#SCOTUS Upholds President Trump’s Travel Ban By Vote of 5-4 [VIDEO]

#SCOTUS Upholds President Trump’s Travel Ban By Vote of 5-4 [VIDEO]

#SCOTUS Upholds President Trump’s Travel Ban By Vote of 5-4 [VIDEO]

Trying to legislate against President Trump from the judicial bench is backfiring against the Left BIGLY. In this case, the backfire is specifically directed at those whining about President Trump putting a travel ban in place against eight specific countries due to major national security concerns.

What were those national security concerns? Terrorism. However, the narrative of the opponents quickly pivoted to religious discrimination against muslims.

NONE of those countries do a decent job of vetting those who travel to the U.S. As in, someone arrives in this country with a visa or a passport and we have no way of knowing if anything they say regarding their background is true. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but if the background of someone coming into this country cannot be verified, that should be of major concern.

Yet, those who challenged the President’s Travel Ban, which you can read about here and here, don’t seem care about our national security.

AFP PHOTO / Tim Sloan (Photo credit should read TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)

The United States Supreme Court, on the other hand, does.

Legitimate National Security concerns. That is absolutely the case right there.

The SCOTUS ruling is blunt.

(a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well with- in this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.

Even assuming that some form of inquiry into the persuasiveness of the President’s findings is appropriate, but see Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600, plaintiffs’ attacks on the sufficiency of the findings cannot be sustained.

And on cue, the pearl clutching has begun.

PSST! We are a Republic!

Hey, guess what? I’m THRILLED that Hillary lost!

Actually we are going BACK to the ideals of this Republic. Security and safety should be a primary concern for EVERYONE within our borders. The countries listed on the travel ban are known the world over as major terrorist enclaves. But again, national security doesn’t seem to be a priority for all the woke virtue signaling leftists.

No Keith, you are wrong on all counts with this.

“Today’s ruling is unjust. Like the Korematsu decision that upheld Japanese internment camps or Plessy v. Ferguson that established ‘separate but equal,’ this decision will someday serve as a marker of shame,” Ellison said.

Immigration is a core sovereign function and the travel ban policy has been found by SCOTUS to be neutral and lawful. The President’s response to SCOTUS.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a tremendous victory for the American People and the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States.  In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country.  This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.  As long as I am President, I will defend the sovereignty, safety, and security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests of the United States and its citizens.  Our country will always be safe, secure, and protected on my watch.

That’s a good thing for this Republic.

Written by

5 Comments
  • SFC D says:

    I never in understood how this was viewed as “muslim” ban. It bans EVERYONE from those countries. Muslims from other countries weren’t banned. What was banned was travelers from countries that do not have an effective government. It’s that simple, boys and girls.

  • Johnny says:

    Point one:
    This has always been a black-and-white issue.
    The President’s right to do this cannot be any clearer.
    I am shocked that on the highest court in our nation, we have four people who can be so willfully ignorant.
    Thank goodness Trump came along in time.

    Point two:
    When are we going to start holding lower-court judges liable for their stupid, ideology-driven decisions?
    When will the justice system start naming names and fixing blames?
    Why don’t we ever hear the SCOTUS saying:
    “This case is clear and easily decided – what is it doing before us? Who was the LSAT dropout who ever managed to rule the other way? They are hereby removed from their bench until they can pass a basic jurisprudence course!”

  • GWB says:

    However, the narrative of the opponents quickly pivoted to religious discrimination against muslims.
    Well, actually, they first pivoted to it being *racial*. Because progs is dumb.

    those who challenged the President’s Travel Ban … don’t seem care about our national security.
    Oh, I disagree. They care greatly. They just don’t support it.

    “gives legitimacy to discrimination”
    Well, see, there’s one of the problems. When the progressives began destroying morality, one of the things they did was make “discrimination” evil. When it’s not – it’s actually necessary. Well, it’s necessary when life is full of people and choices across the spectrum of good and evil, and you want to choose the better things. Google’s old motto (“Don’t Be Evil”) is a way of discriminating when making choices.
    What the president was engaging in was good discrimination.

  • Jim says:

    ‘Keith Ellison: Supreme Court upholding Trump travel ban “gives legitimacy to discrimination”‘

    Yes it is discrimination: elected governments around the world have a duty to their citizens and must discriminate about who is safe and should be allowed to enter their countries. That discrimination is a positive duty on behalf of the citizens who do not want the importation of dangerous people and those who will be a [further] burden in terms of welfare on the national economy.

  • […] Girls Blog: While the Supreme Court’s decision on the “travel ban” is getting most of the literal and virtual ink today, the Court also struck down the California […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram