Posted on 04/25/2018 8:44:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Editor's Note: John Schlafly co-wrote this column.
After being routed in the 2016 presidential primaries, a motley band of unreformed Never Trump Republicans gathered this week to make their last stand in the Supreme Court. They are asking the court to overturn what, other than the wall on the Mexican border, was the most decisive promise of the Trump campaign.
The group includes Republicans who were prominent on the national scene ten, twenty and even thirty years ago, including former New Jersey Governors Tom Kean and Christine Todd Whitman, who publicly declared in February 2016 that “I know I won’t vote for Trump.” Others, such as failed Utah candidate Evan McMullin, had a brief flicker of fame in 2016 before flaming out.
In case anyone needed a reminder why grassroots conservatives support Trump, the divide in the GOP on this case is conclusive evidence. Phyllis Schlafly’s classic book, “A Choice Not An Echo,” explained how an Establishment within the Republican Party works perpetually to withhold power from the conservative wing of the Party.
Trump ended the insiders’ control of the GOP. These filings by Republicans of yesteryear, however, illustrate that the Establishment is still fighting back.
Trump’s proposal for a temporary halt to immigration from Muslim countries was first announced in December 2015, following the massacre in San Bernardino, California, where a husband-and-wife team of legal Muslim immigrants shot and killed 14 people and seriously wounded 22 others at a Christmas party.
It was one of Trump’s campaign promises that drew wide support and helped Trump win the primaries and then the election. After Trump became president, the campaign promise was refined (some would say watered down) in versions 1, 2 and 3 of an executive order, which is now before the Supreme Court.
Trump tweeted that his restrictions “should be far larger, tougher and more specific.” Polling showed the public agreed more with Trump than with his detractors on this issue.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted immediately after Trump signed the first and strongest version of what has come to be known as the travel ban, found that 48% of Americans agreed and only 41% disagreed. A Rasmussen poll of likely voters found 57% agreed and only 33% opposed.
Support for Trump increased when the current version of the policy was issued last summer. Some 60 percent of Americans in an AP-NORC poll said they support the “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country,” while only 28 percent were opposed.
Among Republicans surveyed in the same poll, 84 percent of respondents supported the policy, while 9 percent opposed it. That poll demonstrates that liberal Republicans who signed the briefs in the Supreme Court are out of step with the base, even in California where a recent poll by the University of California at Berkeley showed that 59% favor an increase in deportations.
Yet that public sentiment has not taken hold in many federal courts, and particularly not in the Obama-dominated Fourth and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The federal judiciary, which is supposed to be the “least dangerous” branch in terms of power, has embraced a relentless agenda to block Trump’s actions at every turn.
Time and time again, from as faraway places as the federal district court in Hawaii, activist judges repeatedly enjoined Trump’s travel ban. Hawaii, of course, sees little harm from illegal aliens because so few can travel there, and California already benefits from a southern fence to stem the flow of illegal migration from Mexico.
The Supreme Court has allowed Trump’s restrictions to go into effect during the pendency of this appeal, so the Court should have no difficulty affirming presidential power to control our borders in this manner. President Trump acted property to suspend, temporarily, migration from North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.
Yet the resistance to Trump’s protection of our country against foreigners continues to be intense, as the briefs filed in the Supreme Court opposing Trump far outnumber those which support him. Even a group of former national security and so-called intelligence officials ask the Supreme Court to strike down Trump’s travel ban, despite how it obviously enhances our security by keeping potential enemies out.
Andrew C. McCarthy, as the former prosecutor of a terrorist, filed a brief in support of Trump’s position. “At the end of the day,” he points out, “it is not the role of the judiciary to intercede in such matters, and this Court should clearly say so.”
Fourteen States, including immigrant-popular Texas and Arizona, weighed in with the Supreme Court to support President Trump’s travel ban. The Court should listen to these States that are on the front lines of illegal migration into our country, and to the grassroots that support Trump.
Conservative policy goes to court -- court rules in favor of Conservatives -- lawyers vow to try again.
Conservative policy goes to court -- court rules in favor of Conservatives -- lawyers vow to try again.
Conservative policy goes to court -- court rules in favor of Conservatives -- lawyers vow to try again.
Conservative policy goes to court -- court rules for Liberals -- GAME OVER! SETTLED LAW! DONE!
RE: Conservative policy goes to court — court rules in favor of Conservatives — lawyers vow to try again.
