SCOTUS Has BIG PLANS With Trump’s Travel Ban


The Supreme Court appears ready to approve President Trump’s travel ban, despite the liberals on the court asking a bunch of hypothetical questions. This amounts to a huge defeat for the liberal Democrats who are desperately fighting for open borders and illegal voters.

Five justices appear to favor the ban while the four ultra-liberal justices are fighting it even though there are no constitutional obstacles for it. So, what else is new?

The people who are opposing President Trump’s ban are arguing that he is overstepping his bounds by banning Muslims but the fact he isn’t banning all Muslims. He is only banning people from certain countries that don’t affect the vast majority of Muslims. They are also overlooking the fact that the last three Democratic presidents all imposed travel bans affecting Muslim countries.

Their second argument that Trump is a racist also got them no further with the court.

There are 50 Muslim countries in the world and the travel ban only affects five of them and leaves 90% of the Muslims in the world the capability to enter the country. Several of the countries on the list have very small Muslim populations. A 1972 SCOTUS ruling declared that as long as the president can show a good reason for his actions, the justices cannot guess his motivation.

From The Daily Caller 

The third iteration of the president’s travel sanctions were assessed against various nationals from Chad (which has since been removed from the list), Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The penalties were crafted through an interagency process that sought to identify states that fail to satisfy specific security and information-sharing criteria.

This broad-based review places the proclamation on surer legal ground, a point to which Francisco repeatedly returned during Wednesday’s proceedings.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who likely holds the deciding vote, appeared to agree, noting the order at issue was more detailed than similar proclamations issued by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. He elsewhere rejected hypotheticals proffered by Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, noting other legal avenues exist to address the abuses envisioned in their scenarios.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by SteadfastAndLoyal.com

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.