Trump Wants Absolute One-Man Rule: Is the USSC Helping With that Goal and Path

More and More Key High Court Critical Decisions are 5-4 Rulings

Stephen Miller - Behind the Scenes Mocking Our Forefathers

(A racist arrogant man)

UPDATED (June 26 2018) soon after the Supreme Court ruling upholding the Muslim ban into the country from DEMS in the House was announced — details follow this update:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) – and the first Muslim ever elected to Congress say about the ruling: “Today’s decision undermines the core value of religious tolerance on which America was founded. I am deeply disappointed that this ruling gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia.” 

Ellison went to say: “America holds a unique place in the world as a nation of immigrants. Unlike some other countries, we welcome refugees, asylum seekers, and dreamers fleeing war and instability in other parts of the world. America is and must remain the “land of the free” where a family escaping authoritarianism in persecution like in North Korea can seek shelter and thrive here. Today’s ruling is unjust. It is 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. Until then, we must keep fighting for an America that recognizes that every human life has value and reflects our values of generosity and inclusion for all.”

Look back starting in 2015 and right through the 2016 presidential race, Trump many times called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” That proposal subsequently evolved into a vague promise of “extreme vetting.” (The phrase used by most Trumpets). Short clip from Trump is a strong reminder of his racist lingo:

Listen carefully to then candidate now our President rant

(Never in my life have I heard such anger and disgust)

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) compared it to the court’s 2013 decision to strike down part of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County v. Holder), as well as the 1857 Dred Scott decision that no black person — free or slave — could claim U.S. citizenship, adding: “Shelby, Korematsu, Dred Scott, and now, Trump v. Hawaii is a decision that joins a line of rulings history we will look back on in shame.”

Trump called it a “tremendous victory, a moment of profound vindication of his policies” saying:  “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, security of the American People, and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interests”

And, of course and as expected right wing TV and Talk Radio radio all across USA la-la land are going nuts by cheering and celebrating the ruling all the while blaming DEMS for every in the wrong under the Sun, which as always in their typical ranting and raving about not old worn out false BS we've heard for years with little or no validity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original post start from here:

A rather long post based on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Trump Muslim ban (Scotus blog) but one that needs to be said not only by me but hopefully many more people a lot smarter than me will chime in.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (LA TIMES and THE AP) — The Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority.  

The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court's first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues.

My note: In this post I want to emphasize Chief Justice Roberts’ comments for they mean, how he said them, and the impact not only on the office the president – for anyone in that office – but for the moral, ethical, and heart and soul of our country – yes, Presidents have awesome power, but they are not dictators (at least not yet).

The high court decides high-level legal issues vis-à-vis impact on and within the Constitution and how government policy impacts that sacred document. Roberts carefully danced around that philosophy by my reading and I emphasize those points in red below.

The court speaks and protects the country and each and every person within the law of this land and they interpret laws that impact all of us – visitor, immigrant, native American and basically anyone on our soil who is a lawful person not proven guilty of anything – in a nutshell by my reading – in this case and ruling the court falls short and 4 dissenters have 100% nailed it down and I totally agree.

Further, noteworthy: Roberts projects a position of being neutral within the law as he reviewed it as seen below with my emphasis.

Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers' claim of anti-Muslim bias. Roberts was careful not to endorse either Trump's provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular writing in part: “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.”

Roberts wrote that presidents frequently used their power to talk to the nation: “To espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this Nation was founded, Presidents and the country have not always lived up to those inspiring words.”

The travel ban has been fully in place since the court declined to block it back in last December. The justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent that the evidence shows “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus: Ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.” 

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan also dissented.

The policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries: blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump wrote in his ban proclamation. 

The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns. The challengers, though, argued that the court could just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump's campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States. Just a week after he took office, Trump announced his first travel ban aimed at seven countries. 

That ban's impact:

1.  Triggered chaos and protests across the U.S. as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals (SF) didn’t reinstate the ban.

2. Then, the next version, unveiled in March 2017, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen didn't apply to those travelers who already had visas. It also eliminated language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes didn't erase the ban's legal problems.

3. Now, the current version dates from September 2017 and it follows what the administration has “called a thorough review by several federal agencies, although it has not shared the review with courts or the public.” 

My note: I wonder who is behind those “reviews and writing new policies?” I suspect but do not know for sure but my money’s on Stephen Miller in person and Stephen Bannon behind the scenes (more on Bannon below) – this “new Trump policy hardline approach” sounds just like both of them. 

Reminder on Miller: He is a former right-wing talk radio personality. Now he has the ear of the President of the United States as senior policy adviser with this anti-this/that and racist rants now into public policy – amazing and very damn scary, too.

Federal trial judges in Hawaii and Maryland had blocked the travel ban from taking effect, finding that the new version looked too much like its predecessors. Those rulings that were largely upheld by federal appeals courts in Richmond, Virginia, and San Francisco.

My 2 Cents: I almost always support USSC decisions and respect that body, but now with this court and their conservative slant vs. liberal slant it is a bit out of balance.

I leave you with this from James Madison, our 4th President, and one who called the “Father of the Constitution” for this reason: He is Constitution’s principal framer and our 4^th President, James Madison, argued that the freedoms the Constitution guaranteed actually depended upon its pluralism, he said at the Virginia Constitution’s ratifying convention: 

“This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” 

Madison then repeated that point in Federalist #10: “In America, diversity would defend freedom.” 

So, now what? The days of Madison and Jefferson are long gone and we just hand over and give more and less-restrained power to Donald J. Trump – even more than we see today – that is nearly unrestricted and limitless power? 

That is not the America I know, nor the one I fought and bled for, and not what I want to see for future generations. Plainly Trump does not even know the basics of the Constitution and that is obvious by his own words voiced almost every single day. 

It is not just this ruling that deeply concerns me, and it should you, too, but it Trump’s overall reckless and misguided policy wherein we do in fact see the hand of Bannon wherein he said – which we see pretty much so today:

There are three pillars of Trump's plan says Steve Bannon

“I kind of break it up into three verticals of three buckets: 

The first is kind of national security and sovereignty and that's your intelligence, the Defense Department, Homeland Security. 

The second is what I refer to as “economic nationalism” and that is Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Steven Mnuchin at Treasury, Lighthizer and Navarro at Trade, and Adviser Stephen Miller. These people that are rethinking how we're gonna reconstruct our trade arrangements around the world. 

The third, broadly, is the “deconstruction” of the administrative state.”

All that is dangerous waters, folks, very dangerous and now, on-going it seems.

Thanks for stopping by.