I'm sorry, but when did the US become the only country that takes in
everyone? All other countries have rules for entering their borders... what made
us all the sudden the bad guys for wanting the same thing as other countries???
@Disco Vega:"How thankful I am for President Trump. I believe America
is on a righteous path again and nothing makes happier than seeing liberal
politics being rolled back."I beg to differ. I think that
Trump is doing a lot of the right things. But given what is motivating him
(based on the things that he is saying and has said and things that he has
done), we are on the righteous path in the same way as the Biblical Pharisees in
the New Testament were on the righteous path: without knowledge. In the same
way that Maxine Waters values diversity and tolerance.For now it is
good, but I think that it will come back to haunt us. I don't know how.
History can be really complicated. Just know this: 1) the worse enemy for a
cause are the internal loose cannons. Moral ends are sabotaged by immoral
We certainly need congress to reassert its co equal authority relative to both
the executive and judicial branches of government. No where does the
Constitution make the SCOTUS the final arbiter on what is or is not
constitutional. Both of the other branches have equal weight. See for example
how FDR handled a desire by some to give WW II German spies access to civil
courts.That all said...What separates this case from the
Masterpiece cake case is two-fold:1-Trump's comments were
campaign rhetoric, not part of the actual deliberation process.2-Those who suffer under this policy are non-citizens while the baker is a
citizen with full 1st amd rights.Of course, had the justices who now
want to claim beneift of the Masterpiece cake non-decision actually supported
that decision yesterday, their arguments today would carry more weight.As is, their comments seem to suggest that they support religious freedom only
for non-Christians or only when doing so doesn't offend sexual
minorities.In other and simple words, a bit of a stretch to suggest
this travel limitation (it's not a ban) ruling "contradicts" the
weak non-ruling, specicially stated non-precedence in Masterpiece.
If we give anyone the option to discriminate because of "sincerely held
religious beliefs" we will destroy religious freedom altogether. Taken
to it's inevitable conclusion.....Jews could refuse to sell anything
to anyone who is not of the Chosen People.Muslims can refuse give services
to anyone who is not a Faithful Muslim.All the Protestant Denominations
who believe, sincerely, that all discrimination is a sin, can now refuse to
serve anyone who defends discrimination.Atheist, who do indeed have
"sincerely held beliefs based on the bad behavior of religions" can
now refuse to serve any Believers.If you give anyone the right to
discriminate, you give it to everyone. After all, you can't favor any
one religion, or the absence of religion, over any other. Will you turn away
the Nones and Atheists, just because you CAN?How would American Businesses
decide who is in violation of their religious beliefs.........demand written
applications for service at the door? Have you gone to confession
lately?Are you Saved? (Mormons don't count)Have you been
baptized?Have you made your Pilgrimage to Mecca?Have you had your
Bar Mitzvah?Have you been Confirmed?No? Sorry!
I believe it is time to rein in the powers of our president and restore the
intention laid out in our Constitution of checks and balances by each branch of
government on each other. Many conservatives had been pushing to reestablish the
equal weight and very separate branches of Executive, Judicial and Legislative
governmental. Even and especially our own Sen Mike Lee has been working on this
very issue. But it seems that many on this comment section are supporting the
executive branch as a one-man, supreme power that should dominate all branches
of government -- simply because he can.
Sportsfan- “lib on planet rain man”Huh?
Attempts at 3rd grade humor I see. “Practice makes
perfect”.Then finally find some legitimate sources of news!“Said poster apparently likes the idea of having countries that
harbor terrorists that have no record keeping database”.Excellent non factual anti-immigration rant! “Said poster” may
desire to investigate their own lineage/heritage prior to the ongoing
character assassination of those attempting to seek asylum in America!
“Said poster” will not find this information on Faux State
Television or on the A.M. frequency! Furthermore. Of course “said
poster” made no mention of what his or her Mormon ancestors experienced or
the treatment by Gov. Boggs. “Said poster” may continue to cherry
pick grossly inaccurate talking points in order to fit their anti-immigration
narrative. However, “said poster” is only fooling himself/herself.
Once again please remain on topic with the elementary topic of sports. Thank
you. Country before party comrade!
lib on planet rain manPractice makes perfect - same retort as the
last 100.Said poster apparently likes the idea of having countries
that harbor terrorists that have no record keeping database to vet their
citizenry in order to do background checks. The paris attack is a prime example
where the combination of countries that cannot do effective background checks
harboring terrorists and loose open borders in europe thanks to the EU allowed
several of the attackers into france who had fake id's from one of the 7
countries on the ban list, the same list oblama had, these terrorists killed
many innocent people.If trumps ban was religiously motivated he
would have banned all muslim countries, the low info demographic as said poster
always says are those that believe in this propaganda of trump being anti
religion and anti immigration. One must ask them self then why are thousands
being allowed into this country on a daily basis, and why do millions of
americans still practice religion daily.Because emmigrants are
allowed into this country thru legal process, and we still have freedom of
religion.The lefts agenda is propaganda and lies. The ban protects
The "experts" are wrong. The travel case has nothing to do with
religion. Nine countries--two aren't Muslim-majority at all (N Korea and
Venezuela). Of the others, one (Iraq) has been removed, and it is
Muslim-majority. The other six states are all hot beds of insecurity and
terrorism. Masterpiece cakes had to do with anti-religious animus of the
Colorado regulators; this case is only about national security and the
president's (any president's) powers to protect us. It is anti-Trump
hysteria that is causing people to lose their ability to think clearly. Any of
us would have wanted President Obama to have the power to close our borders to
people of states such as these.
