June 26, 2018

Trump wins the travel ban case.

Here's the PDF of the Supreme Court case, issued just now.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., and THOMAS, J., filed concurring opinions. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
From the Roberts opinion:
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States undergo a vetting process to ensure that they satisfy the numerous requirements for admission. The Act also vests the Presi- dent with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1182(f). Relying on that delegation, the President concluded that it was necessary to impose entry restrictions on nationals of countries that do not share adequate information for an informed entry determination, or that otherwise present national security risks....

By its plain language, §1182(f) grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings—following a worldwide, multi-agency review—that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest. And plaintiffs’ attempts to identify a conflict with other provisions in the INA, and their appeal to the statute’s purposes and legislative history, fail to overcome the clear statutory language....

Moreover, plaintiffs’ request for a searching inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s justifications is inconsistent with the broad statutory text and the deference traditionally accorded the President in this sphere....
In section IV of the opinion the Court looks at"the claim that the Proclamation was issued for the unconstitutional purpose of excluding Muslims." First, the Court finds standing based on the "the alleged real-world effect that the Proclamation has had in keeping them separated from certain relatives who seek to enter the country." Looking at the substantive merits, the question is whether "singling out Muslims for disfavored treatment" violates the Establishment Clause."

At the heart of plaintiffs’ case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers casting doubt on the official objective of the Proclamation. For example, while a candidate on the campaign trail, the President published a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” that called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” App. 158. That statement remained on his campaign website until May 2017. Id., at 130–131. Then-candidate Trump also stated that “Islam hates us” and asserted that the United States was “having problems with Muslims coming into the country.” Id., at 120–121, 159. Shortly after being elected, when asked whether violence in Europe had affected his plans to “ban Muslim immigration,” the President replied, “You know my plans. All along, I’ve been proven to be right.” Id., at 123.

One week after his inauguration, the President issued EO–1. In a television interview, one of the President’s campaign advisers explained that when the President “first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’” Id., at 125. The adviser said he assembled a group of Members of Congress and lawyers that “focused on, instead of religion, danger.... [The order] is based on places where there [is] substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our coun- try.” Id., at 229....

Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.

The case before us differs in numerous respects from the conventional Establishment Clause claim. Unlike the typical suit involving religious displays or school prayer, plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive regulating the entry of aliens abroad. Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy by reference to extrinsic statements—many of which were made before the President took the oath of office. These various aspects of plaintiffs’ challenge inform our standard of review....

"Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility” of the President “to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution,” and our inquiry into matters of entry and national security is highly constrained.... [W]e... will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.

Given the standard of review, it should come as no surprise that the Court hardly ever strikes down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny.... It cannot be said that it is impossible to “discern a relationship to legitimate state interests” or that the policy is “inexplicable by anything but animus.” Indeed, the dissent can only attempt to argue otherwise by refusing to apply anything resembling rational basis review... The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.... More fundamentally, plaintiffs and the dissent challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom. They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security interests. But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.”...
AND: The dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) brings up Korematsu v. United States (1944):
In Korematsu, the Court gave “a pass [to] an odious, gravely injurious racial classification” authorized by an executive order.... As here, the Government invoked an ill-defined national-security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweep­ ing proportion.... As here, the exclusion order was rooted in dangerous stereotypes about, inter alia, a particular group’s supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States.... As here, the Government was unwilling to reveal its own intelligence agencies’ views of the alleged security concerns to the very citizens it purported to protect.... And as here, there was strong evidence that impermissible hostility and animus motivated the Government’s policy.

Although a majority of the Court in Korematsu was willing to uphold the Government’s actions based on a barren invocation of national security, dissenting Justices warned of that decision’s harm to our constitutional fabric....

In the intervening years since Korematsu, our Nation has done much to leave its sordid legacy behind.... By blindly accepting the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discrimi­natory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one “gravely wrong” decision with another. Ante, at 38.

Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to ac­count when they defy our most sacred legal commitments. 
The Chief Justice dismissed those words as an effort to get a "rhetorical advantage" and said "Korematsu has nothing to do with this case." I'll add some boldface:
The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority. But it is wholly inapt to liken that morally repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain foreign nationals the privilege of admission....
The Chief uses the occasion to make an important and clear statement about Korematsu:
Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—“has no place in law under the Constitution.” 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
AND: How does this case relate to the recently decided Masterpiece Cakeshop case, in which the Court made much of the government's religion-based animus. Only the dissenting opinions mention that case. Breyer mentions it in passing, pointing at the Sotomayor opinion. Sotomayor writes:
Just weeks ago, the Court rendered its decision in Mas­terpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S. ___, which applied the bed­rock principles of religious neutrality and tolerance in considering a First Amendment challenge to government action.... Those principles should apply equally here. In both instances, the question is whether a gov­ernment actor exhibited tolerance and neutrality in reach­ing a decision that affects individuals’ fundamental reli­ gious freedom.... Unlike in Masterpiece, where the majority consid­ered the state commissioners’ statements about religion to be persuasive evidence of unconstitutional government action... the majority here completely sets aside the President’s charged state­ments about Muslims as irrelevant. That holding erodes the foundational principles of religious tolerance that the Court elsewhere has so emphatically protected, and it tells members of minority religions in our country “‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political commu­nity.’ ”
ALSO: Breyer (joined by Kagan) says there should be more factfinding, but since that isn't going to happen, he "would, on balance, find the evidence of antireligious bias, including statements on a website taken down only after the President issued the two executive orders preceding the Proclamation... a sufficient basis to set the Proclamation aside."

As for the concurring opinions, first, there's Kennedy, who joins the Roberts opinion "in full," but writes separately to reach out to the dissenters and to cite one of his old opinions:
There may be some common ground between the opinions in this case, in that the Court does acknowledge that in some instances, governmental action may be subject to judicial review to determine whether or not it is “inexplicable by anything but animus,” Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 632 (1996), which in this case would be animosity to a religion.
Thomas concurred to add arguments to Roberts's arguments:
Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President.... Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.... Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or antireligious.... The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad.... And, even on its own terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination is unpersuasive.
He also goes on at some length about the nationwide remedy, which he prefers to call the "universal injunction" because the problem isn't the "wide geographic breadth" but "enforcing a policy with respect to anyone, including nonparties."
These injunctions are a recent development, emerging for the first time in the 1960s and dramatically increasing in popularity only very recently. And they appear to conflict with several traditional rules of equity, as well as the original understanding of the judicial role....

No persuasive defense has yet been offered for the practice. Defenders of these injunctions contend that they ensure that individuals who did not challenge a law are treated the same as plaintiffs who did, and that universal injunctions give the judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.... But these arguments do not explain how these injunctions are consistent with the historical limits on equity and judicial power. They at best “boi[l] down to a policy judgment” about how powers ought to be allocated among our three branches of government....

If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.

349 comments:

1 – 200 of 349   Newer›   Newest»
Original Mike said...

5-4? Disappointing.

chickelit said...

Not a great day to be a Hawaiian judge.

