The main problem with this is that Trump is a normal President. He is the only President we have, and U.S. law grants the President broad authority to ban groups of people from the country, as Roberts notes. The law makes no exception for Presidents who say things about immigration that Supreme Court justices or others dislike.
Sotomayor, meanwhile, presents Trump’s statements in a vacuum. As far as she is concerned, they are ipso facto evidence of prejudice and bigotry. Because she is a Leftist, she probably believes that jihad terror has nothing to do with Islam, and so she cannot or will not consider these statements in light of the reality of the Islamic State’s repeated vows to commit mass murder of American civilians, and similar vows from other Islamic jihad groups. Yet it is jihad terror that sets the question of the travel ban apart from earlier mistreatment of minorities. Given the fact that it is impossible to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, we have two choices: let in some harmful people, or keep out some harmless ones. For decades, we have been told that we must let in some harmful people, because to do otherwise would be racist, bigoted, and “Islamophobic.”
Now President Trump has opted for the other option, in order to protect the American people. For that, he deserves applause, not opprobrium.
“Roberts treats Trump like a normal President. Sotomayor says no way.” By
As the 5-4 conservative majority of the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s travel ban on nationals from certain majority-Muslim countries, the nine justices implicitly revealed for the first time how they regard a commander in chief who repeatedly insulted Muslims and more broadly has mocked the rule of law and constitutional norms.
At bottom, five conservative justices signaled that even though they might not like what Trump has said, they will look past it — in Tuesday’s case and possibly in future disputes over administration actions related to immigration.
“This is an act that could have been taken by any other president,” Roberts said from the center chair of the bench on Tuesday.
Roberts wanted to make clear that the majority was not ignoring Trump’s anti-Muslim remarks, but concluded that they lacked legal significance. Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, acknowledged that Roberts’ opinion recounted some of Trump’s inflammatory statements. But, she declared, that “does not tell even half of the story.”
One of the most dramatic moments in the courtroom came as Sotomayor paused after reading aloud a litany of Trump remarks, including “Islam hates us” and “we’re having trouble with Muslims coming into the country,” [sic]
“Take a brief moment,” she said, “and let the gravity of those statements sink in.” She said such hostility was not expressed by just anyone; it was the man who is now President.
“Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves,” Sotomayor said in her written opinion, “a judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they defy our most sacred legal commitments.”
Her message: Trump is so unconventional he cannot be treated conventionally….
“Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban,” by Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow, Washington Post, June 26, 2018:
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that President Trump has the authority to ban travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks it is necessary to protect the United States, a victory in what has been a priority since Trump’s first weeks in office and a major affirmation of presidential power.
The vote was 5 to 4, with conservatives in the majority and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. finding that a string of unprecedented comments and warnings from Trump about Muslims did not erode the president’s vast powers to control entry into this country….
Later, the White House issued a formal response that also took a swipe at Trump’s declared enemies. It called the ruling a “vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”
Lower courts had struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban, the first of which was issued in January 2017. But the administration said it fortified the order in response to each judicial setback, and it had reason to be optimistic about the Supreme Court, since the justices previously decided to let the ban go into effect while considering the challenges to it….
The current ban, issued last fall, barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities. They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the challenge. Chad was later removed from the list.
Roberts tried to play down the political aspects of the case, writing that the proclamation that led to the ban “is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority” and noting that its text does not mention religion.
His opinion gave a short history of Trump’s comments about Muslims, starting with a campaign pledge for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” The pledge remained on the campaign website after Trump became president.
And other tweets and statements followed.
“But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”
He added: “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a stinging rebuttal, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And she read part of it in a dramatic moment on the bench.
Sotomayor noted the campaign statements and anti-Muslim videos and comments the president shared on Twitter, including one titled “Muslim Destroys a Statue of Virgin Mary!”
“Take a brief moment and let the gravity of those statements sink in,” she said.
“And then remember,” Sotomayor added, that the statements and tweets were spoken or written “by the current president of the United States.”
Sotomayor repeatedly called out Trump by name in her lengthy statement and said the majority’s decision “repeats tragic mistakes of the past” and “tells members of minority religions” in the United States that “they are outsiders.”
