Not Tired of Winning Yet XXIV
Supreme Court unanimously granted a stay allowing the Executive Order blocking travel from six terrorist nations for six months. The case itself will be heard in the fall.
U.S. President Donald Trump praised the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to review the legality of his temporary ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries and all refugees, and to allow it to be partly implemented in the meantime.
“Today’s unanimous Supreme Court decision is a clear victory for our national security,” Trump said in a statement released by the White House, adding: “Today’s ruling allows me to use an important tool for protecting our Nation’s homeland.”
Nearly all the news outlets are reporting this as a partial victory, or a compromise, or saying some provisions of the travel ban will stand and others will not. THE IS ALL FAKE NEWS.
The victory was complete, there was no compromise, and the argument of the ACLU that the intent guessed from campaign speeches invalidates the Executive Branch authority was rejected wholly, and not even the most liberal justices on the bench gave it the dignity of a mention.
This was an unanimous decision. It was a shut out.
The travel ban originally allowed exceptions for persons having family in the states or having a doctor’s appointment or something of the kind. Border officials make rulings on those grounds on a case by case basis all the time, therefore any newspaper that reports this as the Supreme Court limiting the travel ban is lying. The limits allowing foreigners with legitimate business here were always part of the ban, or any ban, as this is standing policy.
The ACLU flipped its collective wig and issued a public statement in a fundraising letter which will live in the annals of schadenfreude forever: calling the unanimous ruling unconstitutional and calling partisans to arms to oppose it.
The ACLU argument was that the ban was unlawful because and only because Donald Trump issued it, and the inner motives of his heart are impure; whereas if Obama or Hillary had issued the selfsame ban under the selfsame wording, it would be lawful. To show the inner workings of Trump’s heart, they quoted from his stump speeches — perhaps the only time in history anyone has thought the words of a politician in a public speech were a true and truthful key to his soul. The sheer absurdity of the argument, particularly in the face of the clear wording of the Constitutional provisions putting the matter into the Chief Executives sole discretion, make the absurdity of the argument even more absurd.
Not even the most liberal justice gave this exercise in rhetorical insanity a passing mention. The legal profession sinks to a new low. The ACLU should be punished and disbarred for flagrant abuse of process, and the lower court judges who upheld, or even granted a hearing to, this nonsense should surely be impeached, perhaps disbarred.
If you thought the ACLU lawyers had any legal training worth a rap, think so no longer. They are merely ideologues who use their knowledge of the law to undo the law.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
