Supreme Court rules that Trump's travel ban is constitutional
Join LibraryThing to post.
Steve Schmidt said the following ~
“What Osama bin Laden hoped to provoke was a war of civilization. A war between the West and one billion Muslims. And so what Donald Trump and this Muslim ban signal to the world is that Muslims are not welcome here, that this is––whether the conservative justices say in fact this is about executive power––the President’s clear intent was to impose a religious test, and that is as fundamentally un-American as anything that he’s done over the course of this presidency.”
Fun fact ~
People in foreign countries thought the ban was meant to prevent Americans from LEAVING the country!!!
Someone on this forum gets up on the wrong side of the
bed every single day. SAD.
People in foreign countries...That means me! Interestingly, though it is known throughout the world that people in the US are the worst in the world at basic political geography (do you know which sea Slovenia spends 47 kilometers of its coastline on, Barn?) lately I have found that many Europeans confuse the Netherlands and Belgium, believing the Netherlands to have Walloons and Flems.
If the popular vote had determined the outcome of the 2016 election,
we would not have kids in cages or this horrible SCOTUS decision.
Interesting that Court stumbles like this once a century. Hopefully, that's it for 21st c., and that it won't need a war or decades to right themselves, as previously...
Trump v Hawaii (2018), like Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) and Korematsu v United States (1944)
will be “overruled in the court of history" to quote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Move over, Dred Scott (Opinion)
David D. Cole | June 26, 2018
David D. Cole is national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Supreme Court’s approval of President Trump’s travel ban barring entry to some 150 million people from five overwhelmingly Muslim countries is likely to be judged by history as one of the court’s greatest failures — in a league with Dred Scott v. Sandford, which helped bring on the Civil War, and Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the wartime detention of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans and noncitizens of Japanese descent.
...Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court reminded us in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission that the freedom of religion “bars even ‘subtle departures from neutrality’ on matters of religion.” The court warned that when there is “even slight suspicion” of animosity to religion underlying government action, all public officials “must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures.” Surely that “high duty” is greatest when the president himself has shown explicit religious intolerance. Yet the court openly abdicated that duty in a case with more evidence of religious animus than perhaps any other it has ever considered...
Trump’s Travel Ban at the Supreme Court: Deference Joined by Nudges Toward Civility
Peter Margulies | June 26, 2018
...the Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s travel ban (EO-3). The court’s traditional deference to the president on foreign affairs and national security drove the 5-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts (joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch) rejected both statutory and constitutional challenges to (Trump's) Proclamation No. 9645, which followed two executive orders. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgment, offered critics of the ban a bit of a silver lining: The justices sought to nudge the president toward more civil rhetoric and overruled Korematsu v. United States, the infamous (1944) decision upholding the conviction of a U.S. citizen who had failed to comply with a military evacuation order amid the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But the majority rejected claims that (Trump's) proclamation exceeded the scope of congressional delegation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
...(Chief Justice) Roberts...(cited) President George Washington’s reassurance to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, that the government of the United States lends “bigotry no sanction” and “persecution no assistance.” Building on this theme, Roberts next cited President Eisenhower’s vow to congregants at a Washington Islamic Center that “America would fight” for their religious freedom, and George W. Bush’s solemn request after the Sept. 11 attacks that Americans of all faiths understand that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam.” In an implicit but unmistakable allusion to Trump’s rhetoric, Roberts observed with consummate understatement that presidents and the federal government as a whole have “performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words.”
In another implicit yet unmistakable reference, this time addressing the Supreme Court’s own checkered history, the majority overruled the court’s infamous decision in Korematsu. During the presidential campaign, in an exchange that drew substantial attention, then-candidate Trump was distressingly coy when asked whether he would have supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. But here, Roberts labeled the internment “morally repugnant” and pronounced the court’s decision in Korematsu as “gravely wrong” then and now. Roberts cited Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent, which averred that the internment had “no place in law under the Constitution.”
Justice Kennedy’s concurrence dovetailed with these themes, noting succinctly that the “oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even comment on what those officials say or do.” For Kennedy, that absence of judicial oversight made it “all the more imperative” that each official “adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.” Kennedy’s concurrence left little doubt that he would have been inclined to be more specific about Trump’s rhetoric had he occupied a different role...