The court, she wrote, was “blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy.”
infidel says
ANOTHER ISLAMIC TRUISM FROM THE ANNALS OF THE INFIDEL:
All over the world, U will see lots of non-Muslim leaders, their legislative, executive, and judiciary bending our backwards to accommodate Muslims and their never ending demands. All over the world, U will see non-Muslim mainstream media literally eating from the hands of Muslims. BUT NOWHERE IN THE WORLD, would U see Muslim leaders, their legislative, executive, and judiciary even catering to the basic needs of non-Muslims. No where in would U see the mainstream media in Muslim countries give favorable coverage to non-Muslims.. VOW!!!!! And this is how the world has been running for decades now,…
balam says
Trump may not be politically correct but he is absolutely honest about Muslims and Islam.It is the Islamic teaching which turns normal human beings into abnormal who are willing to die and kill people who differ with them.Islam is anything but a RELIGION OF PEACE.
CogitoErgoSum says
The name of the religion tells you what it is, except it’s in Arabic. It’s the religion of SUBMISSION. That means you must SUBMIT to it …. and by “you” I mean everybody, Muslim or not. Everybody must submit and the Muslims are in charge of seeing to it that you do, one way or another. The stupid go along with them.
Conlaw says
Exactly Right on Target.
All these debates on Supreme Court Rulings should be focused on the role of the Court to decide if the law is Constitutional, not whether the policy is good or bad,right or wrong. A “good” law may be unconstitutional and a “bad” law be be Constitutional. Immigration law has always been Congress’s power I don’t see where the Court has much jurisdiction over these matters.Congress gave the President the power to do what he did. Congress has the power to amend that power or it take or it away from him it it chooses. The Federal Courts have turned into super legislatures with veto power, a power only given to the President and that power is explicitly written in the Constitution.
JawsV says
Sotomayor, the “wise Latina,” doesn’t know beans about Islam.
Also, as a “poc” (person of color) she must defend other poc’s no matter what.
That includes the brown adherents of Islam. Regardless of their many atrocities.
It’s not permitted to be “anti-Muslim” though Islam is anti-Jew/Christian.
Concerning Islam Leftists went through the rabbit hole after 9/11.
Rarely says
Of course. US Supreme Court are prejudiced in favour/against people with their skin colour especially when they make a decision you don’t like. Get real.
JawsV says
Of course the poc side with the poc. Esp. if the poc in question are Muslims. You get real.
Rarely says
You’d better hope you are wrong.
JawsV says
What’s that supposed to mean?
WPM says
A President by law can have the travel ban from some countries, Presidents in the past have had travel bans from some countries. Because you do not like the travel ban or the reasons the President put it into effect does not effect the legality of it by US law. Trump is still the elected president, he has been elected to up hold the laws of this country ,your “feelings” S.C. Judge Sotomayor do not override the written law. Libtards want law based on “feeling” or opinions they hold that can flex and twisted the law ,equality of law is truly foreign to them. Judge Sotomayor you can think president Trump is a bad president, a mean old white guy, a very flawed person ,he still has rights as president as any elected president to use this law. Even “mean ” people who you disagree with have the right to use the power vested in them by elected office of the presidency to have travel bans from some countries if they as president think it could be in this countries interest.
WPM says
By the way one of the reasons President Trump was elected because the people of this country do not want more terrorist free to travel into this country hopefully President Trump can expand the number of countries on the travel ban .
Joe says
Is it not ironic, that a member of the SCOTUS, Sotomayor, says that the law does not matter. Since she has the power, she can do whatever she wants. She doesn’t have to follow the law.
jack cade says
Sotomayor is an affirmative action appointment. She is not on the Court because of merit.
WPM says
Hopefully her partner on the left in the court Ruth Bader Ginsberg is call home by God soon .
Stacy Girl says
The hefty Latina has had 2 medical emergencies this year due to her diabetes. Maybe her destiny with allah is also a hand.
D Austin says
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
What does that tell you when three of the four dissents are Jewish black-robed high priests of the civil law? Wouldn’t surprise me at all if Sotomayor is descended from Marrano Jews.
WPM says
to D Austin
Jew baiting on Jihad watch
This is not about Jews or Christians
Its about Libtard Islamic enables on the court there is nothing to advance the “Joos” cause with lifting this ban.
Libtards Islamic enables come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races , religions {just look at the preside Pope} just like Jihad Islamics .
It is part of the red green alliance of Islam and the far left looneys killing off western society
Rarely says
D Austin
Thanks to the powers that be you only get one vote.
You are as bad as the islamists and far left, maybe even far worse.
No room for efin bigots whether they’re muslim or named Austin.
gravenimage says
I see we have some creep ranting about the Joooooos here. Why doesn’t he just convert to Islam?
And no–Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican and Catholic, not Jewish.
No Muzzies Here says
Islamics do hate us. We’re having BIG trouble with Muslims coming into the country.
Sotomenor is wrong.
NewWorldParty says
Tarek Fatah, a prominent Muslim, told the Canadian government to ban immigration from Muslim countries
https://youtu.be/0UpY2z6xXao
But the dishonest media never reported this.
Rarely says
He has a regular column in the Sun newspapers which publish in most major Canadian cities.
duh swami says
Talk is cheap…Reality…If protecting America from Islamic jihad is the goal, both Islam and Muslims must be banned…half measur3es won’t work…
KJW says
Sadly, you’re correct. Five countries won’t do much when you have Muslims from Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Algeria, Albania, etc. who have all produced terrorists or aspiring terrorists, jihadist hateful imams and endless money laundering Muslim organizations, rapists on Europe and enclaves with all sorts of problems, and millions of Muslims who support sharia which is against our way of life and laws we’ve progressively changed to be more inclusive but they want religious laws that are NOT inclusive, and I can not abide by people who want to put pre-marital sex or adultery offenders in jail or worse, no less threatening people to death for apostasy or blasphemy. There’s not a lot of good one can say about those who are against freedom of conscience and speech.
It isn’t merely terrorists that are a problem, it’s subversion of our values and freedoms thanks to politicians prostrating and submitting to their oil Arab frenemies for ideas that will not work well at all. Also, Muslims are facing the same problems from other Muslims as happens in Muslim majorities so our being a beacon for freedom isn’t working so well when other people don’t get on board with that.
No wants to discriminate but when people are taking advantage of you and you’re dealing with a religious tinged ideology, you don’t have much choice. Bleeding hearts need to wake up to the reality…that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What we’re seeing in Europe is many don’t care how welcoming they’ve been. It doesn’t really matter what you criticize about Islam because they’ve been up to this for 1400 years. They’ve insulted everyone themselves and not all people are equal in Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and we haven’t managed to be an example to be emulated. Instead our dhimmi politicians let them humiliate them for one thing or another. It’s embarrassing.
gravenimage says
I’m hoping these five countries are just a start.
Mark Swan says
Yes gravenimage, I agree.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Mark.
Naildriver says
Stinging statement?
What idiocy.
Perhaps discriminatory, but it’s even more discriminatory to Americans who expect our government to protect us from a clearly hostile system with murderous practitioners.
andra says
a litany of Trump remarks, including “Islam hates us” and “we’re having trouble with Muslims coming into the country,”
—————————
If Ms. Sotomayor has not yet realized that the USA aready have problems with those Muslims who come, she should take a close look to Europe. We have a huge amount of problems with the Muslims who have come for the last seventy years. She should see that PC is not the clever answer to the problems of a dangerous world.
Santa Voorhees says
Is there anyone that treats CNN as a normal news outlet?
Westman says
What this decision clearly shows is that the lower courts are for sale to make law from the bench for whatever populist political notion currently appears to prevail.
The lower courts knew the law granted certain rights, in total, to the POTUS yet chose to attempt a change of law or, at the least, obstruct the POTUS for political gain. That is intentional corruption that leads to “court shopping” for political judges and undermines justice.
After US citizens have observed, in the media, the Left literally shop for judges – the Left admitting that was exactly their intent – who now has any belief left about reliable justice from the lower courts?
Mark Swan says
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 85 could possibly be replaced
by President Trump.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s attitude to the law seems biased by
personal opinion which She must not let interfere with legal
constraints.
She has this job for life—she may mature to it in time—
She should serve only the law in any decisions or opinions.
This job is a high honor, a very serious endeavor to serve
honorably with Our Law.
I do hope She takes it more seriously than any other interest.
Rarely says
She knows her job and is doing it whether you or I like her decision or not.
This judgement illustrates why there are nine judges sitting at a time and not one.
Stacy Girl says
Her job is to apply the constitutional principles. Read her dissent which is nothing but a rant about President Trump. No, she isn’t doing her job and that’s why we don’t like her.
mariam rove says
This decision has nothing to do with freedom of religion and has everything to do with national security. period. Great decision to say the least. M
gravenimage says
+1
vlparker says
Justice Sotomayor just takes it on faith that Trump’s statements are false. She doesn’t bother to look into it and see if there is any truth to Trump’s remarks about islam. In fact, Trump’s statements are demonstrably true and as Commander in Chief of the US military he is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, knowing the enemy and what motivates him.
There is a mountain of evidence that islam does indeed hate us, and Justice Sotomayor is derelict in her duty to ignore it. There is the Muslim Brotherhood’s explanatory memorandum in which they explicitly state that their goal is to overthrow the US. There are 1400 years of Islamic jihad and the current example of it going on right now in Europe, India and the rest of the world. There are the textbooks muslims use to teach their children in madrassas in the US. There are hundreds of sound bites of Islamic leaders stating that their goal is to make sharia the law of the land.
Sotomayor is and ignoramus who, just like the other four libs on the court, is unfit to be a justice on the Supreme Court. The law clearly gives the President this authority, but the libs couldn’t care less about the law. The very fact that the First Amendment forbids an establishment of religion while islam demands an establishment of the Islamic religion should be clear and obvious to any person with even a modicum of intelligence. Unfortunately, being intelligent or being true to your oath of office isn’t a requirement to be on the Supreme Court.
CogitoErgoSum says
It’s not the judicial branch’s job to hold the other two branches of government to account. The job of the judicial branch is to decide whether the actions of the executive branch (if contested in court) or the laws passed by the legislative branch (if contested in court) are in accordance with the Constitution. I don’t see what the President’s opinion on Muslims or the religion of Submission has to do with that. All the judges have to do is decide whether or not what either the President or the Congress is doing is allowable under the Constitution. Just stick to that, Sotomayor. If you want to make some laws of your own, run for a seat in either the House or the Senate and let the people hold you accountable.
Rarely says
Of course the SC is there to hold the other two branches of gov’t to account.
Thank God.
Stacy Girl says
Wrong. The don’t make laws; they follow the constitution. Let’s put this another way that you’ll appreciate: if her job was to subvert justice through the misapplication of constitutional precepts, she’d be a star. She’s a racist who hates white men, by her own words.
CogitoErgoSum says
You are wrong, Rarely, (and I hope you are rarely wrong, but this time you are). I stand by what I said. The judicial branch is there to decide upon the Constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. The PEOPLE hold those other two branches accountable, not the Supreme Court. If Congress passes a law that’s not according to the Constitution, the Supreme Court can’t do a thing about it until a lawsuit initiated by the PEOPLE is brought before the Court. Then. if it’s found to be unconstitutional, the Congress can try again to pass a law that IS constitutional, which can again be challenged by the PEOPLE, etc., etc.
Rarely says
You are correct. The SC is there to determine the constitutionality of any law and to interpret the Constitution among other things. That is what I meant when I wrote that the SC is there to keep the other two branches accountable. The SC makes sure they are playing by the rules as in the current case.The people, of course, get to call the shots on the other two branches at the ballot box. The SC cannot adjudicate on a matter that is not before it so someone has to get it before the court.
I don’t see any disagreement between us.
CogitoErgoSum says
Rarely, that’s good. Sotomayor and Bader Ginsberg are entitled to their own personal opinion concerning Trump’s words but it’s only what the constitution says that should have any bearing on how they decide to vote in a case before the Court. They have freedom of speech and so does the President. If they want to virtue signal in their dissenting opinion, they have the right to do that, but it does not have anything to do with whether a law passed by Congress or an executive order issued by the President is constitutional. If they want to send their virtue signals, so be it.
Keys says
The SC holds the other 2 branches “to account … thank God”, Rarely ?
And who holds them (SC) to account for the rest of their judicial lives ?
The voters can not vote them out, nor the other 2 branches.
They are incorruptible, untouchable, and Supremely just ?
5-4 odds they are not !
You also posted:
“To allow discriminatory immigration practices (many commenters want to ban all muslims) different laws will have to be passed then those that currently exist.”
As if all “discrimination” is wrong ! Without discrimination there’d be chaos and death. “Fight or flight” is discrimination and possibly preservation.
Only a fool would not discriminate everyday. I think you can agree.
So “discrimination” is not the problem in the case of Islam, is it ?
mortimer says
These uninformed judges rely on the PRESTIGE of their TITLES to pontificate about Islam without having read any of Islam’s voluminous source texts, canonical commentaries, manuals of Sharia law or even Islamic history. THEY ARE PRACTICALLY WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OF THE JIHAD DOCTRINE.
This clear, MASSIVE IGNORANCE OF ISLAMIC HISTORY and PRIMARY TEXTS by these JUDGES (and other leaders) will hopefully be reduced greatly by ROBERT SPENCER’S new book ‘THE HISTORY OF JIHAD’.
Hopefully, ‘THE HISTORY OF JIHAD’ will be read and studied by many who now are wallowing in the most COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the jihad threat.
Hopefully, ‘THE HISTORY OF JIHAD’ will make a big dent in the MONUMENTAL and DETERMINED REFUSAL to learn about JIHAD.
Now we are 17 years after 9-11. There is no more excuse for not having learned ISLAM’S JIHAD DOCTRINE and TAQIYYA DOCTRINE.
‘
Stacy Girl says
These judges could have zero knowledge of jihad but still perform their duties. The president can control immigration per the Constitution and they cannot.
somehistory says
She’s a fool. That was obvious when she called herself a “wise latina woman” as though that would mean something. Using “latina” would mean she could leave off the “woman.” And “wise” is something she is not and will never be…without major changes to her personality.
From the first report: “commander in chief who repeatedly insulted Muslims and more broadly has mocked the rule of law and constitutional norms.”
Read it this way: commander in chief who broadly has mocked the rule of law and constitutional norms.” Read this way, it could be said about the person who put her on the “bench.”
Single out Christians, don’t let them in when they are being slaughtered, and that’s OK with her…because that is what the guy who put her on the bench did.
Her “rebuke” was called “stinging.” I strongly disagree. Her statements were stupid and arrogant. Those moslims she would so freely allow in would gladly slit her throat given the opportunity. Or toss her from a high roof.
awake says
A full ban of all Muslims from entering the U.S. would absolutely be the way to go, regardless of the disposition of the self-professed “wise Latina”.
Voytek Gagalka says
Conversely, Sotomayor is so “unconventional she cannot be treated conventionally.” Who in hell she thinks she is? Super justice with power to overrule SCOTUS? “Lady,” your side LOST, so just shut up – or better still: RESIGN if you don’t like to serve in the SCOTUS. BTW, there are no irreplaceable persons and plenty others would eagerly substitute you!
CogitoErgoSum says
Good news! Justice Kennedy is retiring July 31. President Trump gets to make another appointment to the Supreme Court. 🙂
Rarely says
Its called a “dissenting opinion”. Very common in high profile cases where the SC is split. If there weren’t dissents you’d only need one judge. She isn’t trying to overrule the SCOTUS. She most definitely should NOT SHUT UP.
gravenimage says
Part of freedom of speech is being allowed to criticize the speech of others. One has the right to consider Sotomayor a fool.
Stacy Girl says
Only a fool would not consider her a fool. And a traitor.
Rarely says
gravenimage
I agree 100%. I don’t know much about her and certainly it’s appropriate to criticize wherever and whatever one wants.
It is of no little importance to know WHY 4 of the 9 judges on the SC have dissented — they are not brainless idiots who practiced law in juvenile court in Armpit, Ohio.
Your SC is somewhat more politicized than ours (Canada) but to a man/woman they are appointed on the basis of their political leaning – sometimes on a single issue.
Nevertheless, they tend to be people of integrity very learned in the law. There are exceptions but this was a dissent by 4 of the judges and should be taken seriously.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your reply, Rarely. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has become quite politicized lately. This certainly true of Sonia Sotomayor.
Mark Swan says
Yes indeed, gravenimage, I agree, the very fact that the lower
courts were applying political opinion, is how this matter came
before the Supreme Court.
The supreme court is used to oversee aspects and decisions of
state and district courts.
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.
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.
Walter Sieruk says
The crew and staff who compose CNN and well as other people of the left seem not to be able to understand the very basic elements of homeland security.
What they fail to understand is the job of President Trump is not to have national policies that make the left wing happy. The actual job and duty of President Trump is to have national polices that are in the interest of the safety and security of the American citizens.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/27/supreme-court-associate-justice-anthony-kennedy-to-retire/
rooare says
When Sotomayor stated in the confirmation hearings that ‘the Constitution is a living document” she should have been shown the nearest exit for she was stating the Constitution is a wax nose to be twisted and tweaked into whatever shape one wishes according to the culture of the day. Instead of showing her the door the bobbleheads confirmed her. As far as not understanding the threat Islam poses to the west, well that’s willful ignorance which makes Justice Sotomayor a dangerous person indeed.
Rarely says
For what reason do you believe that the Constitution is not a “living document”?
What makes you think that she doesn’t understand the threat of islam?
gravenimage says
The claim that the Constitution is a “living document” usually means that someone believes it can mean whatever they want it to. This typically erodes safeguards to our freedoms.
As for Islam, Sotomayor said, “Ultimately, what began as a policy explicitly ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ has since morphed into a ‘proclamation’ putatively based on national-security concerns. But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: The words of the President and his advisers create the strong perception that the proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.”
And
“Despite several opportunities to do so, President Trump has never disavowed any of his prior statements about Islam. Instead, he has continued to make remarks that a reasonable observer would view as an unrelenting attack on the Muslim religion and its followers.”
Clearly, she does not recognize Islam as a threat. How can you imply otherwise?
Rarely says
gravenimage.
Your point is well taken and by innuendo we may believe she may not fully see the threat. But her opinion on the dangers of muslim immigration are not the issue. The issue is whether this ban is a thinly veiled attempt to ban a particular definable group which would potentially be discriminatory. The POTUS’s remarks indicate that it may be just that. Also by innuendo, she would support the ban if the POTUS had not made those remarks. Of course we’ll never know.
Islam is still a religion and Freedom of Religion is pretty important so “an unrelenting attack on the Muslim religion…” by the POTUS will raise eyebrows even among many who agree with him.
It is enough that the majority of the court held otherwise.
gravenimage says
Rarely, this was not innuendo–I quoted Sotomayor’s own words.
Islam *is* a danger to us.
Rarely says
gravenimage
I don’t know much about US constitutional law but the courts do have the ability to interpret the Constitution. For example (an extreme one I admit) the founders did not envision the existence of nuclear weapons but no one (with the possible exception of Charlton Heston) would suggest that ordinary citizens should be able to “bear” one. Hence an exception to the “right to bear arms”.by interpretation. Currently there is great debate on what other types of weapons will not be available. Whatever is decided will certainly restrict someone’s “rights”.
If the US Constitution is not a “living document” I suggest it is likely to become obsolete.
Wellington says
Correct on both points, gravenimage. The “living document” approach, also called the “living, breathing constitution,” is the liberal approach to the Constitution, whereby it is held that the Constitution must keep up with the times and that the original wording need not be taken literally. Unfortunately, this leads inevitably to legislating from the bench, a right that belongs to the legislature and not the judiciary. Opposed to this is the “strict constructionist” approach whereby the wording of the Constitution is treated literally AND the original intent of the Framers is taken into account. I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you that I vastly favor the latter approach because this makes it far more likely that judges will interpret the law rather than making it up.
As for Sotomayor, of course she is a “living, breathing” type. This does not mean that she does not know the law, I don’t want to leave the impression that only strict constructionists do, but while she may know the law, I agree wholeheartedly with your second point and that is it is a virtual certainty she knows very little about Islam. Also, there is the matter of whether non-Americans’ religious views are covered by the First Amendment. Liberals have increasingly inclined to “yes,” while strict constructionists think that the freedom of religion provision of the First Amendment applies only to American citizens and not to all people in the world. Again, I most certainly favor the strict constructionist viewpoint.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
Wellington says
Rarely: Interpreting the Constitution, which is the right of the judiciary, does not ipso facto mean that the Constitution is a “living document.” You are mixing apples and oranges here.
I might add that that cheap shot against Charlton Heston was uncalled for. He was a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment and understood quite well that the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are far more likely to be preserved precisely to the extent that the Second Amendment is kept in tact. Leftists would love to gut or repeal the Second Amendment and I assure you that if this occurs the First Amendment will then be in deep trouble. As goes the Second, so goes the First. And it is the role of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, to determine what arms the average American citizen can own (e.g., handguns, rifles and shotguns but not tanks) though leftists I fear are only too willing to delegate this decision to the judiciary which in my view is clearly unconstitutional, but then leftists’ regard for the Constitution is often a slight one, as an example that foolish nuclear deal Obama made with Iran should have been a treaty submitted to the Senate for confirmation but instead Obama put it into force by way of an executive order. I don’t trust the Left with the Constitution but then I don’t trust the Left with anything because everything they touch they ruin—education, freedom (by way of making a distinction between free speech and hate speech), defense, the economy, etc.
Mark Swan says
Thank You Wellington.
gravenimage says
Wellington, thank you for your erudite comments.
Stacy Girl says
One cannot render a legal opinion absent the law. Where’s Wellington?
gravenimage says
He has answered above, Stacy Girl.
somehistory says
Something that is “alive”…or “living,” can change. The Constitution can only be changed by a process that was written in it, and it is not a simple, easy process. It is not a “living document.”
Those people who claim that it is a “living document” wish to be able to make changes as to what it means, what it was written to mean and understood from the time it was written. They wish it to be applied however the justices sitting at a given time, with changes in society, changes in attitudes, changes in the political climate being taken into consideration when a ruling is handed down.
Such that a person from a democratic state who wants open borders is seated and makes rulings that anyone who steps across the border is automatically a citizen. But if one goes by what is written, and the way the framers meant it, this would never be the case.
If the Constitution had been written to be a “living document”…subject to personal whims, then chaos would be the order of things.
It’s more like it was “written in stone.” And it was written giving the president the authority to keep people out of the country…
sotomayor doesn’t like it that Mr. Trump is doing that, even though the previous guy used it to keep Christians out of the country.
eduardo odraude says
Sotomayor thinks of herself as “wise.” So she suggested many times in speeches. She is not the kind of unconsciously arrogant person I would choose for the Supreme Court, where you want judges who will not put their own “wisdom” above the Constitution. If you don’t like the laws, change them by constitutional means, not by legislating your own self-described “wisdom” from the bench. Otherwise we live not in a republic but in a state tyrannized over by conceited philosopher kings like Sotomayor.
As to her self-described “wisdom”, a CNN reported a while back that she said:
See http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
It should have sparked cries of racism, and the fact that she did not anticipate such an obvious objection shows she was not ready for the highest court in the land. But she is “wise” in her own eyes. No, not the kind of immodest person I would put on the Supreme Court.
CogitoErgoSum says
It’s probably not a wise decision to call yourself wise.
gravenimage says
+1
Kepha says
“Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD and depart from evil.” (Prov. 3:7)
“Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.” (Prov. 27:2)
I always think of these two proverbs whenever I hear Ms. Sotomayor’s name. She is another bad legacy of the O regime, and one that will be with us for a long time, I fear.
Kepha says
Kudos to the USSC!
From the beginning, I saw Trump’s proposed ban on entrants form a handful of countries as a good idea. Even when serving as a consular officer, I thought that targeted, temporary bans on applicants from certain visa and immigration fraud hotspots might get across the message that the USA was serious about its immigration laws. The idea came while listening to the “war stories” of older officials while, at the same time, I was clipping and translating advertising in Bangkok’s Chinese press from travel agents who seemed to specialize in aiding alien smuggling from the Fuzhou area. I thought that such bans would not have to extend to whole countries, but only to specific provinces, states, or regions where trafficking and fraud were major problems. Later, when I served in Guangzhou, I noted that the “Fujian” alien-smuggling and immigration fraud problem seemed heavily localized in the city of Fuzhou and a handful of its surrounding counties–with most other people from Fujian province being run-of-the-mill documentable relatives of US citizens, students with important skills who had been recruited by American industry while studying in our country, and others covered by our laws.
Hence, when Trump took the idea to ban entrants over terrorism concerns, and even included a proviso that we’d change when things quieted down, I thought him eminently reasonable and his opponents doctrinaire. I also noted that his proposed policy left the bulk of the Islamic world untouched (except for heightened vigilance against possible troublemakers; another reasonable policy).
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that if the country wanted to go to Hell in a hand basket, he was there to help it. I’ve always found that attitude both irresponsible and, in a justice of the Supreme Court, reprehensible. My dislike of Justice Sotomayor has deepened. With SWDOP (supreme waffler devoid of principles) Kennedy stepping down, there’s a chance we could see sanity return to the USSC and applying a brake to the Court’s aiding and abetting the suicide of our country.
We need five more of the caliber of Scalia on the USSC!
eduardo odraude says
Yep, such a statement pretty much instantly self-refutes. Call it instant karma.
eduardo odraude says
I meant the above as a response to CogitoErgoSum’s droll 7:44 comment.
somehistory says
As that old song by Mac Davis said, “Oh, Lord, it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.”
Norger says
I don’t particularly like Trump, but the MSM’s (and in particular CNN’s) reaction to Trump’s statement “I think Islam hates us” illustrates the MSM’s staggering intellectual dishonesty with respect to the reality of Islamic theology. When Anderson Cooper asked Trump if he thought the hatred was part of Islam, Trump responded “you’re going to have to figure that out.” Trump was fairly challenging Anderson Cooper and CNN to do their jobs as journalists, conduct some basic research and find out whether hatred of non-Muslims has a basis in Islamic theology. True to form, CNN and the rest of the MSM simply said “can you believe Trump said that?!” and firmly planted their heads in their heads back in their collective posteriors.
There is abundant theological support in the Koran for Trump’s statement, and in the Islamic doctrine of “al warra wal bara,” but Osama bin Laden absolutely crystallizes the overwhelming strong theological basis for Islam’s hatred of infidels, courtesy of Raymond Ibrahim’s Al Quaeda reader:
“Battle, animosity and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity and hatred all for the sake of religion as unjust, hostile and evil. But who’s understanding is right, our notions of justice and righteousness or theirs?”
I suggest that Justice Sotomayor take a brief moment and let the gravity of THAT statement sink in. Unfortunately, Justice Sotomayor and her ilk absolutely refuse to even consider the possibility that in making this (and similar) statement, Osama bin Laden maybe just might possibly be accurately interpreting some authentic Islamic theological sources. The reality is that there is a great deal of support in Islamic theology for hatred of non-Muslims to the point where devout Muslims like Osama bin Laden can plausibly assert that hatred of infidels is THE VERY ESSENCE of Islam. It absolutely appropriate, indeed common sense, for our government to keep people who adhere to such a dangerous ideology out of the US. It can also be objectively demonstrated that the countries on Trump’s “Muslim ban” list are filled with individuals who adhere to such hateful and dangerous beliefs.. Jesus.
gravenimage says
Good post.
Hogdude says
Justice Sotomayor needs to be a little less political and a little more judicial. This decision simply approved the executive power of the Office of the President. It’s effect, also, was not just on Muslims, but on the vetting systems of certain countries that did not meet our minimum criteria for entry into the U.S. This protects the health and safety of American citizens. Assuming Justice Sotomayor is a true Democrat at heart and at the polls, she is likely for “open borders” just like many other soft-brained liberals. If she is, she’s out of luck. If she doesn’t like our President, she can resign and begin protesting ASAP.
Mal Feesence says
I’m baffled! How is ANYthing that this hateful female muslim surrogate of a muslim usurper said, even REMOTELY impartial, professional, statesmen-like, intelligent??
How on earth did this immature, irrational,female EVER get a seat on that court…at least ginsberg can use alcoholism as an excuse for her whining…We knew at the time sotomayor was given the job by the muslim what to expect and were laughed at for being so anti-feminist, but after this ridiculous outburst can there be ANY doubt about the potential treachery to the country of this female? Has any other Justice in history EVER revealed themselves to be such an anti-American, bigoted BIASED partisan??? And in such a hideous and embarrassing fashion?