Religion Supreme Court

Things Can Always Get Dumber

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Given what Trump himself has explicitly said about banning Muslims from entering the country, how could the Supreme Court rule in favor of his Muslim ban?

It's apparently quite simple. All they had to do was ignore everything Trump has ever said about it.

While voting to uphold the policy, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the court does not believe in religious discrimination. And I promise you can't read this without your head spinning around 360 degrees.

[Roberts] was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular.

“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote. [...]

Roberts wrote that presidents have frequently used their power to talk to the nation “to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded.”

But he added that presidents and the country have not always lived up “to those inspiring words.”

Trump's executive order to ban travelers from predominately Muslim nations from entering the country for 90 days -- a window of time that has long since passed -- was struck down and revised three times before it finally reached the Supreme Court. And in the face of nearly unanimous opinions handed down by various district and appeals courts, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ignored everything that has actually happened and deferred to the executive on matters of immigration and national security.

This obviously doesn't bode well if Trump's indefinite detention programs for immigrants eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Democrats must flip control of Congress and the White House to pass a comprehensive immigration law that renders decisions like this irrelevant.

  • muselet

    The most generous explanation for this decision is that five of the Supremes have been huffing glue.

    The more likely explanation involves religious animus and Righty group-think on the subject of Islam.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    Exactly when does a “90 day” travel ban based on “national security” while the ‘executive’ “figures things out” become a permanent ban based on something else? This is an unsound decision based on politics. Not on law.
    And how much animus does the executive have to openly express before it becomes apparent to all, even the Supreme Court of the United States, that the animus expressed and the political promises made during a campaign based on that animus are the reason for the ban?

    • Essentially the ONLY difference between this ban and the previous version is 1) they threw in two non-muslim (but still conveniently brown) countries and 2) they made it supposedly temporary. NONE of the racial animus expressed changed–the history of Trumpov’s reasoning still stands PLUS it was added to in the intervening months. So you are spot on–it was a political decision that had nothing to do with the law.

      • Badgerite

        Especially the way it was first rolled out. Remember the veritable shit storm at the airports where old elders in wheelchairs were taken to detainment and sequestered from contact with anyone even their families.
        The man serving in the US military whose mother was detained at the airport and not allowed to enter. Seriously. Elderly parents and grandparents in wheelchairs are some kind of national security threat. All people from the named countries, even if they were legal residents of the United States and had been for some time, could not get released from the airport. It made no sense at all in terms of ‘national security’.
        This was the country’s first introduction to this ‘travel ban’ and it was clearly done for political effect. There was no reason for it then. There is no reason for it now.
        It is a sham. And the Court just signed off on it.
        On the plus side, Roberts said the Court did expressly over rule Korematsu. Better exceedingly late than never, I suppose.

        • Roberts statement re: Korematsu is cold comfort. He’s basically saying we will have to wait 38 years before we recover our effing sanity. FFFF them all.

  • Scopedog

    “Democrats must flip control of Congress and the White House to pass a comprehensive immigration law that renders decisions like this irrelevant.”

    Someone please pound this into the heads of the “Both parties are the same” crowd. With a ballpeen hammer to be precise.

  • Draxiar

    To trump and Mitch McFuckface:
    Smile now but know that Winter is Coming and it arrives on 6 November.

  • Aynwrong

    I’m just going to quote Norm Ornstein’s comment on twitter regarding this again.

    “I choose my words carefully. Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Gorsuch, Thomas are the Bull Connors of jurisprudence. They are consciously bringing back Jim Crow.”

  • katanahamon

    If the people who thought “both sides are the same” and protest voted for a third party or even Rump himself needed any more convincing that the dangers of allowing the right wing to appoint judges was real, look no further than McConnell posting a gloating pic of Gorsuch right after two 5-4 decisions in favor of conservatives was announced.

    • Scopedog

      They don’t care.

      They were spouting the “SC doesn’t matter!” bullshit back in 2000 while running around for Nader. After eight years of Bush II and the appointments of Roberts and Alito leading up to Citizens United they should have realized that and in 2016 made sure that the SC was a major issue.

      They didn’t do that. Instead, they stuck to the same bullshit argument they had back in 2000.

      • Victor the Crab

        And will continue to do so because they believe they’re absolutely correct and we’re all a bunch of drooling idiots for saying otherwise. And the country is fucked beyond belief because of it.

        • Scopedog

          Victor, speaking of tone-deaf–this is an actual comment from the comment section for this piece (a great one, mind you) over at No More Mister Nice Blog:

          http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-trip-down-memory-lane.html#disqus_thread

          It’s this: “I couldn’t vote for her because I have principles that precluded me from giving her my vote.”

          Fuck this idiot, fuck his principles, and finally he can go fuck himself–with a rusty chainsaw, to boot.

          • Victor the Crab

            I just responded to that fucking idiot.
            Speaking of HA-HA Goofman, ever get the feeling that loser troll that’s been creating endless accounts over at the Banter is him?