Why don't we all just pack up and head for Venezuela now because that is
what this country will become with open borders the liberals insist on?🤔
Replying to both @batfink’s and wrz’s comments on 9/11, it’s
very unfortunate that misperception of the events happening on 9/11 is so deeply
embedded and persistent in the public’s psyche.9/11 was not
perpetrated by Jihadi terrorists nor by hijackers from Saudi Arabia. 7 to 10 of
those Muslim’s accused are still alive and some of these have tried to
establish in courts of law that their identities were stolen and that they had
nothing to do the 9/11 attacks.Good scientific research into the
collapse of the 3 WTC buildings that came down that day, indicates
incendiaries/explosives were used to help bring them down. Molten and
yellow-hot metal was found to persist in the building collapse footprints for
months after the 9/11 date.Do a search on Peter Michael Ketcham ,
who was a research scientist with NIST (a mathematician). He will tell you just
how bogus the WTC NIST reports on the WTC building collapses are, even though
the reports were produced by a section of his own organization, for which he is
deeply disappointed.I.e., you need to take the official story of the
9/11 events with a large grain of salt. Unfortunate. But it’s reality.
Kelsey Dallas makes a major error in her article by saying that “Trump
called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslim immigration”,
per se. This grossly missrepresents his actual position, which is typical of
the anti-Trump crowd.What he actually did was to call for a
“total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until
our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”He said this in the face of almost a flood of mass murders being
committed in Europe and this country by avowed Muslim terrorists. In the face
of this reality, calling for a temporary ban until a broken system could be
analyzed and corrected, was the logical thing to do.Using this type
of missrepresentation is the type of tactic that drives reasonable people up the
wall, but does underscore the unfortunate fact that the Trump Derangement
Syndrome is alive and well.
Craig,First, this is my last post so you can have the last word.Second, that's not a plan. Are you conceding that you have no
better methodology for dealing with immigrants from countries known to be
hostile to the US? Countries, that in fact, were identified by Congress in 2015
and 2016? Countries that were singled out by Trump's predecessor? Countries
that have known enemies to the US and have tried to get around current
immigration legislation for the last two decades?Third, I think it
is more of a reflection on you than on me that you fail to see the consistency
in my reasoning. In fact, I suspect that you see the reasoning perfectly well
but just happen to disagree with it so you thought to score cheap points with a
cheap shot.Fourth, still haven't seen your plan so I can
compare it to the immigration 90-day ban to allow time for vetting.Fifth, anybody can criticize, especially when they do so simply because of
political ideology but the Democrats have not even attempted to offer any other
strategy except open borders. Is that what you are proposing?Sixth,
if you do offer a plan, please be specific and not just make general motherhood
joe5,Do you mean it’s prudent to assume that all citizens of a
given country should be ineligible for entry on the grounds that they
potentially might be terrorists? Or are you just saying it’s foolhardy to
treat any of them as no threat to public safety? Couldn’t either
assumption also be applied to citizens of any country including non-Muslim
countries?I see no consistency in your reasoning.
How about a ban on the low information demographic and those that hide behind
the guise of religion at the frivolous attempt of defending the indefensible.
Trump would lose his base over night. Furthermore. Mormons have been
“banned” at different times throughout history. They even faced an
"Extermination Order" by Governor Boggs. Those that continue attacking
immigrants and individuals seeking asylum better study their own history.
Apparently SCOTUS believes it is perfectly legal and acceptable for these types
of tactics to resurface in our country. To those cheering this decision be
careful what you deem as a victory. The next group “banned” could
easily be yourself and your neighbors!
Craig Clark: It applies to everybody because is says the must be vetted before
being allowed in the country. Nobody is banned unless they fail the vetting
process.Why exactly do you think that is a bad thing? Do YOU possess
the knowledge of all these people trying to enter the country to know right off
the bat whether they are jihadists or not jihadists? If so, I'm sure there
is a job for someone with your special expertise at the state department, DHS,
or immigration office.The more I think about it, the more laughable
your objection appears. You imply that you would be fine with Trump's EO
and the SCOTUS decision if it just applied to jihadists. I want to hear exactly
how you would implement such a strategy with no vetting process.I
assume you are not just whining but that you actually have a counter strategy to
offer. I'll look eagerly for your plan.
Shorter Democrat posters in this thread: "Won't someone think of the
poor Jihadi children and terrorists? It's immoral to keep them out of
America! We must import them by the truckloads so we can be moral as they
slaughter and kill people!"
The so -called "experts" are simply desperately reaching to push their
political agenda. The travel ban decision has absolutely nothing to do with the
cake shop decision. It is preposterous to conflate the two in any way.
wrz,"The vetting process was to assure that Jihadis (such as the
terrorists who caused 9/11) were not allowed to enter the US."____________________The travel ban makes no distinction between jihadis
and non-jihadis. It applies to entire populations of select countries.
That's the injustice.
@Moderate:"Trump's travel ban was supposed to be temporary (6
months) so that the administration could strengthen the vetting process."True. The vetting process was to assure that Jihadis (such as the
terrorists who caused 9/11) were not allowed to enter the US."They should have the new vetting process in place, but it is not."The problem is... those to be vetted have figured out how to skirt
around our immigration process. Look at the southern border where our
immigration courts have found that some are falsely claiming asylum so they can
get in.@Gil Bates:"When a single judge in Hawaii can hold
up the entire nation for a year until it can be sorted out by the Supreme Court,
something is seriously wrong with the system."The thing
that's wrong is... we have too many Democrat oriented judges who do not
have the welfare of our nation at heart.@byronbca:"This is
a law intended to restrict Muslims entering the US. Could Catholics or Mormons
be next?"Anyone who's intentions are to do harm to the US
should be restricted. If a religion falls in that category, so be it.
I would say the 'experts' about the decision are not thinking straight
and don't consider the constitutional language which clearly gives the
president the right to determine this issue. Whether it is a worthwhile or
smart travel ban is certainly up for debate, but the constitution is clear as to
the president's authority in this area. Case closed! The
astonishing part of this is that four liberal justices voted against finding the
ban constitutional showing their contempt for the plainly written language of
the constitution. They are obviously activists who vote based on their personal
political views rather than just the constitiutional interpretation per se.
It's okay to discriminate against religion as long as it isn't
Christian. It's okay to discriminate against citizens in this country as
long as you're a Christian discriminating.Got it.
After reading so many of the comments of defenders of the latest Supreme Court
decision, I am even more disheartened for the future of the country.It is obvious that an extremist and discriminatory cloud has settled over the
country. One in which criticism of the leader of the country is said to be
unpatriotic. Basic freedoms of the governing documents apply only to a favored
population. Politicians cower before the strongman mentality. And a country in
which hyperbole and an unfamiliarity with objective truth and reality are
treasured.For some, this is winning. And that says it all.
@dski.Great reminder on Justice Ginsburg. Every time she
touches a case involving the Trump Administration, her vote and her opinion are
tainted because of her publicly expressed personal animus against Donald Trump.
There is a constant “conflict of interest” cloud hanging over
Justice Ginsburg’s every word involving Trump. It is simply unethical for
her to remain on the Court after her comments about Trump during the campaign.
But, the courts are being used for purely political purposes by many
these days and Ginsburg would be vilified by the left for doing the morally
correct thing by stepping down. Unfortunately Ginsburg is now the
epitome of our present-day justice system that has largely taken its blindfold
off and thrown it away. And, for this reason, Ginsburg remains the darling of
many on the left who detest and reject the notion that all people are created
I think the analysis of the lawyer cited in this case got it right: The majority
made a calculated decision that, thinking long-term, it was more important in
this instance to preserve the authority vested in the Presidency on this issue
than to protect religious folk from government hostility. And
that's why Sotomayor saw the parallel to Korematsu. She got Roberts'
attention with that one, didn't she? He did not like that at all!
Of course Trump v. Hawaii contradicts Masterpiece Cake. That’s because the
Court made the right decision in Masterpiece Cake, but the opinion was totally
screwed up, because SCOTUS isn’t ready to take a strong stand on
discrimination issues. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was weak sauce from the
ultimate swing Justice who sometimes has a lot of trouble forming an opinion
that will even convince himself. Trump v. Hawaii was pretty darned
straightforward and written by the Chief Justice who pretty much has no problem
applying the Constitution in its clearest meaning to the facts of a case
(although Roberts totally wimped out and wrote one of the most logically
incoherent opinions in recent years, in the Obamacare Case).
According to some people including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump's
comments during the campaign shows his prejudice against Muslims, the same
Muslim countries President Obama previously placed on travel ban.
Interestingly, no one protested it. Now that Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed
derogatory statement toward Trump during the election campaign, she should have
disqualified herself from this case since her comments showed her feelings
toward Trump. She didn't. I'm glad a vetting process will be in
@Vanceone"So the progressives are openly on the record as saying
keeping out people from Yemen, Syria, and Iran is an evil thing. Openly saying that we must open the borders to unlimited floods of people from
Iran, with no vetting. "Well, considering all the refugees
fleeing war-torn Syria it is a bit evil to shut the door in their face.And nobody is saying we have to open the border to an unlimited flood of
people with no vetting when it comes to this issue. We have a well established
refugee system for people over there that takes over a year to get through and
has multiple checks along the way.
