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 ...
Thank God for President Trump.
Could you imagine how much faster we’d be going on the highway to hell with Shrillary at the helm?
Won’t help.
Some Federal Judge from Hawaii will simply issue a stay order on the Supreme Court decision, then overturn them later this month.
See my post 12.
I predicted this many years ago as the Invasion from Mexico amplified.
The Left now believes that ANY impediment to the inflow of non-whites is illegal discrimination, i.e., exclusion.
IOW the very border itself is discriminatory.
Any sensible nation is built on the notion of the first fundamental notion of property rights: exclusion and control by the inhabitants, who are self selecting.
What they are advocating is the abolition of the nation as it’s physical boundaries have to be considered as a violation of the rights of foreigners to ingress at will and occupy our land.
That is what they are saying with this lawsuit, and what they are now testing for the fall elections: abolition of CBP, open borders, no immigration laws whatsoever.
How that would be functionally different from Invasion, I have no idea.
You're right. Seems liberals on the Court want to do a power grab if possible.
Sounds somewhat promising, but never assume anything with the SCOTUS. They have a huge capacity to disappoint.
I hope so! the best thing DJT can do is keep m*slims out of this country.
Before we became a Post-Constitutional country, you'd be right.
However, the left just makes it up these days.
And if Trump stops the Federal Judge, the left will IMMEDIATELY move to impeach.
NPR is seriously BUTT Hurt.
Things like this take time when dealing with decades long all powerful, entrenched deep state.
Go Trump!
Discrimination is forbidden by a 1964 statute. It is not a constitutional matter. The POTUS’ prerogative to bar entry to foreign nationals on any basis at all, is. This discussion is retarded.
“...appealing to the grievance politics of Trump’s supporters and outraging the moral sensibilities of the left.”
Dream on. Stay in your bubble world where nobody laughs at you.
“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.”
Oh, wait. This was said in the real world. OK, then. HA!
It will be interesting to read the positions of Kennedy and Gorsuch, in addition to the positions of Roberts, Thomas, and Alito.
“In a sane world with a non-politicized court, this would be a slam-dunk 9-0 decision.”
In a sane world, the courts would not be ruling at all. Since when does the executive need an up or down vote by the courts to exercise his constitutional authority under the Constitution?
When the courts can green light or red light every decision the executive makes, then the courts are in total control. No reason to have elections...
Exclusion and discrimination are good things to do contrary to what liberals spew.
The problem is lower courts have second guessed the president so the SC has to step in and correct that. If they don’t, this question will be the beginning of the end of separation of powers. Courts will have supremacy.
Quite so. But Democrats are desperate for votes.
SCROTUS could slap down and vacate the lower courts unconstitutional rulings. They didn’t—They haven’t.
In a sane world circuit judges would not go poking their noses into what is clearly a Presidential prerogative.
And POTUS could and SHOULD reject and ignore unconstitutional SCROTUS rulings with notification of constitutional-based rationale for doing so. Trump doesn’t get that yet.
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.