The travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court, 5-4, as being within the President’s authority.
One thing bothered me about upholding the travel ban: Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Supreme Court wasn’t endorsing the “soundness of the policy.” He shouldn’t have to write that. It should be taken for granted that the Supreme Court isn’t supposed to judge whether a policy is wise or not.
I guess he has to write that because the Liberal Justices were insisting on their ability to read the President’s mind and pass judgment on his motives.
The Associated Press reports, “Court upholds Trump travel ban, rejects discrimination claim.”
The 5-4 decision Tuesday is a big victory for Trump on an issue that is central to his presidency, and the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. The president quickly tweeted his reaction: “Wow!”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the five conservative justices, including Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias.
But he was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general or Muslims in particular, including Trump’s campaign pledge to keep Muslims from entering the country.
“We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote.
The travel ban has been fully in place since December, when the justices put the brakes on lower court rulings that had ruled the policy out of bounds and blocked part of it from being enforced.
In a dissent she summarized in court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision today, nor should it.” […]
Sotomayor wrote that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She said her colleagues in the majority arrived at the opposite result by “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.”
She likened the case to the discredited Korematsu V. U.S. decision that upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Roberts responded in his opinion that “Korematsu has nothing to do with this case” and “was gravely wrong the day it was decided.”
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com