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 ...
As to the urge for speed, I believed the injunction is stayed away.
No, the reason we have that governemnt is because the majority of voters want that and vote for it.
“appealing to the grievance politics of Trump’s supporters and outraging the moral sensibilities of the left. “
NPR BS. As if the left would have these “sensibilities” if it was found these people vote 60-40 for republicans.
I don’t know about that. You can’t predict the outcome by the questions they ask.
It does sound like the logic is on our side. I mean, the wise Latina is dumb as a box of rocks. The constitution gives the president the authority to protect our borders.
If what he does is unpopular then they boot him out of office at the next election.
Over the last 100+ years, the legal community has been a force for government socialist tyranny and against individual freedom resulting in mostly unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and unconstitutionally making Supreme Court decisions the law of the land. Law schools do not teach the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. They teach THEIR OWN case law and call it the Constitution.
If Trump doesn't get that (yet) and he's smarter than the average bear, you think the majority of America get that? Do you get that?
FR is a good bellwether of how many Americans are confused about the Constitution. If so many conservatives on FR are in the dark about key constitutional issues the Left has usurped, what does that say about the average Joe? I think many if not most Americas including Trump know the federal government is way too big and unconstitutional but they don't know why.
What is needed is a mass education of the Constitution which is the only legal bulwark against the tyranny of the feds. In the meantime, Trump and we can and SHOULD stand against unconstitutional federal acts and decisions which are acts and decisions of tyranny.
We’ve been fooled before by their questioning. Apparently it doesn’t mean a thing.
NPR staffers should be required to take a percentage of the CACA (sic)
HOUSE THEM ON THEIR OWN DIME,
& then hire and train them as “journalists” to take NPR STAFFER’S JOBS at half pay.
NPR staffers should be required to take a percentage of the CACA (sic)
HOUSE THEM ON THEIR OWN DIME,
& then hire and train them as “journalists” to take NPR STAFFER’S JOBS at half pay.
The law is the law.... The law is absolutely clear on this.... Looks like Kennedy still gets that on this one.
The usual suspects will just invent the reasoning behind their activist dissent should Kennedy indeed uphold the ban.
A. Middle Eastern countries are a source of terrorists
and
B. Eastern European countries are not a source of terrorists
it makes sense for a prospective immigrant's country of origin to be treated as important.
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.