The anti-Trump coalition of snowflakes, SJWs, eco-wienies, lawyers, gliberal activists and Democratic politicians didn't give up easily. When President Trump kept his election promise in January of 2017 by issuing an executive order banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries, they followed the grand old American traditions of (a) yapping on The View, (b) demonstrating and (c) suing. See "Trump keeps his promises; panic ensues", WWW 29/1/17.
At first they enjoyed some success with (c), as various judges -- Democratic appointees all -- signalled their virtue by striking down the order on whatever grounds they could think of. Injunctions followed, requiring the administration to stop being Islamophobic and open the doors to nationals of such peaceful and stable shitholes as Iran, Syria, Libya and Somalia. Imagine the anti-Trumpers' consternation, then, when in December the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the injunctions and ruled that the principal case, Hawaii v. Trump, should be heard on its merits. See "Winning bigly: SCOTUS upholds POTUS travel ban", WWW 5/12/17.
In an unusual burst of energy and speed, SCOTUS proceeded immediately to hear argument in that case, and today handed down its verdict, ruling in favour of President Trump in a 5-4 decision. The Supremes said that permanent entry restrictions on citizens of various terror-prone (read: Islamic) nations (read: shitholes) codified in Presidential Proclamation 9645 are fully consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Citing an earlier case, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a "fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control", and that the President has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes it is in the nation’s best interest so to do.
As for the argument that Presidential Proclamation 9645 is racist, Islamophobic, yada yada, and therefore contrary to the equal rights provisions of the Constitution and other equal rights legislation, SCOTUS ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution permits POTUS' policy, because the Proclamation gives a "religion-neutral" explanation -- the policy is intended to better secure America's border and therefore the American people -- which, on its face, is legitimate. If you come from Iran, it doesn't matter if you're a Muslim or a Christian or a Zoroastrian (look it up). You're out!
The sounds you hear on The View and in places like Dearborn MI and Burbank CA (see "Where's Mohammed?" map below) are weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth over an indisputable (literally) Trump victory, plus the frying of brains trying to think up ways of smuggling more followers of the Prophet -- all of them peace-loving, of course -- into the US of A. The Supreme Court has ruled, but the Islamic jihad against America is far from over.
No comments:
Post a Comment