Posted on 04/25/2018 10:12:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed to agree Wednesday that President Trump has the authority to ban immigrants from certain majority-Muslim countries if he thinks that it is necessary to protect the country.
Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the president’s travel ban proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017. But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trump’s best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it.
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that the president was well within his power to issue the proclamation and that it came after a thorough, worldwide review of the vetting procedures of countries.
The initiative applies only to a “tiny” number of countries, Francisco told the justices, and permits the vast majority of travelers to enter, including those from Muslim-majority countries.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was most active in advancing the notion that the president is privy to national security information that courts are ill-prepared to second-guess.
But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who always seems to occupy the pivotal position when conservative and liberal justices disagree, asked questions that mostly seemed to support the president’s authority.
The court is considering the third iteration of Trump’s travel ban, issued last fall, which barred various travelers from eight countries, six of them with Muslim majorities. They are Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. But restrictions on North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge. Chad was removed from the list earlier this month.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Former Obama administration acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, representing Hawaii, said that Trump had taken an “iron wrecking ball” to the law Congress had implemented to govern immigration and keep the nation safe.
“No president in 100 years” has tried to issue such a broad-based immigration ban, Katyal said, adding that it was based on Trump’s animosity toward Muslims.
But conservative justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, along with Roberts, peppered Katyal with questions on how the president had exceeded his lawful authority, given that Congress had granted the executive branch broad latitude to bar people’s entry to the U.S.
In a sane world with a non-politicized court, this would be a slam-dunk 9-0 decision.
But that is not the world in which we live.
Alito is apparently on record as saying, it doesnt sound like it applies to Muslims.
“No president in 100 years”
What a stupid argument. No President in 100 years was a woman, either. Does he argue against breaking that precedent?
“Supreme Court’s conservative justices appear to back Trump’s authority for travel ban”
Supreme Court’s liberal justices appear to not back Trump’s authority for travel ban.
Fixed it.
“What a stupid argument”
And...it’s not true.
Stop the insanity ,Ban the Demonut Party ,LOL
All I want to know is, Is it a tax?
Besides the fact that it is factually incorrect and a specious argument at best.
Travelers disappearing under visas and the current cut of terrorism hasn’t been a century old problem. It’s a very real and very recent (30 years?) problem.
Our navy was founded because of arab terrorism !
But...but...buit... TRUMP!!!!
From the halls of Montezuma and all that ....
What I found to be absolutely astounding is that the attorney arguing against the government pretty much came right out and said "if anyone but Trump had made this EO, it would have been legal."
One of the great legal minds of our time cleared that up when he said "that was campaigning, this is governing".
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.