Supreme Court Delivers Trump (and the U.S.) a Major Victory
Could we be on the cusp of seeing sanity restored to our insane court system?
If the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s travel ban this week is any indication, the answer is a resounding yes. In a 7-2 ruling, the nation’s high court ruled Monday that Trump’s ban can go into full effect while the lawsuits against it proceed, giving the White House one of its most important judicial victories and sending a dire signal to those who have opposed the president’s national security measures.
As a result of the decision, Trump will be able to go ahead with the ban on U.S. travel from the following countries: Iran, Somalia, Syria, Chad, Libya, North Korea, and Yemen. The ruling also strikes down earlier restrictions on the ban, such as that persons with U.S. contacts (relatives, charities, etc.) would be exempt from the policy.
While several of the court’s left-leaning members ruled with the majority, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, proving once again that these two serve no purpose on the bench other than to carry water for the liberal agenda. When and if the full case is heard by the court, we’re certain that Sotomayor and Ginsburg will once again rule against the administration, no matter how obvious it is that the president was acting within the comfortable confines of his executive power. Once a liberal judge gets it in his or her head that she’s a member of the “Resistance,” nothing as insubstantial as the Constitution can remind them of their duty. Besides, these idiots barely believe in the Constitution as it is.
The only legal argument against the ban is that by making anti-Muslim statements on the campaign trail, Donald Trump somehow forfeited his right to ban travel from majority-Muslim countries. This is an argument that is absurd on its face, yet it was enough to inspire liberal judge after liberal judge to rule against the administration. We can hardly remember a year filled with this many unconstitutional, blatantly-biased court decisions, and it gives us a major sigh of relief to see the Supreme Court put us back on solid legal ground.
In a statement, John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation praised the ruling.
“By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court has decided—at least temporarily, pending a final determination of the merits—that decisions affecting our national security should be made by Congress and the president, not by a single federal judge sitting in a courthouse in Hawaii,” said Malcolm. “Presidents are given primary responsibility for protecting our homeland. Federal judges are not.”
On the other side of the coin was Omar Jadwat of the ACLU’s Immigrants Rights Project, who said the decision was a disappointment.
“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter,” Jadwat said. “It’s unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones.”
Trump’s “anti-Muslim prejudice,” to the extent that he has one, has nothing to do with singling out a religion and everything to do with recognizing one simple fact: Islam is the cauldron in which terrorism is forged. And Trump would be in dereliction of his duty to ignore that fact and treat every country and every religion as if they all posed the same threat to our national security. More importantly, Trump’s “anti-Muslim prejudice” is immaterial to the case. It does not limit his power as the President of the United States to make decisions based on what’s best for our safety. It certainly does not cede that power to random judges dispersed throughout the country.
This debate is far from over, but the Supreme Court’s ruling this week is the most encouraging sign we’ve seen since January.