The Supreme Court’s plea for civility is only dicta, to be sure. It does not compensate for the majority’s failure to recognize that EO-3 (Trump's travel ban) clashes with the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act). Nor does it concretely assist U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents hoping for reunification with family members from countries covered by the travel ban...
Even the Supreme Court is alarmed about Trump
Ruth Marcus | June 26, 2018
...the chief justice’s majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii , in which he took an unnecessary historical detour. “The President of the United States possesses an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf. Our Presidents have frequently used that power to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded,” Roberts observed.
...Kennedy’s anguish over Trump was, if anything, even more evident than Roberts’s. He wrote an odd, four-paragraph concurring opinion that reads like something between a guilt-ridden defense against being blamed for the consequences of Trump’s actions and a personal plea to the president to pay some attention to the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect and defend.
...Of course Kennedy — yes, the same justice so willing to seize on the words of Colorado officials to find religious animus in the case of a baker who balked at creating a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding — could easily have intervened to police Trump’s far more offensive statements. He could, in other words, have calmed that anxious world. But the fact remains, and even these justices know: The world is anxious, and Trump is why.
Second class is better than third class, which is better than no class...I mean...being no citizen at all. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
>12 barney67: Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
I couldn't disagree more. If you are born in a country, I believe citizenship of that country is a basic right.
See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
>12 barney67: Wow, what a dangerous sentiment: "Citizenship is a privilege, not a right." We're you born in America? Then you are a U.S. citizen by right. No one can take that away. Only the individual can renounce their citizenship. Citizenship in the U.S. doesn't depend on race, religion, sexual orientation. It is your birthright.
To become a naturalized citizen IS a process and a privilege, but once obtained citizenship becomes their right.
Just because the U.S. forfeited its seat on the UN Human Rights Council doesn't negate our nation's responsibility to observe human rights... at least if our leaders don't want to go to trial like Ratko Mladic.
>6 RickHarsch: : I guess that's because in the US education focuses on building thinking skills and character rather than rote learning of trivia you can find with a 30 second google search (or a 2 minute encyclopedia search) and which does not matter anyway.
>13 johnthefireman: Citizenship is not a right. The American law was written many years ago by Democrats and Republicans. I learned it in high school. Where were the rest of you bookworms that day? Reading Harry Potter?
The law is if you are born in America, then you are an American citizen. That's it. You can become a naturalized citizen through legal processes. You can hold dual citizenship. And so on.
There is no law that says you are an American citizen if you have been living here one year, or ten years, or fifty years. There is no law that says you are an American citizen because you are a student here for four years. There is no law that says you are an American citizen because you have family, parents or children or friends here. There is no law that says you are an American citizen because the place you came from was no good. There is no law that says you are an American citizen because you are poor, desperate, or oppressed. There is no law that says you are an American citizen simply because you want to be here and would rather not go home. There is no law, no moral obligation, that says you can stay if you want to stay.
These are facts.
If you are in America illegally, you forfeit the protection of American law, including its many rights and social services. If you are in America illegally, you should expect to be deported at any time by any means. It's the criminal's desire versus the human rights of 300 million Americans who are here legally. It would be intolerant and uncompassionate and cruel to turn your backs on 300 million citizens.
Not only that, but endanger them by failing to protect the borders, something every country has a right to do, something other countries around the world are allowed to do without criticism.
Not us, though. Not the U.S. The world's whipping boy.
>17 barney67: The law is if you are born in America, then you are an American citizen
That's exactly what I said, isn't it? I said, "If you are born in a country, I believe citizenship of that country is a basic right."
Then you change the subject and start talking about illegal immigrants. Muslim Americans citizens are not illegal immigrants, they are US-born citizens who happen to be Muslim.
>17 barney67: You're contradicting yourself. In your first para you say, "Citizenship is not a right." But in the next para "The law is if you are born in America, then you are an American citizen." So reading the content/context of your post, I think you, JohnTheFireman and I are in agreement on this: If you're born in the U.S. you are automatically a citizen. Since it is something that cannot be taken away from you, it is a right.
I also think we are in agreement that becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen is a process a legal resident can apply for citizenship. Once the process is complete and they are U.S. citizens. Not a lawyer, but no one can strip you of naturalized citizenship without due process. Moving on....
Now as for illegal immigrants, I agree that a law has been broken though you and I will likely differ on the seriousness of the infraction and how that should be prosecuted.
Here's where we begin to disagree. You say, If you are in America illegally, you forfeit the protection of American law..." No. No illegal alien, no criminal forfeits due process under current laws. Trump has said he would like to change that for illegals. That is categorically wrong and a violation of human rights. The legal process is a difficult, expensive process, but it IS a process that all people have a right to expect in civilized countries. Denying basic human rights is ethically and spiritually wrong, and politically stupid. I don't care to have my country in the same category as Syria or North Korea.
Because of retirements ~
by the time Trump's term(s) end, all SCOTUS decisions will be 7-2
for or against.
And the country we were taking about was, er, the USA. So, if you are born in the USA you are a citizen of that country. We agree?
Or do I ? Certainly the anti-americans in the thread seem to know, and care, more about the Slovakia coastline (exactly 37 km! Not 38) than the new Barbarian Invasions threatening civilization. (Some) Americans have the opposite priority.
>25 Kuiperdolin: Let's just take your most recent post as representative of your education, agreeing that the sample size make this unfair and my conclusion thus apply only to one post.
1. You don't know what 'anti-americanism' is. Your implication that it is rejection of right wing ideas. Most US Americans posting here would probably claim to be patriotic US Americans.
2. No, not many people besides me seem to care about the coastline that I assume you intentionally got wrong--which I thought was pretty funny (for those who don't know, the country is Slovenia and the coastline approximately 47 km).
3. There has never in history been a 'Barbarian Invasion', so there can by definition not be a new one.
4. If you mistake immigration for barbarism you know very little about the complexities of immigration and probably remain unaware of the alarm amongst wealthy US citizens over Trump's policies.
5. No one priorizes immigration in the United States other than individual immigrants, as it is their lives involved, the families of these immigrants, and the people who hire immigrants.
So in one sentence you have managed five pretty egregious blunders and one good joke.
>25 Kuiperdolin: Μοιάζετε σαν να μιλάτε, αλλά το μόνο που ακούω είναι "βάρ, βάρ, βάρ".
Our ancestors, French, English or Germanic, got no respect from the Greeks. We're speaking a language of barbarians that has adorned itself with Latin and Greek in attempt to hide the fact it's just another barbarian tongue found far from the Eastern Mediterranean. We write with a script taken from the Romans, who took it from the Greeks, who took it from the Phoenicians. The Middle East has known civilization, has recorded their history for five thousand years, and now pose a threat to the "civilization" of people who follow a Middle Eastern religion, had their first history recorded by the Romans just over two thousand years ago, and had to get handed writing from the Romans (who, again, ultimately got it from the Middle East). That seems so myopic.
>26 RickHarsch: : first that's just your opinion and calling themselves "patriotic Americans" does not make them so. Just like for the Rosenbergs not to mention more recent cases. And how "blundering" not to have heard of the Barbarian Invasions. As for no one prioritizing immigration... The mobs have been demonstrating for it for weeks now.
>28 prosfilaes: : French and English descend from the Trojans so the Greeks wrote a whole epic cycle about how they were cooler than them and could only be beaten by lame tricks.
>29 Kuiperdolin: Troy was in modern-day Turkey and the stories of Aeneas made him a founder of Rome.
And the stories of Brutus, Francus and Priam made them founders of England, France and Denmark. I don't see what modern-day Turkey has to do with it. (also Aeneas founded Lavinium, not Rome)
>32 Kuiperdolin: So medieval scholars made up stories linking their barbaric nations to the Trojans, and that's supposed to make them more respectable in Ancient Greek eyes? It seems pretty inconsistent to claim to be descended from Turks and be outraged about them as invading barbarians.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.