsuch: Go suck on a steady diet of fresh lemons for the rest of Trumps first and second term! “

Absolutely spot on GD! People here on FR who are not now 100% behind President Trump need to be given the ZOT! They’d be better of on some website that considers “sniffing Romney’s privates” behavior worthy of reward.


12 posted on 06/26/2017 1:24:15 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Supreme Court has even warned nonprofits against trying to do this,

If they try, we should do what the left would do. Take away their non-profit status, and for good measure, investigate for RICO violations and asset forfeiture. Playing nice is over!

13 posted on 06/26/2017 1:32:52 PM PDT by Defiant (The media is the colostomy bag where truth goes after democrats digest it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I hope our idiot AG Bob Ferguson and half-wit Gov. Jay Inthlee went home early today with tummy aches. Damn fools!


14 posted on 06/26/2017 1:40:13 PM PDT by beelzepug (Anybody I attack may rest assured it's personal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

My biggest prime is that the tiny judges who perpetrated this miscarriage of justice on the American people suffer no sanctions. What can be done to punish them and discourage future lawlessness?


15 posted on 06/26/2017 1:45:26 PM PDT by ez ("Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


16 posted on 06/26/2017 1:57:13 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

For those who don’t know
Per Curium means “by decision of a judge, or of a court in unanimous agreement.”


17 posted on 06/26/2017 2:31:14 PM PDT by DaiHuy (May God save the country, for it is evident the people will not! Millard Fillmore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

And NOW is the time to start fixing immigration laws. When we came here in 1952 from Scotland, immigrants needed the written promise of work upon arrival,they needed an American sponsor who would financially and medically take care of the immigrant for 5 years before he/she could go on the welfare or request medical assistance if indigent, if they were non English speaking, they had to go to English classes within the 5 year period they wished to become citizens and then, once English speaking, attend citizenship classes and take a test prior to naturalization. There was a 5 year wait before they could become citizens, 3 years if the immigrant was married to an American. Quotas used to be very high for European immigrants even tho’ countries were small since the U.S. was an Euro based country then. Britain never filled its quota back then, think it was 152,000 can’t remember and America was a Euro based country as it was determined by the majority of U.S. residents had Euro ancestry here in the U.S. Now Britain and all of Western Europe (France, Belgium, Germany, etc.) has a quota for all of them of only 10,000, and it is about a ten year wait on the immigration list. Quotas now are based on the size of country, not the ethnicity. America is a-changing.


18 posted on 06/26/2017 3:41:18 PM PDT by kiltie65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

19 posted on 06/26/2017 6:22:07 PM PDT by combat_boots (God bless Israel and all who protect and defend her! And please, God, bless the USA again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nyanyah.


20 posted on 06/27/2017 3:12:24 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (¬ďIf you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson