 |
| The United States Supreme Court Building |
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've already heard about this June 26, 2017 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yesterday, President Trump was taking a victory lap on Twitter:
Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017
Note this detail of the SCOTUS decision, a detail which might have some far-reaching consequences:
[T]he court concluded that foreigners who have no ties to the U.S. cannot argue, on their own, that constitutional protections apply to them. They're not U.S. citizens, U.S. students or U.S. employees, so the protections established in the Constitution do not apply to them....Read the rest HERE.
Enforcement of the limited 90-day travel ban may begin as early as Thursday, June 29, 2017.
Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, will the protesters screeching about Trump's travel ban go home? Not a chance:
...A number of high profile Democrats and migrant rights advocates vowed to continue fighting against the ban.The 21st Century Democratic Party is the Party of Lawlessness.
Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Trump’s order remained “an unconstitutional and un-American assault on our country’s religious freedom”.
“Democrats will continue to fight this hatred every step of the way,” he said....
The US Constitution says exactly what the US Supreme Court says that it says. What this means is either that Tom Perez is an idiot of the first magnitude, or that he received his Harvard Law degree through affirmative action. Of course, both possibilities could be true.
ReplyDeleteMustang,
DeleteI say that both possibilities are true!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteNote that this was not a ruling on the constitutionality of the ban.
DeleteOf course the ban is constitutional. If the federal government cannot temporarily adjust immigration flows and procedures, we're no longer a nation.
DeleteI wish to hell we were being invaded by millions of ultra-conservative Lubavitchers and rightwing Christian fundamentalists from Africa. you and your fellow leftwing Jew-hating Christophobes would be howling.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDuck,
DeleteYour comment referring to the Trump administration's rounding up and deportation of Chaldean Christians was deleted for off-color language (Lord ____________).
SF nailed the cause of your apparent hissy fit:
The revolution is collapsing and they need your help.
The "revolution" as you're calling it, was never more than a REVULSION, and itsure has been REVOLTING to observe.
DeleteMeanwhile, of course, CNN yesterday blathered on with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" -- never mind that John Bonifield, CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative "Mostly bullsh*t right now". More at the link, including "Like, we don't have any giant proof" and audio/video.
ReplyDeleteGlad that problem's solved.
ReplyDeleteOf course it doesn't do much about blocking terrorist entry to the U.S. since that's primarily an Afghan, Pakistani and Saudi problem.
Wouldn't help Europe much either since Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians are the primary perps.
But the right runs on emotion so this will make them feel good.
Problem solved.
Yes, lets get back to the serious issues... like making Christian bakers bake wedding cakes for gays.
Delete#Winning
Delete#sourpussLoser
#MAGA!
Yes, would that the Left had been this angry over Obama's same countries on his terror list....
DeleteA lot of this is about vetting...and many of the countries Obama and Trump have pegged have no legitimate record keeping on who has done what.
In Europe, Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians have been there for years, brought in my Peugot and other countries needing labor. Their children are the perps today.
I think most Americans know this Trump SCOTUS-approved situation isn't a magic pill....it's a start.
No surprise that most Americans would like to at least try to ban those who come to hurt; time to start putting America first again. Thank GOD.
The ONLY sensible approach to ending the threat of Isamic Terrorism would be DIDADIN.
DeleteThat we no longer have the will to do what is necessary to preserve, protiect and defend ourselves and keep what is rightfully ours could only mean we are headed swiftly and inexorably towards EXTINCTION.
Ducky,
ReplyDeleteI think the ruling came under the umbrella of the authority and unique privilege of the Chief Executive. He has the right to temporarily halt any process when evaluation, negotiation, and recalibration are the intended goal.
School children everywhere, can only hope he temporarily bans school for three months. smile
Back to the topic at hand: Perhaps the SCOTUS is also signaling that foreign enemy combatants also do not have any Constitutional rights. Now this signal is a good one. Ya' can't come here to skunk us and expect to be perfumed.
The court hasn't given a final ruling and allowed huge loopholes which will permit entry from the named countries.
DeleteThe 3 Blind Mice (Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch) are clearly going to rule in Trump's favor but the jury is still out, so to speak.
What this has to do with enemy combatants is beyond me. Maybe you can explain.
Ducky, Shut up and move to Venezuela. The revolution is collapsing and they need your help. Go there.
DeleteSF,
DeleteI think you have nailed the reason for Duck's having fits here!
I'd settle for seeing Ducky move to Islamabad. Only place I've ever been where I needed bodyguards, and I've been in some strange and dangerous places.
DeleteAngela della Muerte said
DeleteI won't settle for anything less than seeing Canardo drawn and quartered, then decapitated, so I can have the ineffable joy of seeing his head mounted on a pike slowly devoured by flies before the flesh putrifies then falls bit by bit from his grinnng skull.
(:-x
Ducky and his fellow Dhimmibulbs won't be happy until Islamofascists take over everything. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
ReplyDelete"Ducky and his fellow Dhimmibulbs won't be happy" EVER!
DeleteThe common denominator for the diverse group comprising "Liberalism" is chronic discontentment. Although the victims of this mental illness fantasize that the cure lies in, such as, more oppressive government and wealth redistribution which never works, they will keep trying, in vain, to reach that mythical cure. Ironically some of these victims are, otherwise, bright but what they consider as "education" (these days) has only exacerbated their permanent and incurable disease! I'd like to call this condition The Johnson Syndrome in memory of the worst thing that ever happened to this Nation, in my lifetime, LBJ. Although this sickness started before his demonic take-over as POTUS, [he] turned it into an epidemic!
Odd that someone whose sole discussion skill consists of parroting moldy cliches tries to attack someone's education.
DeleteLet's get back to the issue.
How are we protected by the proposed ban when it doesn't block entry from the countries of origin of terrorism?
Wouldn't it be better strategy to understand the threat than just punch wildly like a dumb palooka?
I would welcome a dialog with either yourself of FreeThinke.
CNN:
Delete"The seven Muslim-majority targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern under the Obama administration."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html
There, that's my part of the "dialog". Now, as I used to say to my X, "you may have the last word; I'm done"!
"The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries."
DeleteSeemed to be working.
Seems much more sensible than a ban to satisfy the fringe right who are soiling their diapers over the scary muslims.
The SCOTUS decision upholds the executive branch's powers over certain aspects of immigration.
DeleteFrom the NYT:
A key part of immigration law does give the president broad power. It says, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Yes, the ruling will be revisited this fall. By then, the Trump administration should have the parameters of extreme vetting in place.
How are we protected by the proposed ban when it doesn't block entry from the countries of origin of terrorism?
DeleteYou raise a half-decent point. Nobody from the affected countries [IIRC] has killed an American citizen in this country since at least 1975. This 'ban' is a prophylactic......but it's not a solution. It's security theater, and the Administration is wasting political capital on it.
"Loose lips sink ships"?
ReplyDeleteFrom Republicans Call for Ginsburg to Recuse Herself From Travel Ban Case:
House Republicans want Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse herself from the hearing of President Donald Trump's travel ban case this fall.
In a letter sent Monday morning, 58 House Republicans claim Ginsburg was “required by law” to recuse herself from the case because of comments she made about Trump during an interview last July.
The GOP lawmakers' letter to Ginsburg reads:
"There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Failure to recuse yourself from any such case would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States."
Their concerns about Ginsburg's impartiality stem from comments she made during an interview last year.
“He is a faker,” Ginsburg told CNN's Joan Biskupic midway through the election season. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”
Ginsburg would later say that she “regretted” making the comments and that they were “ill-advised.”...
More at the above link.
In my memory, I do not recall a SCOTUS justice spouting off in the manner that Justice Ginsburg did last year.
@ AOW: "In my memory, I do not recall a SCOTUS justice spouting off in the manner that Justice Ginsburg did last year."
DeleteI don't either.
Remember one year when President Obama was in full demagogue mode during his STFU Speech to Congress, spouting one of his many lies, and the cameras captured Justice Alito mouthing the word "no?"
The prog press howled about that for days, and I believe Justice Alito has never attended another State of the Union.
Justice Ginsberg has tainted herself, and she should recuse herself from any case involving the Trump White House.
SF,
DeleteBut will she recuse herself? I can't imagine that she will do so.
Of course not. Being a powerful progressive = never saying you're sorry and automatic exemption from the rules
DeleteHey Ducky, This tweet's for you.
ReplyDeleteSF,
DeleteLOL!
Image saved.
"Stringent" Vetting?
ReplyDeleteIt is almost impossible to vet someone from a war-torn area controlled by entities hostile to the US.
If a refugee has had no previous contact or never appeared on the radar screen of the US or governments cooperative with the US, the person is a blank slate.
The vetting process relies on family records, pictures, etc, all of which can be manufactured or lied about.
Beyond this, what is the compelling national interest in bringing in people who will be shocked, bewildered, offended and most likely angered by our progressive, liberal culture?
Why import social strife and incompatibility?
Western culture is very different from Islamic culture. Muslim refugees need to be resettled in Islamic countries, where the religion, schooling, language and cultural norms make it easy for them to assimilate.
SF,
DeleteIt is almost impossible to vet someone from a war-torn area controlled by entities hostile to the US.
Yes.
And that FACT needs to be announced toward the end of the travel ban.
I favor the concept you presented in the last paragraph of your comment.
SF...as my comment said above, those countries are not only 'war-torn,' they're also not traditionally countries that keep the kinds of records we keep... so it IS impossible unless someone's actually committed some egregious crime and they have that on record...somewhere.
DeleteNot only should muslim refugees be resettled in Islamic countries, I believe most would prefer it to moving to Germany, France, etc. I've often said on my blog that I believe many Hispanics would rather stay in their home countries, too...that our spending money THERE would probably be actually LESS money than we spend on illegals here and and certainly less woes in other ways for everyone concerned.
Of the top 10 countries accepting Syrian refugees, only one (1) is western and that's Germany. It has taken roughly the same number as Saudi Arabia and half to a quarter of the number taken by Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
DeleteWhere did you get the idea muslim countries (which have fewer resources) don't take refugees?
Ducky, where did you get the idea that I ever claimed "muslim countries (which have fewer resources) don't take refugees?"
DeleteYou're slipping. Badly. To the point of self-embarrassment.
"The West out of the Muslim world and the Muslim world out of the west" has been my clearly-stated position for years.
My reply was to, Z.
DeleteDucky, can you point out to us then where Z said that?
DeleteMy interpretation of, "Not only should muslim refugees be resettled in Islamic countries ..." is that they are not currently.
DeleteNostradumbass, just keep stuffing those straw men and chasing your tail. Very few are interested in "your take" because it's firmly rooted in your ideology and has little to nothing to do with facts.
DeleteWhere was I not factual?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you need to ask the same question of the Obama administration, since President Trump is just following Obama's policy. LOL!
DeleteThat's incorrect, silverfiddle. Obama only once instituted a ban and that was for a few months when it was discovered Iraqis weren't being vetted properly.
DeleteNever was a Muslim ban (Trump's words) Obama's policy.
Leftwing twaddle.
Delete