Nonapod said...

Well that only took, what, like 15 months or something? All to clarify what was demonstrably clear from day 1?

Ryan said...

Trump is going to win in 2020.

YoungHegelian said...

Yes, 5-4 disappointing to me, too.

I mean, how is this aspect of immigration policy not under the control of the Executive Branch? Or, do judges get to invalidate not just laws but also executive orders just because they get ticked off?

Quaestor said...

RBG should have recused herself. The partisanship she has revealed to the press ought to make it incumbent upon Ginsberg to remove herself from every case in which the Administration is a plaintiff. That she has not should lead to her impeachment.

Fabi said...

Chuck hardest hit.

David Begley said...

Trump will use this SCOTUS case to stop the invasion at the border. He'll send them all back the same day they arrive. NO separation between children and parents. And no hearings.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Original Mike said...

5-4? Disappointing.

Not disappointed. Disappointment would have required hope that the outcome could have been better. There never was any such hope.

tim maguire said...

Should have been a 9-0 decision with a sharp rebuke to the judges beneath who ruled against the administration.

Sebastian said...

The relevant provision couldn't be clearer.

The fact that prog judges, and now several justices, ignored a text as utterly obvious as this one shows the depth of their sophistry and the extent of their political corruption.

brylun said...

Democrat judges are partisans first. The law means nothing to them.

Gahrie said...

I like Thomas's concurring opinion in which he warns the district courts that if they continue to issue universal injunctions the Court will be forced to explicitly state that the are unconstitutional.

rehajm said...

Court says Proclamation is "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA."

Four justices dissent citing 'but we don't like it'.

(repeated)

brylun said...

Kennedy should retire now and allow Trump to appoint his replacement.

Gahrie said...

The Thomas concurrence should have been a 9-0 slam dunk.

Quaestor said...

Now the question becomes what to do about those persons who have entered this country from that turbulent region since the travel ban was in abeyance.

Ray said...

Thank god Trump got elected, think of all the 5-4 decisions that were avoided...

It’s a shame you can usually tell how a Supreme Court Justice will rule, based on whom appointed them.

chickelit said...

“Trump will use this SCOTUS case to stop the invasion at the border. He'll send them all back the same day they arrive. NO separation between children and parents. And no hearings.”

I envision the Mexican government allowing large squalid refugee camps on the Mexican side of the border. Soros will fund the basic sanitary needs. The camps’ purpose will be to allow American and Intenational journalists to present the hungry faces of women and children for the soap opera viewers.

Big Mike said...

Only 5 - 4? I can understand the senile Ginsburg and (un)wise Sotomayor dissenting — if Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are for it, they’re against it, no need to know what “it” is. But what are Breyer and Kagan finding to dissent over?

Browndog said...

5-4?

Think what the ramifications would be if the ruling had gone the other way.

We have 4 judges that have opted to usurp the Constitution and claim sole authority over the sovereignty of the United States.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I still cannot move to New Zealand because they have very restrictive immigration policies.

Does that make New Zealand racist?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Today we exhale and rejoice that the corruption queen lost.

FIDO said...

One heart attack from 6-3 decisions.

Nonapod said...

what are Breyer and Kagan finding to dissent over?

Maybe they found a clause that states that Trump is a mean ol' poopy head?

Richard Belaire said...

Some day, I hope we see an even number of justices on the Court. No more decisions by one vote -- win by two or go home.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty ask if any justice's opinion mentioned shithole countries.

Browndog said...

Another day I thank God for Trump.

Replace Gorsuch will a Hillary commie and the utter shit coming out of the Supreme Court would make your head spin.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Chuck hardest hit.


What a moronic comment. Long before this case was decided (this was Trump Travel ban 3.0, remember), I was writing that any President should win this case. And that one of the few main reasons that this case had been made harder to win was because of Trump's idiotic statements relating to a "complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."

Trump never got such an order even written after he became president. EO-1 didn't say that; but the Administration quickly abandoned it anyway. The next Order went still further away from anything like what Trump had talked about during the campaign. But it too was abandoned in favor of the Proclamation that became the subject of Trump v Hawaii.

Trump may be the world's worst legal client, but I all along felt that this was a case he could not lose. I'm disappointed (not surprised, just disappointed) that the decision was not 7-2, or even 9-0.

From the Roberts majority opinion:

"Under these circumstances, the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim."


Trumpkins all over will no doubt claim victory here. It's a victory, all right. A victory for the competent and hard-working mainstream lawyers who knew that nothing like what Trump was saying could ever be put down on paper as a serious order. And that it would have to be completely recrafted. And that even then, the President's dumbfuck statements would make it hard to defend.

robother said...

5-4 decision. Pathetic. If this isn't evidence of the essentially political view of the Constitution that every Democrat nominee takes, I don't know what is. Sotomayer and Ginsberg are lefty basket cases, of course. But Breyer and Kagan? There really is no "neutral principles of Constitutional Law" left in the Democrat judiciary. It really is D's win, Rs lose.

Fabi said...

Sounds like you need a Snickers bar, Chuck.

themightypuck said...

This is like a perfect storm for the left to take to the streets. Could be interesting.

Sebastian said...

"They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security interests."

Quite possibly it has dawned on the Chief that this is prog MO: prog law is a policy tool, and nothing more.

Of course, my Universal Theory of Progressive Instrumentalism covers it, as it does prog ethics and linguistics, but this is nonetheless a particularly blatant case. If you can get around the provision at issue here, anything goes.

Browndog said...

Thomas may be the greatest Jurist of our time, and gets NO recognition of even being one.

etbass said...

Ray said...

"It’s a shame you can usually tell how a Supreme Court Justice will rule, based on whom appointed them."

Except for Roberts' vote on Obamacare.

hombre said...

Short version of Breyer’s dissent: “Never mind the clear language of the law or past presidential practice, it’s Trump!! Kagan, Latina, RBG concur: “Resist! Resist!”

Did anybody doubt that Trump would prevail? The only ever question was how many of the libs would torture the law to resist Trump.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Richard Belaire said...

Some day, I hope we see an even number of justices on the Court. No more decisions by one vote -- win by two or go home.

Unfortunately, go home equals let the appeals court ruling stand. Plenty of those should not, and I'd rather have them overturned by 5-4 than let the 9th circuit have its way. ( Particularly in a case like this, where a judge in Hawaii is issuing a nationwide injunction. )

Ken B said...

The 5-4 vote is clear proof that 4 justices vote politics not law.

tim maguire said...

Richard Belaire said...Some day, I hope we see an even number of justices on the Court. No more decisions by one vote -- win by two or go home.

If you think it thorough, I think you'll realize that is a terrible idea--the effect is to leave in place a lower court decision that was likely decided by 1 vote and, by requiring a super-majority to over-rule, it gives undue weight to the lower court decision.

But, if you insist, then I recommend you ignore the illegitimate Ginsburg. That makes it 5-3 and you have your super-majority.

Jupiter said...

"What are Breyer and Kagan finding to dissent over?"

