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 ...
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.
MORE Good Newa!!
Who argued for Trump?
About time!
Exclusion.
I like that characterization.
It’s almost like we can decide who to invite into our homes.
It's the EXACT OPPOSITE of grievance politics. It is the pushback against grievance politics.
Nina Totenberg is sad.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who was making the case for the government,
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.
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.
“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!
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?
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.
“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.
“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.”
Propaganda pieces like this are prime exhibits in the case for defunding NPR.
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.
WTF?
Very sad.
Judges, alas, are always political creatures.
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.