It’s still amazing that acting in the interests of national security would be remotely controversial. There are two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. For years, Democratic and Republican governments have opted for the latter and claimed that to make the other choice was racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” Trump has grasped the nettle and chosen it anyway, and is being duly smeared. Future free people, if there are any, will look at the battles he had to fight to protect the American people from jihad terror and marvel at the insanity of our age.
“Supreme Court tosses one of two travel ban challenges,” by Lawrence Hurley, Reuters, October 11, 2017:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an appeals court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s previous temporary travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries that has now expired.
In a one-page order, the court acted in one of two cases pending before the nine justices over Trump’s travel ban, a case from Maryland brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to stop the ban contained in a March executive order.
For now, the court did not act on a separate challenge brought by the state of Hawaii, which the court had also agreed to hear. That case also features a challenge to a separate 120-day refugee ban, which has not yet expired.
That case could yet be dismissed once the refugee ban expires on Oct. 24, meaning the court remains unlikely to issue a final ruling on whether the ban was lawful.
The justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case, although one of the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, noted that she would not have wiped out the appeals court ruling.
The justices had been scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday, but removed it from their calendar after Trump’s 90-day ban expired on Sept. 24 and was replaced with a reworked ban.
The expired ban had targeted people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. The new open-ended ban, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18, removed Sudan from the list while blocking people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States….
Walter Sieruk says
The need for a national travel ban concerning all those unvetted Muslim migrants who desire to enter the United States of America is very important. This may be yet better explained by one of the fables of Aesop which is entitled THE FARMER AND THE VIPER. So here it is “Once in ancient Greece there was a farmer outside on a very cold winter day walking in if field to make sure that everything is in order and as it should be. The farmer came upon a half-froze viper about to die from the bitter cold. The kind yet foolish farmer took pity on the viper and in an action of kindness put it his is vest jacket to warms and up and thus save its life. The viper warned up revived and then bit farmer through the vest jacket. So the kind but foolish farmer died a slow painful death in awful agony because he felt sorry of the viper and saved it life.” The point to this fable is the no amount of kindness will chance an evil and dangerous nature.
John S. Obeda says
It is very foolish for us to make any deals with the devil. Islam is of the devil.
Walter Sieruk says
Concerning the security and safety of America people as well as peaceful visitors this nation and this topic of a travel ban from terrorist hotspot countries in important. This subject had been, somewhat, explained in the book, by Robert Spencer which his entitled THE COMPLETE INFIDEL’S GUIDE TO THE KORAN. For on page 230 it informs the reader “Immigration. Since there is no completely reliable way to tell any given Muslim believer takes the Koran’s dictates about warfare against Infidels literally, immigration of Muslims into the United States should be halted.”
In addition, on page 232 of the same book read “The willful blindness of Western leaders threatens us all, and the very survival of free societies.” Therefore, First, it should not be forgotten that most of the jihadist al Qaeda operatives who were the hijackers and mass murderers came from Saudi Arabia . Second, don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
mortimer says
Any judge who doesn’t know the constitution is not prepared to be a judge.
The judges who presumed that the president did not have the powers granted him in the constitution are not up to speed. They should be fired.
Jim says
They are appointed for life. Grounds for removal do not include a difference of legal opinion. This is why liberal judges get to play King for a Day.
Guest says
Amen
Walter Sieruk says
It’s not the job of President Trump to have a international travel policy that the left would like. It’s the job and duty of President Trump to ensure the safety and protection of the American citizens.
Guy Forester says
I do not know who is or was advising DT on these matters. I would like to know a constitutional expert’s opinion on how I think the president should have acted.
1. There are precedents regarding national security by presidents where they actually ignored the SCOTUS and basically told them to enforce their ruling themselves. While we may not have liked some of these precedents, the presidents, or what they did, the SCOTUS was left powerless to compel the executive branch to act.
2. DT should have told the court that their orders were considered null and void as this was a national security issue, and by both SCOTUS rulings and legislation, the courts have no jurisdiction here, especially regarding non-citizens and applicants for visas.
3. DT should have ordered his solicitor general, attorney general, DHS chief, and ICE/CBP chief to refuse to enforce any orders, subpoenas, or injunctions delivered to anyone except as follows: All such orders must be given directly to the POTUS, Attorney General, or Solicitor General. Order the FBI, ICE, CPB to arrest anyone that attempts to interfere at any Federal jurisdiction that is enforcing the travel ban. That means any court appointed marshal, bailiff, clerk, or local LEO.
Linde Barrera says
To Guy Forrester- Does the individual elected to the office of mayor in any US city also qualify to be arrested if s/he does not uphold the travel ban? I am interested to know as I live in Brooklyn, NY.
Linde Barrera says
To Guy Forrester- Does the individual elected to the office of mayor in any US city also qualify to be arrested if s/he does not uphold the travel ban? I am interested to know as I live in Brooklyn, NY.
Frank Anderson says
Linde, please look at the precise language of Article 6 Clause 2 (The Supremacy Clause) of the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is adopted by every state when it joins the union, therefore the state recognizes beyond question that federal law overrides any state law to the contrary. Take a look at several federal Obstruction of Justice statutes, that make it a federal crime for any person, especially state officials, to hinder federal officers in performance of their duties. See also 18 United States Code Section 1512 and following which codify the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act of 1982.
A police officer who is ordered by his organizational superior and elected officials to violate federal law is in addition to being a potential defendant (the defense of “superior orders” was wiped out by adoption of the Treaty of London creating the UN in 1945) but also a witness, “anyone who knows material information and is expected to, expects to or does give testimony in a federal proceeding whether voluntarily or under subpoena” “A federal witness is protected against any corrupt endeavor to harass, oppress or intimidate his testimony or to punish him for giving it before, during and after the proceeding.” But find a federal prosecutor who will enforce law that dates back far earlier than 1982, when the re-codification was adopted.
My opinion is that the mayor of a city or governor of a state ordering violation of federal law should not only be subject to arrest, but conviction, sentencing, fined and hit with forfeiture of every asset that can be connected to him. But who will enforce the law? Cases from which my quotes are taken can be found in annotations for 18 U.S.C. 1503 and 1505.
Linde Barrera says
To Frank Anderson- Thank you very much for your 10:56 pm Oct. 11, 2017 scholarly answer to my question. I really appreciate it and I will check them out.
Frank Anderson says
You are welcome. As long as I can pass along what I have learned, it will not be wasted. See for yourself and pass it on.
Guy Forester says
Thanks to both of you. I take a similar oath even when doing disaster training and drills in my local area as an unpaid volunteer. Basically the state of California is ordering all departments and specifically LEOs and Corrections to refuse to cooperate in an area of Federal Jurisdiction.
I would like to know if the President can basically tell the courts that attempt to regulate security and immigration from the bench to go pound sand. The regulation of immigration and naturalization is clearly given to the feds by the constitution.
Frank Anderson says
Guy, this is my opinion and little more: The President should be very cautious in ever telling the courts, particularly the Supreme Court to _______. The Court in particular is there to keep the other 2 branches in check, to limit their actions to those allowed under the Constitution. Supreme Court rulings have been very rarely reversed by Congressional Act signed by the President. I’m sorry that I cannot remember an example; but am sure any law school book, at least at the doctoral level, on Constitutional Law will name some cases and show how to find others. If the Court ever goes so far that all respect is lost, we will be in extremely deep trouble, which makes appointment of judges an extremely important issue. Obama did his best to load the courts with out and out nuts. Clinton did the same. Reagan and the Bush’s had their successes and disappointments. But I pray the system never breaks down to the point that a sitting President has to defy a court. Lifetime appointment may be something to examine and change. Senile judges are a risk to our liberty. Drunk judges are even worse.
It deeply saddens me to watch the current Department of Justice look the other way on crime after crime. I blame a lot of the current problem with the holdovers from the Obama administration because the appointees to replace them have not been confirmed. To expect Obama appointees and those they hire in “fire at will” positions to prosecute any Democrat crime is expecting something akin to any unlikely event you wish. Obama’s view of the law is “whatever I say it is” as was shown by repeated Court rulings that his orders were unconstitutional. He would never allow the appointment or hiring of anyone who would take a different view. Until we find leaders in the Senate who will stop the delaying of appointments and get the people we elected Trump to present, we will see no change. Lies, crimes, deception, theft and aiding all who would destroy our country. Name one thing Obama did which strengthened the United States?
mummymovie says
Sure, this is great, as it strikes a perceived blow to the lefties- Yay.
But like I have said many times, this is just red meat for us, the ever-increasing component of what DJT takes for granted as being part of his ‘base’.
If he was serious, he would pinch off the ‘Refugee’ Resettlement industry here altogether.
Instead, he approved the 45,000 admittance number (unclear whether this includes ‘asylum seekers’ or not), accepted tens of thousands of Australian boat rejects, and installed a Somali poster girl for Sharia as the US youth representative to the UN.
So you’ll have to forgive my lack of excitement about the travel ban.
STOP THE HIJRA
END REFUJIHAD
Mockingjay says
Refugeehad
Refu-jihad…
Good word! – and yes – IT NEEDS TO STOP. NOW.
jewdog says
Open Borders is an anchor wrapped around the neck of the floundering Left.
Frank Anderson says
How would “open borders” work for Israel? Why do so many US Jews not see the danger to the US from the same proposal? I can’t find an answer after decades of asking.
Guy Forester says
That same leftist bunch are the ones pushing the boycott and return nonsense in Israel. Fortunately, enough Israelis ignore them to keep Netanyahu and company in power for now.
mummymovie says
And WHY did DJT remove Sudan from the list, for God’s sake?
gravenimage says
Supreme Court throws out appeals court ruling that struck down Trump’s previous temporary travel ban
……………………….
*Excellent* news!
Saipan Sam says
Who, really are worse… The Muslim-Jihadis and their supporters who we know are murderers or the ‘progressive’ liberal vermin who enable them??
Both need to go.
Matthieu Baudin says
“… Future free people, if there are any, will look at the battles he had to fight to protect the American people from jihad terror and marvel at the insanity of our age…”
Well chosen words – there is no overstatement here whatsoever.