Well, that is the interesting question, isn't it? We know that Sotomayor is so dim she sees no problem with acting as La Raza's representative to the Court of the United States. Ginsburg at least knows she is corrupt, but is corrupt nonetheless. But have Kagan and Breyer actually lost all shame? What tattered fig leaf did they stretch over their pudenda for this shameless pole dance?

buwaya said...

Its not worth saying anymore, but -

These things are not simply legal cases. These things are disputes in politics, maneuvers in power struggles.

They manifest on one level as matters before some court, but its truly obtuse to see them as simply that. They have other and more significant levels.

One does not lead men with legal briefs.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck is expected to chum the waters with BS in order to cover for the absolute lawlessness of the lefties in the judiciary, and he never, ever, disappoints.

Chuckie is busy on other threads deflecting from the lawlessness and violence of the lefties and blaming Trump.

Our #StrongDemDefender can always be expected to do just that.

I imagine he will be even busier in the days ahead as his operational allies on the far left become more active and violent.

gspencer said...

"fail to overcome the clear statutory language"

HELP WANTED: Attorney; chances of employment greatly enhanced with ability to read English

Drago said...

Jupiter: " We know that Sotomayor is so dim she sees no problem with acting as La Raza's representative to the Court of the United States."

Careful!

LLR Chuck is about and he is a very #StrongLaRazaDefender and will not put up with you besmirching their obviously deserved racist viewpoints and intentions.

Drago said...

hombre: "Short version of Breyer’s dissent: “Never mind the clear language of the law or past presidential practice, it’s Trump!!"

That's usually enough for our LLR Chuck.

The clear language of the law is no reason not to make up stuff about Trump that helps the dems.

Gahrie said...

The Chief uses the occasion to make an important and clear statement about Korematsu:


How long until the Court does the same with Roe?

buwaya said...

Re Korematsu -
No lawyer I, but even I can see it is absurd to bring up Korematsu.
The US government of the day similarly interned many enemy aliens, uncontroversially.

Chuck said...

Drago, you miserable dumb fucking troll.

What is it about, "I support the majority in this case, I like Roberts' decision, and I am disappointed that it wasn't unanimous," do you not get?

Althouse, this is what your comments pages have come to. What a disgrace.

Unknown said...

That 4 justices actually disagree with the LAW on this is very disturbing.

Shouting Thomas said...

Two issues strike me here.

1. Korematsu involved U.S. citizens. This case has nothing to do with U.S. citizens. How did foreign Muslims gain any rights in U.S. law?

2. Are the dissenters suggesting simply erasing the reality of enemies? Muslims did carry out 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in the U.S. A whole lot of Muslims really are enemies of the U.S. and want to kill me and my family because they are Muslims. We don't have the right to defend ourselves by excluding them?

FIDO said...

Didn't we just have a post on Kagan as centerist? So much for that theory.

Drago said...

"Brian Stelter republican" Chuck: "Drago, you miserable dumb fucking troll."

Sounds exactly like every far left loon....

Reasonable people should feel free to draw reasonable and inevitable conclusions.

clint said...

If I understand correctly, Breyer and Kagan want to leave the injunction in place while the courts litigate the Establishment Clause arguments. Further, they want those arguments to turn on the evidence of how the government is actually applying the order. Which argument they want to happen while the government is under an injunction preventing them from applying the order.

That's totally incoherent, so perhaps I've misunderstood.


Thomas's concurrence makes an excellent point: "In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so. "

gspencer said...

June 25-26 is the anniversary dates of Custer's Last Stand (1876). Take that, lefties.

Drago said...

"Peter Fonda republican" Chuck: "Althouse, this is what your comments pages have come to. What a disgrace."

Some of us thought it was disgraceful that some posters on Althouse would attack a child via rumors some time back.

Disgraceful indeed.

Fabi said...

Let's hope there not a Red Hen in Chuck's neighborhood -- he sounds significantly more unhinged than usual.

Critter said...

Why no memory of Obama’s travel ban, the first of which affected mostly Muslim nations?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-mocks-trump-but-has-barred-immigrants-many-muslim-6-times

Chuck said...

Althouse, you say you deplore "clutter" on your comments pages. I recall you generally defining clutter as repetitive personalized attacks that depart from the subject matter of the main post.

Did I understand that correctly?

hombre said...

Korematsu and Masterpiece? Seriously? This woman is an embarrassment. She is the Maxine Waters of the Supreme Court.

Char Char Binks said...

A win is a win. So much winning!

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

Good decision, worrying that it was so close. People will say (again) that Trump brought the divisiveness on himself with his remarks. I think a major part of Trump hatred is attachment to what amounts to open borders. For intellectuals, this proves our Disney humanitarianism or something.

gspencer said...

"looks at 'the claim that the Proclamation was issued for the unconstitutional purpose of excluding Muslims'"

No matter when in time over the last 1400 years, no matter where in the world, there's been this constant. Find Muslims, find trouble.

Drago said...

ST: "2. Are the dissenters suggesting simply erasing the reality of enemies?"

The dissenters are stating quite clearly that the only enemies they recognize are American conservatives.

Which makes perfect sense and is why the lefties on the court, for whom LLR Chuck does yeoman's work in providing BS deflections for, will bastardize any and all laws to advance their political will.

There is no law with the lefties for whom LLR Chuck toils so. There is only power and the fundamental altering of the American Republic experiment.

Drago said...

Lloyd W. Robertson: "Good decision, worrying that it was so close. People will say (again) that Trump brought the divisiveness on himself with his remarks."

Only completely leftist hacks......and one LLR......by the name of Chuck.

Reasonable inferences may be drawn...

Drago said...

I have a feeling that LLR Chuck's "Durbin Mood Ring" will be dark for quite some time after this ruling....

Drago said...

"Talia Lavin republican" Chuck: "Althouse, you say you deplore "clutter" on your comments pages."

Perhaps you should leave and proceed to internet locales more amenable to your tastes. I hear the ("Brilliant") Maddow blogs are rockin' right now....

Mike said...

Add "Hall Monitor" to the LLR's aspirations on this blog. It never works, Chuck. Why even do it? Are you related to Permit Patty in California?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Sounds exactly like every far left loon....

To be fair, he also sounds like every other inferior self-appointed elitist that isn’t smart enough to understand how Trump communicates.

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Mike: "Add "Hall Monitor" to the LLR's aspirations on this blog."

We should all chip in and purchase an appropriate armband for LLR Chuck.

We could also discuss how the left has utterly abused the judicial processes by directly attacking the executive branch under Trump while some LLR's of note pretend that there is some justification for said abuse.

Bay Area Guy said...

Korematsu was a tough decision (wrongly decided), because we were in a fucking brutal war against Japan and Nazi Germany, where 60 Million people died.

Comparing that to importing low-skilled foreign future Democrat voters?

Sorry, not buying it.

mccullough said...

San Bernardino and Orlando cinched this case, along with the truck guy in NYC last Halloween. . The 9/11 attackers were visitors to the US, not immigrants. That just doesn’t fly anymore. No one has time or ability to discern the difference between the radicals and the merely harmless. Muslims in the US can’t tell who is going to kill. The damn FBI informant told the bureau his son was just a harmless loudmouth. Then his son kills 49 people st the Pulse. Some informant.

No one kills anyone by not baking a cake.

CJinPA said...

I envision the Mexican government allowing large squalid refugee camps on the Mexican side of the border. Soros will fund the basic sanitary needs. The camps’ purpose will be to allow American and Intenational journalists to present the hungry faces of women and children for the soap opera viewers.

Yup.

Inga said...

It’s telling that Drago cares so much about Chuck.

Chuck, Althouse doesn’t care.

As for the Muslim Ban, yes let’s call it what it is.

That is all.

Now prepare yourselfs for roughly 10 comments from Drago responding to my comment.

Amadeus 48 said...

Surprised it wasn't 9-0.

Annie C said...

Mike said...
Add "Hall Monitor" to the LLR's aspirations on this blog. It never works, Chuck. Why even do it? Are you related to Permit Patty in California?

Good one!

BDNYC said...

Was going to post my disappointment in the 4 liberals for letting politics cloud their legal judgment, but I see others beat me to it.

Browndog said...

Let me guess-

Muslims have just replaced Latino babies as the most oppressed people in the world!?

Drago said...

"I envision the Mexican government allowing large squalid refugee camps on the Mexican side of the border. Soros will fund the basic sanitary needs. The camps’ purpose will be to allow American and Intenational journalists to present the hungry faces of women and children for the soap opera viewers."

The lefties made sure it worked for the made up "Palestinians" for 50 years.

But then again, today is a new day.

Of course, the lunatic lefties will continue with their propaganda campaign of calling this a "muslim ban", even though only a small percentage of muslims around the globe fall under this, but then again, that's what unthinking voice-actuated automatons do....

Etienne said...

YUGE!

The Progressives red flag is at half mast.

traditionalguy said...

And the Trump Train rolls on. He got away with destroying the myth of Mohammedans being a religion. They are a raiding army seeking conquests so they can steal wealth and slaves. The rest is window dressing about a Prophet and a murderous god approving the armed raiders murders and thefts.

Seeing Red said...

I envision the Mexican government allowing large squalid refugee camps on the Mexican side of the border. Soros will fund the basic sanitary needs. The camps’ purpose will be to allow American and Intenational journalists to present the hungry faces of women and children for the soap opera viewers.

Get the UN and their rape squad involved too.

Inga said...

“Now the question becomes what to do about those persons who have entered this country from that turbulent region since the travel ban was in abeyance.”

Separate them from their children, put the children in cages and incarcerate the adults, of course.

Drago said...

It’s telling that lefty Inga cares so much about Chuck.

Makes perfect sense, really.

Francisco D said...

Sotomayor's opinion is a joke.

She presumes to read Trump's mind and discover that he is motivated by "anti-Muslim" animus.

How can an idiot like this be a Constitutional expert, as we expect from the SCOTUS?

Jupiter said...

"The camps’ purpose will be to allow American and Intenational journalists to present the hungry faces of women and children for the soap opera viewers."

Our own little Gaza Strip, hey? With Guatemalans instead of Palestinians, and MS-13 instead of Hamas. I begin to discern a pattern.

Drago said...

Inga: "Separate them from their children, put the children in cages and incarcerate the adults, of course"

Hmmm, we could continue obama policy and do that, of course.

But perhaps we could simply keep the families together in decent conditions until they are all deported instead.

Upon reflection, I think the second path is probably the wiser as long as we can adjudicate cases quickly enough.

Earnest Prole said...

I thought this would be a 7-2 Constitutional slam dunk until I read the weaselly reasoning in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Big Mike said...

I decided to answer my own question posed at 9:35 and try to work my way through the Breyer dissent. I don’t read that corruption of the English language known as legalese very fluently, but I think I have the gist. What he says — and Kagan concurs — is that the way the Executive Order is written is plainly within the President’s power, but the way the order is implemented and enforced shows clear anti-Muslim bias. First, Breyer presents numbers that show that student visas from the affected countries are down by a significant amount. Fair enough, but I would ask Breyer why, if this demonstrates a blanket bias against Muslims, the numbers are nevertheless much greater than zero? If the consular officials are directed to do more careful vetting than before, then I would expect that many legitimate students will have their plans delayed by a semester or even a year while this country verifies that they are legitimate scholars and not suicide bombers. Breyer then launches into a sob story about a girl with a serious disease who cannot get treatment in her native Yemen but was turned down for a visa. But why must she come here? Why can’t she go to Europe or Saudi Arabia for treatment?

So thst’s as far as I bothered to read. IMHO Breyer’s dissent is poorly thought through and thoroughly bogus.

Drago said...

Poor Inga. She is so flummoxed she has reverted to 2 weeks old talking points (2014 cage pictures) AND 18 month old talking points (Muslim Ban!!).

LOL

The left cannot adapt.

Ever.

But they can become more violent. There's alot of Hodgkinson's out there.

Seeing Red said...

Thomas's concurrence makes an excellent point: "In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so. "

Stay in your lane. You have delusions of grandeur.

Ann Althouse said...

Don't hit first and then cry to Mommy.

Seeing Red said...

If we actually had a wall built before WWII, the Japanese would have found it more difficult to cause mischief because they wouldn’t have been able to set up safe houses in Mexico.

M Jordan said...

We won! We won! Haha Chuck and Inga, you lost! We won! We won! Winning is everything! Elections have consequences! We won! Trump is GEOTUS! Your guy/gal is Loser! We won and will win more! I’m not tired of winning or reminding you, We Won! Bigly!

Real American said...

the president didn't make those "charged statements about Muslims." A presidential candidate with no state authority made them. In Masterpiece, the government actors displaced discriminatory intent. There's a huge difference, particularly because the Travel Ban isn't a Muslim Ban - never was.

Drago said...

Big Mike: "Breyer then launches into a sob story about a girl with a serious disease who cannot get treatment in her native Yemen...."

That tells you all you need to know.

This girl somehow has a "right" to come here. Which makes sense from a leftist point of view if your intent is to completely replace the current American electorate.

Without Trump and his judge appointees we would simply have no borders and America would not exist as a constitutional republic for very long.

BamaBadgOR said...

Don't tell Sally Yates. Is it too late to disbar her?

chuck said...

I've now read two dissents by Sotomayor and am completely unimpressed. Geez, it is like wading through emotional arguments by a teenager.

Big Mike said...

Careful, Drsgo. I’m better at German than I am at legalese. And I am terrible at German.

mockturtle said...

And sided with Crisis Pregnancy Centers so they will no longer be forced to display state-funded abortion information in their clinics. So much winning!

PackerBronco said...


Blogger Browndog said...
Another day I thank God for Trump.

Replace Gorsuch will a Hillary commie and the utter shit coming out of the Supreme Court would make your head spin.


If it had been the same immigration travel ban but issued by Hillary that vote would have been 9-0 to uphold it assuming that the lower courts would have upheld a challenge in the first place.

Remember, the issue here was not the wording of the ban or the constitutional right of the president to issue a travel ban, it was based solely on Trump's motivation and the judge's assumptions about his character.

In other words: 4 liberal judges don't like Trump and don't trust Trump and THAT made it unconstitutional.

M Jordan said...

chuck said...
I've now read two dissents by Sotomayor and am completely unimpressed. Geez, it is like wading through emotional arguments by a teenager“

Just think, Chuck, had you had your way we’d have another Sotomayer on the court.

Fabi said...

"In other words: 4 liberal judges don't like Trump and don't trust Trump and THAT made it unconstitutional."

Exactly right, PackerBronco. Four liberal justices and Chuck. Credit due to those justices -- at least they didn't go crying to their mommies.

Annie C said...

Don't hit first and then cry to Mommy.

This is why Althouse is beloved. Sanity amongst the madness and a wicked sense of humor!

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etienne said...

America can't make the same mistake as the Lakota at Little Big Horn.

These people will keep coming unless you fight and kill them. "They are like ants"

Don't let the Spanish army's put you on a reservation.

If someone comes up to you speaking Spanish, lop their heads off. Men, women, and children. They want to put you on reservations. They want to steal all that you value.

chuck said...

> Just think, Chuck, had you had your way we’d have another Sotomayer on the court.

Wrong chuck kiddo, maybe you should engage your brain before hitting return.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

M Jordan said...

Just think, Chuck, had you had your way we’d have another Sotomayer on the court.

Don't mix up chuck and Chuck, they are two different commenters

traditionalguy said...

I expect this means the 5 Justices will also be shouted out of all public accomodations 24/7 by cadres of Soros trained Thuggees.

Drago said...

chuck: "I've now read two dissents by Sotomayor and am completely unimpressed. Geez, it is like wading through emotional arguments by a teenager"

Careful!

You might find yourself on the wrong end of a visit from LLR Chuck approved La Raza thugs.

YoungHegelian said...

@BP,

One does not lead men with legal briefs.

One leads them with legal boxers!

The undergarment of choice for today's Ubermensch!

Seeing Red said...

Will Trump tweet his displeasure and boil it down to it should have been an affirming 9-0 for the country because it’s about the country and cobstitution and not the man sitting in the chair?

traditionalguy said...

Breaking News: An Hawaiian District Court Judge has just enjoined the Supreme Court from making bigoted decisions.

Seeing Red said...

One leads them with legal boxers!

That’s how we good the former rapist in chief. He was cool, he answered the question.

YoungHegelian said...

@Chuck/M Jordan,

I've now read two dissents by Sotomayor and am completely unimpressed.

My wife & I have had that conversation quite a few times. Not just from her decisions, but from listening to her speak on NPR & other venues.

She really comes across as not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

Levi Starks said...

Looks like there’s 5 justices that won’t be dining out much in the foreseeable future.

Inga said...

The undergarment of choice for today's Ubermensch

Very poor choice of words.

Jim Daniels said...

Inga: "As for the Muslim Ban, yes let’s call it what it is. That is all."

This pretty much summarizes the depth of Inga's intellect.

MikeR said...

Good news all around. I wish one of the liberal justices had decided to be honest. I wish that more had been done with the nationwide injunctions that Thomas commented on. But good news.

YoungHegelian said...

@Inga,

Very poor choice of words.

Why? Did you forget your copy of Beyond Good & Evil on the bus again?

rhhardin said...

The Japanese-Americans were free to leave and live elsewhere than the west coast. Many enlisted to fight in Europe.

We lacked information on the culture they were bringing to the US and acted to minimize the risk of that unknown.

Drago said...

YH: "She really comes across as not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree."

I suppose it should go without saying that as a white male (presumably) you are genetically incapable of discerning the deeper meaning and brilliance of what a wise latina brings to these rulings.

Virgil Hilts said...

"what are Breyer and Kagan finding to dissent over? - "
Very, very disappointed. I thought Kagan had more integrity than this. I agree 100% with Thomas. Hopefully we are only one new judge away from the SCt stopping this behavior. But I am also waiting for some good District Court to strike down a bad District Court's nation-wide injunction as unconstitutional, and enjoining the bad court from enforcing it. Once that SHTF stuff happens the whole thing should fall apart pretty quickly.

damikesc said...

Id ask how the soon to be President of Mexico's comments about emigration to the US turns the border to an outright national security issue.

Drago said...

Virgil Hilts: "Very, very disappointed. I thought Kagan had more integrity than this."

Seriously, in this day and age, with all the evidence that abounds regarding the lib/left/LLR and their intent, why would you continue to think that?

And I'm afraid that pointing out a Dershowitz or two here and there only illustrates that the exceptions prove the new left/lib/LLR rule.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
“Now the question becomes what to do about those persons who have entered this country from that turbulent region since the travel ban was in abeyance.”

Separate them from their children, put the children in cages and incarcerate the adults, of course."

You mean Obama them? Remember those days? When you didn't give a shit?

Dullard.

Fabi said...

"Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country..."

Yahtzee!

Khesanh 0802 said...

A really critical passage from Roberts:

"But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.”...

To me that sentence alone signifies the importance of Trump's electoral win and the new balance on the court.

I have the feeling that the theme of the big cases this term is "let's follow the law". From Sotomayor's recent dissents we can see clearly how she is willing to let emotion take the place of the law. Even Ginsburg was willing to enforce the law on a couple of occasions.

I also think that Thomas' concurrence regarding "universal injunctions" that included:"If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so." Was a clear invitation to bring a case that will end the practice.

Larry J said...

Browndog said...

Another day I thank God for Trump.

Replace Gorsuch will a Hillary commie and the utter shit coming out of the Supreme Court would make your head spin.


Indeed. I didn't vote for Trump in the primary, but was willing to crawl across broken glass to vote for him in the general election solely because of the damage Hillary would've done with her judicial selections. I've never for a second regretted my vote for Trump. There has not been a single second where I believed we'd be better off had Hillary won.

Big Mike said...

Don't hit first and then cry to Mommy.

Easy to see that Althouse raised two sons!

Bay Area Guy said...

The 4 liberal justices of SCOTUS are politicians first, judges second. They don't like the "travel ban," they want it gone, and they have ruled to banish it. Thankfully, they've been outvoted.

Really, they should drop their robes and run for office. When you run for office, you get to make policy (if you can convince a majority of folks to support your cause).

I'm not even saying the "travel ban" is a wonderful thing. Maybe, it's not. But at least, we someone accountable for it -- President Trump.

If it turns out to be a bad thing, then hold Trump accountable.

If it turns out to reduce the importation of terrorists (a good thing), then give Trump credit.

For some reason, the Left is confused by this simple logic.

rehajm said...

It took Thomas to sum this one up. Perfect.

Mac McConnell said...

MAGA! I got a Scherenboner watching all the sad faces and hysterics on CNN and MSNBC this morning. Fuck em.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
Don't hit first and then cry to Mommy.


Oh, bullshit, Althouse. I came to you privately about the abusive trolling on your comments pages. And you did nothing about it.

You had a warning/"suggestion" about personal attacks, and when I publicly reminded you about how that was observed mostly in the breach, you took that down.

I don't need your protection and don't want it. Your thuggish little band of Trumpkin commenters doesn't scare me.

It's just a matter of your own blog's appearance to other readers who aren't Trump fanatics; as well as a matter of your own hypocrisy in selectively scolding supposed "clutter" on your comments pages, but only sometimes.

M Jordan said...

Sorry, Good Chuck. I thought you were Bad Chuck. Bad Chuck’s malevolence is strong.

Balfegor said...

Re: YoungHegelian:

She really comes across as not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

Oh, but come on. Even if she were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.

I join a lot of other commenters here in praising Thomas's concurrence. Contra Browndog, I think Thomas actually gets a lot of recognition -- I know he's been my favourite Justice since law school. He's just despised as a race traitor by academe.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

the Human Parrot: The undergarment of choice for today's Ubermensch

Very poor choice of words.


But you couldn't in a million years give a coherent explanation of why it is a "very poor choice of words".

The parrot obviously did not understand the clear meaning of Young H's comment.

The parrot just saw the word "├╝bermensch" and began squawking.

Perhaps in this case "nematode" is more apt than "parrot". Not anything as sophisticated as hearing and repeating. Mere stimulus --> response.

The parrot keeps descending the ladder of cognitive complexity.

Big Mike said...

@M Jordan, “chuck” with a lower case ‘c’ is a good guy. “Chuck” with a capital ‘C’ is a moby.

Darrell said...

Oh, bullshit, Althouse. I came to you privately about the abusive trolling on your comments pages. And you did nothing about it.

Like a little bitch.
And after making threatening comments to others here. You aren't Jesus turning over tables outside the Temple.
No rationale person would follow you email orders.
Most would not open it.
You backed the Hawaiian judges at the time.
Because you are a sad little loser bitch.
Go call Ted Cruz and talk about "smart" amnesty.
Just don't be surprised if he doesn't recall any of that with the SCOTUS in sight.

Chuck said...

Ann Althouse said...
Don't hit first and then cry to Mommy.


And another thing; I didn't "hit first."

Look at this page. I can't believe that you really read it first, before posting such a stupid comment yourself. I was called out by name before I ever wrote anything on this page. I was called out in a way that directly contradicted what I'd previously written on your comments pages. And even at that, I returned directly to the subject matter of the post, and the substance of the decision.

You really do have a problem with "clutter" on your comments pages. And unless you now have a new definition of "clutter" as "any opposing viewpoint that is not loyal to Trump," that clutter problem isn't me.

Jim at said...

Disappointment would have required hope that the outcome could have been better. There never was any such hope.

Indeed. I thought maybe - just maybe - 6-3 with Kagan, but nope.
Entirely predictable.

Yet, a win is a win.

Fabi said...

"Oh, bullshit, Althouse. I came to you privately about the abusive trolling on your comments pages. And you did nothing about it."

He doesn't need Ann to protect him from other commenters, yet he tried privately whining and described the behavior as abusive. This is delicious and calorie-free.

Browndog said...

Angus Johnston: Historian, NYCU Prof

"Win the congress, then impeach Trump. Win the presidency, then impeach Gorsuch. And in the meantime, fight like hell."

When asked on what grounds to impeach Gorsuch:

"The grounds for impeachment of Supreme Court justices, like the grounds for impeachment of presidents, are whatever the hell the House says they are."

_________


I've had enough of this crap. Even some on the right buy into this. The specific language in the Constitution "high crimes and misdemeanors" is there for a reason.

Fabi said...

"Look at this page. "

Such a convenient definition of "first"! Lulz

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
...
...
You backed the Hawaiian judges at the time.


No, you pathetic lying weasel. I didn't "back" Judge Derrick Watson of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii at the time.

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-federal-judge-in-hawaii-has-blocked.html

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

Chuck didn't hit first.
At least that's what the archives say now that he has deleted his "pre-emptive" comments.
Which he would never do, of course.
Because he says so.

Jim at said...

Except for Roberts' vote on Obamacare.

Obama shamed the Court before the decision was announced publicly and Roberts turned. It was pathetic both for Obama to influence the Court on a decision they already made and for Roberts to go along with it.

The good news is the law is continuing to collapse under its own weight.

damikesc said...

Guys, Chuck is not a Democrat. I may not agree with some of his beliefs, but you act like he is Chuck Schumer. He may find Trump repugnant, but he has said he voted for him repeatedly. He may personally dislike him, but he gets an awful lot of odd abuse around here.

That being said, Chuck, do you have any feelings on McCain supporting the harassment of conservative non profits under Obama? I know you admire him more than i.

Bay Area Guy said...

I haven't scrolled through all the comments to see the brouhaha over Chuck. Generally, I kinda like Chuck. He hates Trump, but he's on side of the angels on many issues.

But, this travel ban/SCOTUS issue is a bazillion times bigger than whatever opinion Chuck has!

Without Trump, we don't get Gorsuch.

Without Gorsuch, we have some Hillary appointee, possibly Loretta Lynch.

Can you imagine an alternative universe, where Hillary is Prez, our borders are undefended, and Loretta Lynch is on SCOTUS?

That's an ugly world, Man!

That's why I am a very happy, calm dude, Man.

clint said...

Something to remember with all these 5-4 decisions -- Merrick Garland.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mitch McConnell!

OldManRick said...

So according to Ginsburg and Sotomayor in the Masterpiece case, it's okay for the government to show bias against religious beliefs when they won't bake a cake, but it's not okay for the government to show bias against countries where some adherents of the dominant religion want to actively kill us and we have no way of figuring out which ones want to.

But I guess they're consistent in one thing - it's okay for them to show bias against Trump and still rule on his decisions.

If they can't read and understand the plain text, why did they bother to learn to read at all?

Khesanh 0802 said...

Chuck: Your performance ( horrible) regarding illegal immigration law a couple of days ago and your calling the majority who comment here "dumbfuck non-lawyers" has earned you the opprobrium (look it up!) you deserve. There are some very interesting and helpful lawyer types who write well and help us "dumbfuck non-lawyers" get a better grasp of the legal issues at hand. They are very much appreciated. You? Not at all.

Jim at said...

As for the Muslim Ban, yes let’s call it what it is. - Inga

So every Muslim from every country is banned?

Good to know.

Idiot.

MountainMan said...

From what I have seen so far from her time on the Court the "wise Latina" is in over her head and has no business being on the Supreme Court. Decades from now, after she is gone, she is bound to be remembered as one of the weakest and worst justices.

However, bringing up Korematsu - really bizarre for this case - does bring to mind a great justice, Robert Jackson, probably one of my most admired. He wrote a clear, concise - and beautiful - dissent in Korematsu, which is often quoted. In case you have not read it, here it is the most important passage:

"Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that apart from the matter involved here he is not law abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived. [...] [H]is crime would result, not from anything he did, said, or thought, different than they, but only in that he was born of different racial stock. Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one's antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him. But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign. If Congress in peace-time legislation should enact such a criminal law, I should suppose this Court would refuse to enforce it."

Sotomayor is no Robert Jackson.

Khesanh 0802 said...

@Althouse/Meade Did Chuck really have the nerve to complain about commenters here? Even Inga holds her own without whining to Mommy.

I can't image anyone being a client of Chuck's. Talk about incompetent representation!

Crimso said...

"Why can’t she go to Europe or Saudi Arabia for treatment?"

Or Cuba.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Chuck: Oh, bullshit, Althouse. I came to you privately about the abusive trolling on your comments pages. And you did nothing about it.

Chuck, you're pathetic.

Chuck said...

Khesanh 0802 said...
Chuck: Your performance ( horrible) regarding illegal immigration law a couple of days ago and your calling the majority who comment here "dumbfuck non-lawyers" has earned you the opprobrium (look it up!) you deserve. There are some very interesting and helpful lawyer types who write well and help us "dumbfuck non-lawyers" get a better grasp of the legal issues at hand. They are very much appreciated. You? Not at all.


I already answered this. HERE. (9:15 am this morning.) Read it.

As I said, I've got nothing against truck drivers talking about trucks. And I've got nothing against truck drivers having opinions and voting. If I wanted a detailed expert opinion about trucks, I mostly ONLY want to hear from truck drivers and truck mechanics.

But when it comes to opining on things like "non-citizens have no due process rights," I want to hear from lawyers. Not truck drivers.

Annie C said...

This is delicious and calorie-free.

Thank you Fabi, I was getting worried about my waistline! Much better now.

MountainMan said...

As for the Muslim Ban, yes let’s call it what it is. - Inga

You've got to be kidding. The EO never mentions religion. It includes countries like North Korea and Venezuela. Are they Muslim? If it is a Muslim ban, why doesn't it include Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and many other countries with large numbers of Muslims?

Howard said...

Etienne's happy, he got his Maginot Line.

cubanbob said...

The ruling disturbs me although I'm in favor of the outcome. The central question the court should have addressed is not the religious question of banning Muslims. Or the president's animus to them or any other group. The question is is there an inherit right to travel to or immigrate to the US? If there isn't then it makes no difference what the president's motives and animus are as long as they are not barred by statute. The onus is on Congress to decide by statue what grounds a president cannot ban travel to or immigrate to the US. The courts should have made its ruling solely on statutory authority and nothing more. Instead they got into areas they should not have gotten into on grounds that were falsely presumed to have validity. One extra benefit is Thomas's admonition to the lower courts.

Francisco D said...

"So according to Ginsburg and Sotomayor in the Masterpiece case, it's okay for the government to show bias against religious beliefs when they won't bake a cake, but it's not okay for the government to show bias against countries where some adherents of the dominant religion want to actively kill us and we have no way of figuring out which ones want to.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor are not only intellectually inconsistent, they have no respect or apparent understanding of their roles. The Constitution is meaningless to them.

Seeing Red said...

Inga doesn’t want Venezuelans banned . She wants chaos and open borders.

Seeing Red said...

While she sits in dairy land.

robother said...

I love that the SCOTUS majority opinion finally overrules Korematsu (which was decided by 6 Democrat-appointed Justices). And all 4 Democrat-appointed Justices are in the dissent. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose.

Bruce Hayden said...

I agree with some above. Lay off Chuck here. He often sounds more GOPe than NeverTrumper, but I have seen little evidence that he strayed from the righteous side here, but as an honest attorney was on the side of all that is good and wonderful, including little puppies, pretty flowers, etc, and opposed the gross judicial overreach by that judge in Hawaii. Save your venom for when he really deserves it.

Now, the mad cat lady is a different story....

Howard said...

It is a Muslim Ban: a wink is as good as a nod. Why you cucks running away from the reality of it.

Browndog said...

Decades from now, after she is gone, she is bound to be remembered as one of the weakest and worst justices.

Which is why she is not a jurist, but a member of a voting bloc. If they believed in the strength of the individual as opposed to the power of the collective, they...wouldn't be liberals.

Drago said...

Howard: "It is a Muslim Ban: a wink is as good as a nod. Why you cucks running away from the reality of it."

You do yourself no favors by going Full Inga.

Chuck said...

Inga said...
...
...
As for the Muslim Ban, yes let’s call it what it is.


Dear Inga,

I am seeing this sentiment now, in lots of the fresh reporting on this case. Typical of the reporting is this AP news story.

As I read that AP story, I see it filled to the brim with dog-whistle signals to the left. "Sharply divided Supreme Court... A dissenting justice said the outcome was a historic mistake... big victory for Trump... the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch..." It goes on and on like that. Every paragraph; almost every sentence.

It's so dissatisfying to me. It misses the point.

The one and only reason that Trump Travel Ban Number 3.0 survived a court challenge (as it should have) was because by the time that the Trump Administration's lawyers got around to version 3.0, it was completely unlike the stupid things that Trump had been saying. In the end, it was a perfectly legal (if largely meaningless) order.

It's not a "Muslim ban," Inga. It just isn't. If it had been a Muslim ban, the result would not have been what it was.

If anybody really wanted a Muslim ban -- if Trump wanted a Muslim ban -- that case was lost before it started.

Fabi said...

Annie C -- it's a guilt-free treat!

Drago said...

Decades from now, after she is gone, she is bound to be remembered as one of the weakest and worst justices.

Actually, decades from now, after America and it's experiment as a Republic has gone the way of Venezuela and Mexico and Iran and others, there will be statues of the Wise Latina in every school.

Asia will become the key repository of the Christian faith, completing its travels from North Africa/Middle East to Europe to the America's then on to Asia and economic power will reside there as well as the left will have turned America into an empty husk that resembles Caracas/Mexico City and the Cartel controlled border towns.....

.....unless.......

Bruce Hayden said...

“The ruling disturbs me although I'm in favor of the outcome. The central question the court should have addressed is not the religious question of banning Muslims. Or the president's animus to them or any other group. The question is is there an inherit right to travel to or immigrate to the US?”

That is what you get with a Robert as the Chief. As such, he controls the writing of decisions on whatever side he is on, and uses that strategically. Probably more than any other CJ in recent memory. That is why you see him flip so often when the conservatives have lost Kennedy - so that he can minimize the damage of adverse rulings by writing the opinions. He may have the best legal mind on the Court (don’t know about Gorsuch yet), but, I think, is legally cautious by nature.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: " it was completely unlike the stupid things that Trump had been saying."

LLR Chuck continues to breath life into the leftist dream of utterly improper use of a politicians statements instead of the letter of the laws/rulings under review.

This is the little game Chuck plays to help his operational dem allies as he undermines the very ruling that he knows is proper and therefore he must be seen supporting.