Glad that some uncommon sense was finally demonstrated.I believe it
was John Wayne who said, "Life is tough. It's even tougher when
you're stupid". 🤗
This article is a misleading opinion piece, not news reporting.
@suzySince May 2, Donald Trump has told 3001 lies (check out Fact
Checker), and that total has expanded significantly since the first of May. His
EPA director, Scott Pruitt, is currently under multiple investigations for
malfeasance and abusing his office, and Trump's first national security
advisor was fired for lying....sorry to burst your bubble.
Too bad for the virtue signalers, and the otherwise bereft of an argument, we
have a constitution and it has worked well in this instanceThe old
saying holds: the right thinks your wrong and the left thinks your evilGet a grip folks.
The only reason the court ruled that the Executive has power over immigration is
that the Legislative branch hasn't exerted its constitutionally granted
power. Another overreach by an Executive Order happy president, right?
Surprising: "Some legal scholars and analysts, including Justices Sonia
Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the ruling contradicts the Supreme
Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, which said anti-religion bias
from a government official cannot be tolerated."There is ether a
problem with the facts or the editing in this statement. Nowhere in the
Masterpiece decision did it say that anti-religious bias could not be tolerated.
I wish it had said that. What it actually said was "The government,
consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot
impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected
citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the
illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices."It went on to
say that the religious feelings of the baker were not given proper consideration
by the reviewing body.That is a far cry from the claims of the
Trump is trashing this great country single-handedly, and SCOTUS just helped him
accelerate that. One of my favorite quotes is "absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Trump was already morally bankrupt, so this can't be good.
History will not be kind to the court’s approval of an unfounded and
blatantly anti-Muslim order. Justice Sotomayor explained the majority could
reach this conclusion only by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal
precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation
inflicts upon countless families and individuals. In this respect, as she noted,
the case repeats some of the worst mistakes the court has made in the past.
Today’s decision is devastating. Whatever the court may have intended, the
message it relays to Muslim communities around the country and around the world
is that our Constitution tolerates transparent discrimination and animus against
Islam. It undermines our standing to encourage tolerance and pluralistic
democracy abroad, and it reinforces the intended message that Muslims and
immigrants, people of color, LGBT communities, and other marginalized groups
— are not welcome in Trump’s America.
I guess SCOTUS forgot all about what happened when Bush established Homeland
Security which established TSA and ICE. Many, many, many innocent American
Citizens were put on Bush's Travel Ban and couldn't get taken off.
These were innocent citizens and not immigrants who suffered from an
unconstitutional (denied due process) Executive Order justified under the guise
of National Security which back then it was an unknown threat Bush called
Terrorists, not Muslim Extremists from specific countries, which allowed Bush to
bypass Congress and declare war, similar to father Bush's War on Drugs
which had a damaging consequence in our own land which I witnessed the boarded
up apt buildings first hand while in NY.I keep pleading with Hatch
and Love to do something and warning that Trump will continue to get worse and
worse each day he remains in office, but SCOTUS today opened the floodgate to
Trump to justify banning Muslims, immigrants, people of the G7 and political
opponents. This is not a 'slippery slope' as I'm hearing many
call it, it's a 'deadfall' off a sheer mountain cliff.
"Some legal scholars and analysts, including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,"Oh man that one hurt. Mountain Dew through
the nose doesn't feel to good, when you sneak little funnies in there like
the quote above. Get serious man. I wasn't expecting to laugh that hard
during this article.
RE: Syria? Yemen? Iran? Sudan?...---Could it be because there is a
lot of terrorism, terrorist groups, and terrorist activity, in these countries?
And no government systems in these countries to allow us to do background
checks on their citizens? Not a Muslim ban?How do you do reliable
background checks on people from a country that has no computerized databases of
information on the people involved in criminal activity in that country?We have numerous databases we can use to do background checks (for gun
purchases, for legal investigations, etc). They don't have these databases
in these countries. The best you can find in these countries is a sketchy paper
trail that is not at all reliable when trying to figure out the background and
criminal history of someone from that country.They don't even
record or identify people known to be involved in Jihad in these countries. We
do in the West.That's a problem when someone shows up and wants
to move to America from one of these less developed countries with less
technology. Reliable background checks are impossible.
"... some justices criticized Trump's treatment of the Muslim community
as a violation of the First Amendment's protections for religion."Sorry justices, who criticized Trump for banning Muslim travel. The 1st
Amendment does not apply to foreigners. Trump (and any other president) should
be able to ban travel of any religion to America. If the traveler is a US
citizen that's a different story.@UtahBlueDevil:"There is no 'Muslim' ban in force - that is not what was ruled
upon here."Even if it was a 'Muslim' ban, the court
would have arrived at the same decision. Again, the 1st Amendment does not
apply to foreigners who are not in our country." Had this been
version one of the travel ban, it would have likely failed."There was no mention of 'Muslim' in the first travel ban. True, the
ban applied to nations that are predominated by Muslims."That's why we have the system we have - checks and balances."Thank goodness... and thank goodness the Court came to the right
ToystolI didnt blame the MSM for trumps nasty tweets responding to
nasty anti trump rhetoric coming from a night show host. Trump has his freedom
of speech, and so do late night host's, and as long as people attack him he
will respond in kind. What I said was the false reporting of the media of trump
seperating children at the border when oblama did it in 2014.The
left and its politically tanted media propagandize everyting to be anti trump,
very little fact. Like the msm reporting trump cozying up to an enemy in kim
jong un of NK, that is actually called negotiating peace with a communist
dictator who has committed to denuclearization, yet the MSM didnt want the
american public to see it that way.As for sarah sanders saying
"nasty things", that will continue as long as people like jim acosta
spewing nasty things about this administration continurs its called free speech.
If the left wants to behave this way, i am completely fine with the WH
responding in a similar fashion. You cant complain about one side and not
complain about the other.Is this behavior unprofressional, yes it
is, and both sides are to blame. The question is how can this be fixed?
BlueDevil: "... no one on the left who has any credibility or has a real
office is agreeing with Maxine Waters."That's just not
true. For the first 24 hours, Dems were absolutely silent except a few who said
they supported her comments. Then, under pressure, we started to see people come
out against what Waters said ... but they excused it with their "But"
comments.Nancy Pelosi, for example, gave a tepid condemnation BUT
she blamed Trump for the whole thing.CNN's Symone Sanders also
claimed that she didn't like what Waters said BUT she went on to say that
those who were calling for civility (the right) should check their privilege.In short, the left is trying to save face with their usual strategy.
First, ignore it so it is out in the public square long enough to get Hollywood
and left-leaning lemmings to pick up the mantra. Second, express faux outrage
but be sure to blame Trump and his followers while you are doing it.To be sure, there were some on the left who did not stick to the playbook.
Schumer was an early critic of Waters statements and was one of the harshest.
But he was, by far, the exception rather than the rule.
Of course, Trump won, because his order was specifically allowed in the
constitution as president. The liberals knew they would lose, but this is all
part of their obstructionist agenda. It is really the flip side of
what the Obama administration did: make an executive order you know won't
pass constitutional muster and put it in place, by the time the lawsuit against
the unconstitutional order is struck down by the SCOTUS you will have at least a
couple of years of executing the law. They did this repeatedly.The
flip side is for the liberals to find an activist judge and start a lawsuit
against an executive order you don't like, but is prima facie
constitutional and block it going into effect for two years or more, as it the
case with the so-called Muslim ban. This is why the 9th Circuit Court is so
popular with liberals, and so often reversed by the Supremes.This is
a shameful tactic, but quite effective in obstructing effective governance if
you aren't in control of the executive branch; it is likewise very
effective in putting in place unconstitutional measures you want if you control
the executive branch but cannot push laws through congress you want. Rule by
@ExecutorIoh - West Jordan, UT - you said "the devolution of ethics and
basic human decency in this country is truly disturbing""I
agree. I am appalled that so many Democrats feel that senior congressional
representative, Maxine Waters is okay in saying that it is okay to bully and
harass people if they work for the executive branch of government or if they
generally support the President."Here is the problem - no one on
the left who has any credibility or has a real office is agreeing with Maxine
Waters. Not her own party. Not the "main steam liberal media"... no
one. So you comments are based on a fabrication... No Democrats have endorsed
her statements.And this is what frustrates me... as a former
Republican. If conservatives is the correct path - it should not require
distortions, lies, misleading statements, false quotes to support it. I could
care less what methods the Democrats use - I have no connection to them and they
don't reflect on me. But when "me and mine" use dishonest tactics
to try to make a point - it reflects bad on me. And true conservatism
doesn't need misrepresentations to support it.
Pres. Trump is not a dummy...he is very intelligent, well-versed on policies, he
loves the United States of America and he supports our Military 100%. He is not
perfect as we are not perfect yet he has common sense, wisdom and a
determination to do everything he can while President to make our USA a
wonderful and safe place to live and love. He uses wisdom, prays, I'm sure
and makes sure those who work with him are honest and above board.
Very Good News for American.
@Joe5 - I really wish I could take your comments seriously.... but when you make
comments like "You see, Democrats and liberals don't really
care about immigrants or any of the other things that fuel their anger. It never
has to do with the "what?" but with the "who?" - you
delve off the cliff into a puddle of talking points and name calling that really
isn't based on anything factual. I hope saying those things made you feel
better, because they really did nothing to compel anyone to your point of
view.The first action was flawed because of its wording. In law,
wording is everything. The first version was hurried out to appease the
pandering isolationist crowd that demanded Trump slap the evil muslims. Alas
the courts say right through that - and for that reason it was yanked.The second version was much more measured in its language and its
justifications for the ban. There is no doubt that the governments listed
can't safely be deemed reliable for vetting people. I know
you want this to be some deep partisan things,one side against the other -
American versus American, but this is simply the law.It's funny
to read Trump's rally talking points regurgitated
BlueDevil: "Had this been version one of the travel ban, it would have
likely failed."Snopes: "The "seven countries"
targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to
immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with
"countr[ies] or area[s] of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver
Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all
seven countries "of concern" in February 2016)."Note the
dates where specific countries were named occurred during the Obama
administration. Note also, as always, Trump's executive order is rooted in
legislative action.You see, Democrats and liberals don't really
care about immigrants or any of the other things that fuel their anger. It never
has to do with the "what?" but with the "who?"They
have an unreasoning hatred for Trump and would rather see America completely
fail than to have him as president. The call for impeachment with no crime. They
can't even express themselves without violence, gestures, and profanity.
They foam at the mouth with anger. They are afflicted with Trump Derangement
Syndrome (TDS) and we see evidence of it in every comment.
@Dave TTo answer your question. YES!We have been taken
advantage of for years by other countries, so putting restrictions on Tarrifs is
a great thing. As for our Military bases. They are 100% safe. This isn't
Hollywood movies. There is no way a foreign country is going to kick us out of
their country. They may have their own military, but they know they need ours
to keep them safe. This is a non-issue. Just like the Tarrifs. And if China
wants to buy land in South America, they can have it. I would rather have more
economical development here in the good ole US of A and buy American. It's
better quality anyway. Other countries know this also. As much as you want to
blame Trump, Fox News and the Right Wingers. What is being done with our
country right now is the direction we need to be going. Sadly, to many
uneducated youngsters are choosing the liberal path, because it is the one with
the least resistence. They will destroy it just fine along with the left.@ModerateThere has been more than one health plan by the
Republicans. However, it was a "you have to pass it to read what's in
it" that dictated our health care. There was no compromise. Fake
Another tool of the progressive left is exposed, but not defeated.1) The
SPLC2) Personal attacks on customers3) Circuit judges.That makes three this week.Who are the REAL Nazis here?Do you ever have one of those weeks when you wish you could take a Do Over?
@ExecutorlohAlthough I do not agree with Rep. Waters'
statement, I find it entirely hypocritical and ironic that while reaming Ms.
Waters, no Republican or conservative, to my knowledge, has condemned the
president's tweet regarding her: "Congresswoman Maxine Waters, an
extraordinarily low IQ person..." Again and again the President has used
profanity, name-calling, and personal aspersions to attack those who disagree
with his dogma. Even the insinuation that the Republicans have the high road in
all of this is ludicrous.
I am ok with this and I do not get why liberals are upset about this. Presidents
have had wide latitude on immigration concerns.
Well wonders never cease. Looks like the court has now acted with reason and
common sense twice this century. I do believe that's a record.
Judges Roberts and Thomas wrote at length about "universal injunctions"
issued by the lower courts.They issued a scathing rebuke of the 9th
Circuit and the Court of Appeals for exceeding their authority.Thomas decried the practice of "forum shopping" that has become so
prevalent in our day.Both justices clearly explained that the lower
courts do not have injunctive power in these cases. They may rule, and such
rules percolate up through the system. But they may not issue universal
injunctions.It's about time!
Trump Supporters label everyone who does not grovel at the feet of their supreme
emperor as being anti-American.This travel ban should have happened
after 911 and we should have closed our boader till everything was fixed. We need stronger boarder security and we should have embraced it years
ago. Wages would be better and crime lower.I am so please that Trump
is making the GOP take responsibility for their mistakes!
Finally the referee stepped in to shut down the liberal courts. This is a day to
celebrate. The courts are not the executive branch and need to allow the
President to protect the country. Now hopefully we can make inroads on illegal
So the progressives are openly on the record as saying keeping out people from
Yemen, Syria, and Iran is an evil thing. Openly saying that we must
open the borders to unlimited floods of people from Iran, with no vetting. From
Yemen, where there is no government and people are shooting at our troops.
Progressives want them here and say it's our moral duty to let them in.
That's what the "Muslim ban" really said: that these places are too
lawless and too much of an enemy to the US to let them in without vetting. But Gary knows better: the US must let in unlimited hordes from Iran and
North Korea, all of them chanting "Death to America!" and all trained in
terror to attack Americans. It's immoral not to do that.
Right Gary? Right Sotomayer and Kagan and Breyer and Ginsburg? How Dare
Americans not let in hordes of our enemies! It should be illegal to keep them
The justices had 100% agreement that the POTUS has the right to determine the
banning of people from certain origins. The debate came down to whether his
words when campaigning were relevant as all agreed a POTUS cannot discriminate
based upon religion. Four of the justices said his words as a candidate were
relevant and 5 said they were not. But in writing for the prevailing side,
Kennedy clearly stated T rump needs to be careful about his words as any as
President that indicate he is discriminating based upon religion would mean his
ban wold be over ruled. Can T rump keep his mouth shut and his true intentions
The Supreme Court either just legalized religious discrimination or decided that
a President’s stated public intentions and words do not at all matter. This is a law intended to restrict Muslims entering the US. Could
Catholics or Mormons be next? A Catholic ban would sure help Trump with
@Sportsfan123 you are cant blame the "MSM" for the nasty
comment that come straight out of both Trump and Sanders mouths or twitter
accounts. Trump and Sanders need to stop waisting time getting into petty
squabbles with b list late night show host and such and do their jobs.
"It seems too many have had their world view twisted and shaped by tribal
"us verses them" politics. ""I would support his
impeachment in a heartbeat." There has to be a crime first.
Supporting the tribal world view of us verses them politics, seems
the liberal progressives think the President can be impeached for the high crime
of winning an election. Us verses them tribal politics."There
is life beyond the two party system, folks." Just not conservatives.
Our Master Negotiator got his way again! We have ridiculous tariffs AND a
ridiculous Muslim ban.You've got to wonder though . . . How long will it be before other nations reciprocate? . . . And what
form will it take?Trump has his trade wars . . . "Trade wars are
good and easy to win." - Donald J TrumpBut Trump keeps firing
broadsides at other nations. And it's ridiculous to think there won't
be retribution.But that's okay too, right? Wars are EASY to
win.But Trump keeps firing broadsides at other nations. And
it's ridiculous to think there won't be retribution.But
that's okay too, right? Wars are EASY to win.
I don't think it is a far cry to say that this decision is as bad as the
one allowing the internment of Japanese during WW II.I don't
think it is too extreme to say that future Court decisions will decry this
decision in the same way that the Dred Scott decision was tossed into the dust
bin of bigoted history as well.And I don't think that most
people realize that bad results can multiply when decisions like this are made.
What is that old saying, First they came for the ....The country
will survive this, but it is not the country I wish for.
Once again president Trump was 100% correct and the federal judges and Democrat
party were wrong. In other words - business as usual. No one has a right to
enter America other than American citizens. We control the gate. Pretty much
common sense right? Well not to Democrats and their media. President Trump
correctly stated that "a country without borders is not a country". That
has been the case since 1776. Democrats hate the constitution and want open
borders. So we see now the clear distinction between progressives and everyone
else. Progressives really want an open border, gun-less, god-less, Socialist
society akin to western Europe minus our constitution and replaced with the EU.
Everyone else really wants to keep the America they and their grand parents grew
Got to love that liberal media. CNBC heading SCOTUS allowed the Muslim Travel
Ban. Sorry, SCOTUS said it was not a Muslim ban. Presidents have the right to
issue travel bans. The President's reasoning for all three versions was
Constitutional.Liberal progressives trying to usurp the presidents
powers unconstitutionally. And now we get Hillary in England dissing the
Constitution. Bill Clinton that says he is sorry he can't do things to
people against their will. It is no wonder the Constitution is under attack.
Liberal progressives advocated for keeping slavery, authors of the Jim Crow
laws, advocated genocide through Eugenics and many other bad and terrifying
ideas. Currently they advocate no borders, free entry to the US,
taxing American citizens with higher taxes to pay for the illegal aliens,
ridding ICE because they enforce the laws. Defending and harboring criminal
aliens that commit violent crimes. Liberal progressives only want power. They
have never cared about the American citizens.
ToystolJoin who in the gutter?Trump and Sanders?, please
explain.First of all if trumps travel ban was anti muslim motivated
he would have banned all muslim nations. The fact is the countries banned are
the same countries oblama had targeted as terrorist safe havens. Again the
hypocracy of the left is amazing and unabashed, the left has completely gone
away from their mantra of treating others with respect and to be tolerant,
except when someone disagrees with their politics then anything goes.Trumps dept of homeleand security follows the laws that are on the books by
seperating, families if adults are detained children do not belong in adult
detention facilities, this is an oblama era law, a liberal judge on 9th circuit
court of appeals made a ruling in 2014 as such. Yet trump is a bad guy for doing
exactly what oblama did.The MSM twists the truth to make trump look
worse than he is for doing something oblama did, this is a tactic right out of
saul alinsky's playbook a man who glorified lucifer in his introductory
page of his book and developed his idealogy from spending two years with
chicago's mafia of Al Capone, and everyone on the left is buying into his
Elections have CONSEQUENCES and none more important than picks for SCOTUS! Trump
could have three more by 2024. VOTE!If the COM-LEFT ever controls
SCOTUS, they will rule that the Constitution itself is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL! If
they win back both the House and Senate, MAGA could be over! VOTE!
Syria? Yemen? Iran? Sudan? This just makes sense.
@ Craig Clark: "That doesn't mean it's not an abuse of
power."Actually, what the ruling exactly says is that it's
not an abuse of power. What it doesn't say is whether
it's good policy, and the majority opinion acknowledges this. But then the
court shouldn't be deciding what is and isn't good policy for the
executive branch. They can only decide whether it's legal, which in this
case it is.
