SCOTUS upholds Trump's travel ban. Here's why experts say the ruling contradicts the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • neece Hyde Park, UT
    July 9, 2018 3:06 p.m.

    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???

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 1, 2018 8:05 a.m.

    @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 methods.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    June 30, 2018 12:08 p.m.

    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.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    June 30, 2018 12:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    June 29, 2018 5:59 p.m.

    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!

  • Kathy Salt Lake City, UT
    June 29, 2018 5:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Liberal living on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 29, 2018 2:52 p.m.

    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!

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    June 29, 2018 11:53 a.m.

    lib on planet rain man

    Practice 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 all americans

  • Georgis Byron, GA
    June 28, 2018 9:18 p.m.

    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.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    June 28, 2018 7:21 a.m.

    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?

    🤔

  • blarsen BOUNTIFUL, UT
    June 27, 2018 4:53 p.m.

    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.

  • blarsen BOUNTIFUL, UT
    June 27, 2018 2:33 p.m.

    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.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2018 1:46 p.m.

    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 statements.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 27, 2018 1:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Lib Survival on Planet Utah SLC, UT
    June 27, 2018 12:36 p.m.

    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!

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2018 12:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 27, 2018 11:53 a.m.

    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!"

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    June 27, 2018 10:44 a.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 27, 2018 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • wrz Springville, UT
    June 27, 2018 7:59 a.m.

    @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.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    June 27, 2018 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 27, 2018 7:16 a.m.

    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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 27, 2018 6:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    June 27, 2018 5:46 a.m.

    @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 equal.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 27, 2018 5:40 a.m.

    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!

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    June 26, 2018 10:15 p.m.

    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).

  • dski HERRIMAN, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:09 p.m.

    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 place.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:36 p.m.

    @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.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    June 26, 2018 8:42 p.m.

    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".

    🤗

  • NotSoNaive Lehi, UT
    June 26, 2018 7:17 p.m.

    This article is a misleading opinion piece, not news reporting.

  • military mom Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2018 7:17 p.m.

    @suzy

    Since 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.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2018 6:55 p.m.

    Too bad for the virtue signalers, and the otherwise bereft of an argument, we have a constitution and it has worked well in this instance

    The old saying holds: the right thinks your wrong and the left thinks your evil

    Get a grip folks.

  • reriding Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 6:41 p.m.

    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?

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    June 26, 2018 6:06 p.m.

    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 article.

  • JBs Logan, UT
    June 26, 2018 5:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Joggle Captain Cook, HI
    June 26, 2018 5:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Egyptian origins Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 4:36 p.m.

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 26, 2018 3:47 p.m.

    "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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2018 3:31 p.m.

    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.

  • wrz Springville, UT
    June 26, 2018 3:20 p.m.

    "... 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 decision.

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2018 3:00 p.m.

    Toystol

    I 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?

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2018 2:46 p.m.

    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.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    June 26, 2018 2:25 p.m.

    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 fiat.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:53 p.m.

    @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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Flipphone Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:43 p.m.

    Very Good News for American.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:43 p.m.

    @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

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:15 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBruinII Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:14 p.m.

    @Dave T

    To 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.

    @Moderate

    There 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 News/Post.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:14 p.m.

    Another tool of the progressive left is exposed, but not defeated.
    1) The SPLC
    2) Personal attacks on customers
    3) 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?

  • military mom Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:13 p.m.

    @Executorloh

    Although 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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2018 1:11 p.m.

    I am ok with this and I do not get why liberals are upset about this. Presidents have had wide latitude on immigration concerns.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Yuge Opportunity Here Mapleton, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:56 p.m.

    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!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    June 26, 2018 12:29 p.m.

    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!

  • mightyhunterhaha Layton, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:21 p.m.

    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 immigration.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:18 p.m.

    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 out!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 26, 2018 12:11 p.m.

    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 to himself?

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:56 a.m.

    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 immigration.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:40 a.m.

    @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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:19 a.m.

    "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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 26, 2018 11:19 a.m.

    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 Trump

    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.

    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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    June 26, 2018 11:16 a.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:12 a.m.

    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 up in.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Sportsfan123 Herriman, UT
    June 26, 2018 11:01 a.m.

    Toystol

    Join 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 nihilism.

  • banliberals Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:58 a.m.

    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!

  • California Steve Hanford, CA
    June 26, 2018 10:56 a.m.

    Syria? Yemen? Iran? Sudan? This just makes sense.

  • Traveller Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:55 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 26, 2018 10:49 a.m.

    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.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:48 a.m.

    We are not tired of winning yet!

    Thank you, President Trump!

  • Cheesecake Beaver, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:44 a.m.

    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 system, folks.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:41 a.m.

    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 done".

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:36 a.m.

    I guess we are lucky that 5 judges actually have read the constitution and understand it

    If 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

  • Gil Bates Mayfield, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Dave T in Ogden Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:29 a.m.

    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?

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    June 26, 2018 10:09 a.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:50 a.m.

    I think you already have.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:41 a.m.

    @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.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:27 a.m.

    "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.

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:18 a.m.

    Excellent work by Trump to get this through! The Supreme Court is making much more sensible and common sense decisions lately. Winning!

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 26, 2018 9:05 a.m.

    the devolution of ethics and basic human decency in this country is truly disturbing.

  • batfink Australia, 00
    June 26, 2018 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • illuminated Kansas City, MO
    June 26, 2018 8:54 a.m.

    Good. Now throw out all these lawless judges who wasted everyone's time and put our nation in danger.

  • zgomer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2018 8:47 a.m.

    The supreme Court and Trump got it right!

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 26, 2018 8:43 a.m.

    "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.

  • Disco Vega Modesto, CA
    June 26, 2018 8:38 a.m.

    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.