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

Skip to comments.

In Intense Arguments, Supreme Court Appears Ready To Side With Trump On Travel Ban
npr.com ^ | April 25, 2018 | Nina Totenberg

Posted on 04/25/2018 10:15:22 AM PDT by John W

During arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices seemed, by a narrow margin, to be leaning toward upholding the the third iteration of the Trump travel ban.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in close cases, for example, made repeated comments suggesting that the court does not usually second-guess a president's national security decisions — even in the context of an immigration law that is seen as banning discrimination based on nationality.

If the court does decide in favor of the government — a decision is expected in June — it would be a big win for one of the pillars of the president's politics. It's an issue that animates the bases of both parties, appealing to the grievance politics of Trump's supporters and outraging the moral sensibilities of the left. Between the travel ban and the proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, that idea of exclusion is fueling the resistance to Trump and firing up liberals for this year's midterms.

(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aliens; bordersecurity; braking; immigration; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; search; trump; trumpscotus; trumptravelban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

1 posted on 04/25/2018 10:15:23 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John W

In a sane world with a non-politicized court, this would be a slam-dunk 9-0 decision.

But that is not the world in which we live.


2 posted on 04/25/2018 10:17:22 AM PDT by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm using my wife's account.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

MORE Good Newa!!


3 posted on 04/25/2018 10:17:53 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Who argued for Trump?


4 posted on 04/25/2018 10:18:30 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

About time!


5 posted on 04/25/2018 10:19:00 AM PDT by G Larry (There is no great virtue in bargaining with the Devil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Exclusion.

I like that characterization.

It’s almost like we can decide who to invite into our homes.


6 posted on 04/25/2018 10:20:23 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
appealing to the grievance politics of Trump's supporters

It's the EXACT OPPOSITE of grievance politics. It is the pushback against grievance politics.

7 posted on 04/25/2018 10:20:29 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (President Trump divides Americans . . . from anti-Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

Nina Totenberg is sad.


8 posted on 04/25/2018 10:20:36 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who was making the case for the government,


9 posted on 04/25/2018 10:20:42 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John W

I thought if the President flat out wanted to ban muslims from entering, he could. Period.

Other similar groups have been banned by Presidents past.


10 posted on 04/25/2018 10:21:07 AM PDT by Basket_of_Deplorables (Trump has implemented Supply Side Economics!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Exclusion is precisely what the natural born citizen requirement is all about.

Excluding the children of foreign nationals born with divided loyalties, allegiances and citizenships.
Excluding those who are not naturally Americans.

Now we know the consequences of not following it.


11 posted on 04/25/2018 10:23:24 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: John W

“that idea of exclusion”

Got it? To the idiot Totenberg, having borders and deciding who gets in and who doesn’t is “exclusion”.

To her, Invasion is a Civil Right. But only if you’re a non-white...because to stop such an invasion would be WACISS!

So we clearly had no right to stop the Imperial Japanese Army in 1942. All they were trying to do was peacefully immigrate! It’s WACISS to resist!


12 posted on 04/25/2018 10:24:02 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

If it is a duty for Muslims to establish a Muslim political system in the countries which lack it, why decide their status on religion? Why not decide their status on intent to overthrow government?


13 posted on 04/25/2018 10:24:24 AM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W
Can we all agree: "Trump’s order is NOT a 'TRAVEL BAN'? It is an INVASION BAN order.

This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.

The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.

Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.

14 posted on 04/25/2018 10:27:52 AM PDT by Jim 0216 (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

“Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the deciding vote in close cases, for example, made repeated comments suggesting that the court does not usually second-guess a president’s national security decisions —”

Why is the court involved then, ‘Justice’ Kennedy? Bunch of black robed tyrannical aholes.

Trump doesn’t need an up or down vote from the courts to exercise his constitutional authority. Fark them.


15 posted on 04/25/2018 10:27:52 AM PDT by Electric Graffiti (Jeff Sessions IS the insurance policy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John W

“It’s an issue that animates the bases of both parties, appealing to the grievance politics of Trump’s supporters and outraging the moral sensibilities of the left.”


So Trump supporters deal with “grievance politics,” but the Leftists have “moral sensibilities.” Yeah, Nina is as hyper-partisan as ever. Beotch ought to stock up on duct tape prior to the USSC decision, cuz her head is going to explode when it goes for America and against the America-hating globalists like her.

Propaganda pieces like this are prime exhibits in the case for defunding NPR.


16 posted on 04/25/2018 10:27:53 AM PDT by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

5 out of the 9 know what would happen if they didn’t.

And the black-robed tyrants would be very high on the list.


17 posted on 04/25/2018 10:28:19 AM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John W
made repeated comments suggesting that the court does not usually second-guess a president's national security decisions

WTF?

18 posted on 04/25/2018 10:29:43 AM PDT by Hyman Roth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Very sad.


19 posted on 04/25/2018 10:31:00 AM PDT by tennmountainman ("Prophet Mountainman" Predicter Of All Things RINO...for a small fee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

Judges, alas, are always political creatures.


20 posted on 04/25/2018 10:31:56 AM PDT by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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