UtahBlueDevil,"So take this for what it is. There is no
"muslim" ban in force - that is not what was ruled upon here. "____________________The Trump opponent's argument that the travel
ban was a muslim ban was rejected by the court. On that, I am not completely
persuaded. A travel ban was first proposed by Trump during the campaign in the
heat of one of his tirades of anti-Muslim invective. That said, what the Court
did was to uphold the scope of Presidential power. That is by no means the same
thing as a Supreme Court endorsement of Trump’s travel ban.
We are not tired of winning yet!Thank you, President Trump!
On many issues I am rather liberal, and I am anything but a fan of President
Trump. I would support his impeachment in a heartbeat. However, on
this, I believe the majority got it right. We have to consider that every
supreme court decision sets a precedent which could come back to bite us at a
later time. In this case, I believe the President's power to block
non-citizens from entering the country based on their national origin is one I
would prefer remain intact. Had Trump's order been struck down, the ruling
could have caused further problems in the years, and presidencies, to come. I am saddened, however, by some of the light-minded comments on this
article. It seems too many have had their world view twisted and shaped by
tribal "us verses them" politics. There is life beyond the two party
Trump's travel ban was supposed to be temporary (6 months) so that the
administration could strengthen the vetting process. They should have the new
vetting process in place, but it is not.No surprise that they have
not been able to accomplish the task. We've been waiting 10 years for a
Republican health care plan. They're not the party of "get things
I guess we are lucky that 5 judges actually have read the constitution and
understand itIf Trump doesn’t do anything else... he better
pack the courts with men and women who understand the constitution as opposed to
the liberal agenda pushers that pose as judges
What is missing from the InDepth analysis is what the Justices said about
circuit court bans. That is a serious issue.When a single judge in
Hawaii can hold up the entire nation for a year until it can be sorted out by
the Supreme Court, something is seriously wrong with the system.And
the politicians have learned the loophole well.
For every "action", there are like but opposite "reactions". The
way Trump, Fox News, and their followers bash everyone outside our nation,
including tariff wars, (actions), do not be surprised everyone internationally
will no longer welcome US tourists, our military (bases) and trade with the US
(reactions). Right now China is buying farmland and oil sites in Latin America.
Is that the world what you conservatives want for your grandchildren?
Before people on the left run around and claim the end of all that is good and
decent, this ruling is based on the second version of the travel ban, and if you
really look at the subset of countries involved it is not hard to justify
restricting access to people originating from those locations. So on a pure
legal standpoint, this makes sense and is supported by law.Now most
of also know that version 1 of this was far broader in its intent. Trump has a
made it very clear what is in his heart.... the version 1 based on those feeling
would have likely failed due to its justification. But version two is based on
countries like Yeman and Sudan, where are clearly unstable territories, and
vetting people from that area near impossible because there is little
functioning government.So take this for what it is. There is no
"muslim" ban in force - that is not what was ruled upon here. Had this
been version one of the travel ban, it would have likely failed. Thats why we
have the system we have - checks and balances.
The Law and the constitution clearly states the presidential power to ban
immigration, the fact that 4 Justices voted against this shows that they do not
agree with the constitution. We are only one activist on the SCOTUS to loosing
all of our rights, including the second Admendment.
I think you already have.
@ExecutorIoh I realize you are trying to deflect with your off topic
comment but just for the record I agree what Waters said was wrong and people
should not support it. I don't care for the way Sanders or Trump behave but
it is no excuse to join them in the gutter.
"the devolution of ethics and basic human decency in this country is truly
disturbing"I agree. I am appalled that so many Democrats feel
that senior congressional representative, Maxine Waters is okay in saying that
it is okay to bully and harass people if they work for the executive branch of
government or if they generally support the President.
Excellent work by Trump to get this through! The Supreme Court is making much
more sensible and common sense decisions lately. Winning!
the devolution of ethics and basic human decency in this country is truly
Good. Some sense for once from your Supreme Court.Some nations are
indeed breeding grounds for hatred against the USA but, just remember that the
Saudis are not as wholesome as Trump makes out- his desire for a stronger Saudi
alliance are purely for his own business interests. Never forget
that the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi- all the high moral maneuvering to erase
extremism from within Saudi is just a charade to fool the West. When
fundamentalist shia Iran is gone (the coming end of the ayatollahs), the Saudis
will control both the holy sites of Islam and they will quickly move to exert
control of both shia and sunni globally.
Good. Now throw out all these lawless judges who wasted everyone's time
and put our nation in danger.
The supreme Court and Trump got it right!
"The proclamation is squarely within the scope of presidential
authority," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts____________________That doesn't mean it's not an abuse of power. Keep the faith.
How thankful I am for President Trump. I believe America is on a righteous path
again and nothing makes happier than seeing liberal politics being rolled back.