With Gorsuch siding with the liberal wing of the court in the latest immigration case, I’m not so sure of the above anymore....
This issue is not "travel". The issue is invasion. This is a most basic constitutional issue that mandates the federal government stop invasion.
The United States...shall protect each [state] against invasion
U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 4.
Trump's argument is first and foremost a Constitutional argument, not a federal statute argument. Illegal immigration and immigration of our enemies are INVASION which the Constitution specifically mandates the federal government to prevent. Don't repeat the Lying Leftists Labels. This and related articles should be posted as an Invasion Ban Order.
>>With Gorsuch siding with the liberal wing of the court in the latest immigration case, I’m not so sure of the above anymore....<<
He was right on the law on that one. If we want a strict constructionist on the Court, we have to realize that he is going to vote what is right not necessarily what the philosophical bent is.
John Roberts confirmed - he’ll side with Conservatives to kill ObamaCare - didn’t happen.
Neil Gorsuch confirmed - he’ll side with Conservatives to stop illegals - didn’t happen.
Any doubt that another judge will disappoint? Three boxes smashed; only one left.
In 2014 Speaker Paul Ryan poste an article by Matt Wolking quoting 22 times where Obama said he can’t just make up laws.
A very good read that the courts are ignoring!
“22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law” https://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law
We “real Conservatives” have been played by the Republican Party for all of my life.
Only now, with their game exposed by the election of Donald Trump, do we have a clear, unblocked view of what they’ve been up to. The truth of the matter is that the “Republican Party” should be put out of business. They are far more devious and crooked than the RAT Party. There isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the Koch Bros. and George Soros. None of them give a $hit about anyone but themselves and their wallets. I see no way for this country to survive without the destruction of the GOP as it is currently operating, and the removal of those who have their hands on the controls. I am beginning to understand why the French employed the guillotine during their revolution. Our ultimate survival depends on permanently ridding our country of these people.
Most of our government is on board with the Bush Plan for North Mexico (aka USA).
The judges not appointed by Obama and Clinton were appointed by Bushes.
You get it. Too many here do not.
If I recall correctly, Trump cited a law from the ‘50s , which empowers the president to ban various classes of aliens from entering America.
Past presidents have used this law without liberals challenging in court.
Jimmy Carter made extensive use of this to evict Iranians from this country during the Iran hostage crisis. But that was ok with the liberals of the day.
There are only 2 major parties in this country, if you want to start a new party, how long are you willing to wait while the country goes to Hell?
“Trump’s proposal for a temporary halt to immigration from Muslim countries was first announced . . .”
It was never announced because that’s not what it is. It’s a ban on immigration of people from countries that have no way of vetting.
Maybe I’m slow, but how can an unConstitutional E. O. be protected from a Constitutional E. O. to nullify it?
If they can’t figure this one out, Lord help us.
Almost everything is more complex than this simply fix.
Well I confirmed I am slow, this was about altering the flow of problematic immigrants, not the Obama DACA E. O.
Open Borders Republicans commit treason five times before breakfast each day.
That is the same way voter recounts work.
Yep. So, you sit on your hands in November and send them a message.
Yep, let the RATS take over! Yeah, that’ll show the GOPe!
Only problem, the GOPe is part of the DC UniParty. The other parts? The RATS and the MSM.
“Yep. So, you sit on your hands in November and send them a message.
Yep, let the RATS take over! Yeah, that’ll show the GOPe!”
I’m not sure how you got from what I said to this you’ve written above. Surely we have to work with what we’ve got, good and bad. But part of the problem is imbedded in your comment. We have abetted the GOPE by continuing to vote for them, then sitting around p!ssing and moaning about how bad they are. I suppose until it’s so bad that the voters finally take definitive action against these miscreants, they will continue to run the Republican Party to it’s detriment. And FWIW, in almost 78 years, I’ve never missed a single election and I have never voted for anyone who wasn’t running as a Republican, although in hindsight, a number of them were not worthy of my vote (can you say GHWB, GWB McStain and Mittens for openers). I shudder when I think about what the first two did, and shudder a lot more when contemplating what the last two might have done.
” There are only 2 major parties in this country, if you want to start a new party, how long are you willing to wait while the country goes to Hell?”
Don’t look now, but it’s been going to hell for decades. The GOPE hasn’t really tried to apply the brakes for a long, long time!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.