To maintain his street and blog "cred".

Jupiter said...

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

"The parrot keeps descending the ladder of cognitive complexity."

Hey, c'mon. I thought she had a pretty good idea there, locking the Muslims up in cages. Although then some ACLU lawyer would make us feed them.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Drago,

Actually, decades from now, after America and it's experiment as a Republic has gone the way of Venezuela and Mexico and Iran and others, there will be statues of the Wise Latina in every school.

Don't bum us out, Man! We are fighting to stave this off!

Jim at said...

It is a Muslim Ban: a wink is as good as a nod. Why you cucks running away from the reality of it. - Howard

You use that word - cuck - often, and it's quite clear you have no idea what it means.

Etienne said...

Howard said...Etienne's happy, he got his Maginot Line.

Ha, you got me all wrong. My grandfather fought for Wilhelm, married a Czech girl, and had his country confiscated by the French, who took Lorraine.

I have French heredity from my mother, who was born after the conquest.

Bay Area Guy said...

Has Sally Yates been interviewed on this decision? She might want to brush up on Con Law.

DanTheMan said...

>>It is a Muslim Ban: a wink is as good as a nod.

I agree. It is a Muslim ban put together by that idiot Trump who forgot to include the world's largest Muslim countries.

How could he be so stupid as to forget them when trying to ban Muslims?
Didn't he realize there are Muslims in other countries like Canada, who will still be free to enter the US in spite of his Muslim ban?

This has to be the worst Muslim ban in all history. Of course that stupid Trump would be the one to do it!

Gahrie said...

But when it comes to opining on things like "non-citizens have no due process rights," I want to hear from lawyers. Not truck drivers.

Which is exactly why you are an asshole and it is believable that you are a member of the GOP Establishment. It's the fucking lawyers who have fucked things up so bad. Who wrote Dred? Who wrote Roe? Who wrote Korematsu? Lawyers.

I'd like to see non-lawyers appointed to the court...nothing in the Constitution says we have to be ruled by Harvard and Yale lawyers.

DanTheMan said...

>>It's the fucking lawyers who have fucked things up so bad.

How many Fortune 500, the most successful companies in the world, are run by lawyers?

Chuckles, if I want to know what the plain meanings of words are, I'll consult a dictionary. If I want to know how they can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what they mean, I'll consult a lawyer.

Bruce Hayden said...

Howard: "It is a Muslim Ban: a wink is as good as a nod. Why you cucks running away from the reality of it."

Obviously another left wing loon who didn’t read the opinion, but rather is repeating canned talking points. Whatever you might say about CJ Roberts’ timidity, this point was more than adequately rebutted, discredited, and almost laughed out of court. Here are some of the reasons that the left is being ludicrous here:
- North Korea is not a majority Muslim country.
- it only covered 8% of the Muslims in the world
- it did not cover the biggest Muslim majority countries
- Muslim majority countries were removed from the list after their situations changed
- most of the countries on the list were effectively put there by either Congress or previous Administrations.
- Trump was a private citizen when making most of the statements used against him here.

But, but but, Trump is a bigot, (etc).

Sorry - the orchestrated fake outrage at Trump here has no real relevance in determining whether or not this EO was legal or not. Or at least shouldn’t be, but the dissents make me question that, or at least their judicial temperament, and suitability for judicial office.

Qwinn said...

Reagan - not a lawyer
Bush I - not a lawyer
Dan Quayle - not a lawyer
Bob Dole - lawyer, among many other occupations
Jack Kemp - not a lawyer
Bush II - not a lawyer
Cheney - not a lawyer
McCain - not a lawyer
Palin - not a lawyer
Romney - not a lawyer
Ryan - not a lawyer
Trump - not a lawyer
Pence - OMG A LAWYER

Mondale - lawyer
Ferraro - lawyer
Dukakis - lawyer
Lloyd Bentsen - OMG NOT A LAWYER
Bill Clinton - lawyer
Gore - failed law divinity school
Lieberman - lawyer
Kerry - lawyer
Edwards - lawyer
Obama - lawyer
Biden - lawyer
Hillary - lawyer
Kaine - lawyer

But remember, there's no difference at all between the two parties.

Actually, no one says that anymore, do they? Thank God for Trump.

Browndog said...

I'd like to see non-lawyers appointed to the court...nothing in the Constitution says we have to be ruled by Harvard and Yale lawyers.

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.

-Donald J. Trump, via twitter

clint said...

Chuck-

Something I say a lot to Republicans who hate Trump: Ignore what he says, ignore how he says it, and for God's sake ignore what anonymous sources are saying to the press. Those are all just noise. Look at the actual policies and actions of President Trump. Judge him by those.

Actions speak louder than words.

Chuck said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Has Sally Yates been interviewed on this decision? She might want to brush up on Con Law.

She didn't resign over the proclamation that was the subject of this case. She resigned over an Executive Order that was pulled shortly afterward and then abandoned by the Trump Administration.

See? This is what is so fucked up about declaring "Trump wins" in connection with this decision.

Althouse often likes to attack unsubstantiated headlines. This should have been one of those.

Browndog said...

Qwinn said...

Nice work.

Unknown said...

Interesting to me is that the dissenters attempt to obfuscate by conflating race and religion, citizen to non-citizens. The internment during the war was done to Japanese Americans, most, if not all, of whom were citizens. Trump's proclamation bans non-citizens seeking entry to the US from certain countries. Dissenters to this case should be embarrassed.

-sw

Fabi said...

Mighty fine attempt, clint -- but it will never work. It will be easier to understand if you view Trump as the red laser pointer and Chuck as the frustrated kitten.

Drago said...

"Andrew Weissmann Republican" Chuck: "See? This is what is so fucked up about declaring "Trump wins" in connection with this decision."

LLR Chuck goes to bat for politicized leftist hack Sally Yates whi sought to use her office to improperly undermine Trump: Travel ban stunt, setup of Flynn, hiax dossier-based FISA warrants, etc.

I did not see that coming...






damikesc said...

Gahrie, while I like the idea of non lawyers on SCOTUS, I will mention that Earl Warren wasnt a lawyer.

Yancey Ward said...

This case will used at the Mexican border to deport the illegals crossing from Mexico. I guarantee you the same judges will issue nationwide injunctions preventing it for a while, but it won't take 15 months this time to adjudicate it.

Ralph L said...

The whole point of the ban was to prevent terrorists from slipping into the country before better vetting could be implemented. The SCOTUS should have stopped the Hawaiians early in 2017 and then ruled. We have a powerful Executive primarily to act quickly and decisively against foreign threats.

dreams said...

An anti ruling for all anti-Americans, the anti-Americans continue to lose (they're losers) as Trump keeps winning for America.

readering said...

Romney graduated HLS, Quayle some crappy law school in Indiana.

readering said...

Majority and minority closer to one another than either to bigoted DJT.

clint said...

@Yancey Ward-

Absolutely, on all counts. It will be fascinating to see how the injunction is justified.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 349   Newer› Newest»