#BREAKING: (AP) -- Trump administration travel ban goes into effect, barring new visa applicants from 6 countries. pic.twitter.com/2jpvgWhKYh— Kyle Morris (@RealKyleMorris) June 30, 2017
Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017
Today's SCOTUS ruling on the #TravelBan validates @POTUS's firing of #SallyYates for refusing to implement the ban.— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) June 26, 2017
NEW from @MichaelBarone: On travel ban, the Supreme Court provides adult supervision for lower courts gone wild https://t.co/swmlW99fvD pic.twitter.com/3jffG8DVkH— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) June 27, 2017
written by Michael Barone
Tuesday June 27, 2017
Adult supervision: that's what the Supreme Court provided for a federal judiciary, or part thereof, run amok, when it issued its unanimous opinion overturning the preliminary injunctions of President Donald Trump's executive order banning entry of persons from six countries — the so-called travel ban. The court's unsigned per curiam opinion brushes aside, with virtually no comment, the argument of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the executive order violated the Constitution's bar of an establishment of religion and the assertion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that its judgment on national security was better than the president's.
The court did provide a glimmer of support to these lower courts by retaining the injunctions against barring the specific plaintiffs in each case and to other "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States," but rather tartly added that "a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."
There was nothing in the court's unanimous opinion about inferring the president's motivation, as the Fourth Circuit did, by analyzing his statements along the campaign trail. "The Government's interest in enforcing §2(c) [the executive order], and the Executive's authority to do so are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States," it wrote. "To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else." That's a solid rebuke to the preposterous notion that foreign nationals somehow have a constitutional right to enter the United States.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote, "I agree with the Court's implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits — that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its ‘compelling need to provide for the Nation's security.'" Thomas noted the likelihood of "litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise" by foreign nationals claiming pre-existing relationships enabling them to enter the United States, and that such cases "will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now — unanimously — found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected."
It's interesting, and probably significant, that no other member of the court chose to write separately challenging Justice Thomas's forecast that the lower court decisions will be reversed. The federal district and appeals court judges that have hurled verbal thunderbolts at Donald Trump and his administration have enjoyed the adulation of hundreds of editorial writers and, undoubtedly, the congratulations of the people they encounter in social settings. That may continue. But their actions — the injunctions they issued and the Trump administration obeyed — have been almost entirely overturned by a court whose members are obviously taking their responsibilities seriously. Adult supervision indeed.
— GlobalAwareness101 (@Mononoke__Hime) February 3, 2017RT @DailyCaller Obama’s Top Intelligence Officers Actually Laid Out Reasons For Refugee Suspension A Year Ago https://t.co/o3kFTzXAKf
Obama Imposed Immigration Restrictions 19 Times - Including 4 Times on Muslim Countries https://t.co/1K7gznMtuT— Asa J ๐บ๐ธ (@asamjulian) February 6, 2017
Obama stopped refugees from 1 country for 6 months. Trump is doing 7 countries for 3 months. Reviews are not bans.— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 30, 2017
anyone calling it a Muslim Ban isn't a real journalist.— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 30, 2017
Shameful Reuters' politics. A 90 day pause to ensure the system is working isn't an "immigration ban". https://t.co/Ih6iB4LREt— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) February 6, 2017
Exec Orders— Jim Hanson (@Uncle_Jimbo) February 10, 2017
Stopping immigration #Trump- 1#Obama- 19#Bush- 6#Clinton- 12#Bush- 1#Reagan- 5 https://t.co/K2kSrYxUs0
Hmmm
MSM must stop calling this a "Muslim ban." It isn't.— Harlan Z. Hill (@Harlan) January 29, 2017
There are ~1.6 Billion Muslims on Earth.
Only 150 Million people in banned countries.
@Harlan 7 out of 46 Muslim Countries affected and this was President Obama in 2015 who named the 7. The Terrorist Prevention Act.— Diane Ransom (@Diane411Ransom) January 29, 2017
It was never a Muslim ban @SimonAdamsR2P @WomenUndrSiege 90% of Muslims worldwide still had access to US. Plus Obama chose those 6 nations.— GlobalAwareness101 (@Mononoke__Hime) March 16, 2017
So are you @SimonAdamsR2P @WomenUndrSiege actually admitting that Islamist have slaughtered Christians, other religions in those nations?!— GlobalAwareness101 (@Mononoke__Hime) March 16, 2017
RT @WashTimes Trump administration issues waiver to let green card holders avoid travel ban: https://t.co/UjVT2lspzU— GlobalAwareness101 (@Mononoke__Hime) January 29, 2017
Vetting for #AmericanValues— Jim Hanson (@Uncle_Jimbo) February 7, 2017
To come here
You must believe
Constitution is Supreme
Women are equal
Gays are OK
pic.twitter.com/nipD19276P
#MuslimBan ๐ฃThe left is protesting Executive Order that protects LGBT, women and those persecuted for their religion ๐ฃ can't make this up ๐ pic.twitter.com/1I9VQ6CjOG— Ex-Dem๐บ๐ธLatina (@terrymendozer) January 29, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment