The U.S. Supreme Court may be about to get a GIGANTIC opportunity.
This is their chance to support the President and his logical battle against foreign nationals. The highest court in the land just confirmed Barack Obama violated the Constitution, so how’s about another big win for America?
Although the Supreme Court can select the cases it wishes to hear, when lower courts cannot agree on a point of law, this gives the high court a particular reason to hear an appeal and settle the matter.
The authority of the president to ban entry into the U.S. by persons deemed to be a threat to the nation’s security seems like common sense.
After all, entry into the country is a privilege extended to foreigners, not a right they possess. Many on the left and those judges appointed by Democratic presidents believe otherwise.
So we’ve had the absurd rulings preventing the implementation of President Trump’s proposed – and absolutely essential – travel ban by progressive judges who see it as discriminatory against Muslims.
Now a federal judge has ruled in the opposite way, setting up an eventual hearing of the case before the Supreme Court.
From Western Journalism:
“Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia — who is an appointee of former President George W. Bush — said in his 32-page ruling that under the powers of the presidency, Trump was legally allowed to ban travel from those countries specified in the order.“
The judge’s reasoning makes perfect sense.
“Trenga said a president ‘has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.’ He said Trump’s order does not mention religion and has a ‘state secular purpose’ of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.”
Judge Trenga found no intent to use religion as a foundation for the travel ban or any other reason to prevent its implementation. Danielle McLaughlin, a lawyer at Nixon Peabody, made the following observations:
“‘This does give some teeth to his argument, at least in the court of public opinion,’ McLaughlin said. ‘Trump has a direct line to the American people and there’s no question he’ll utilize the ruling to tell regular folks that his ban isn’t discriminatory.’”
Unfortunately, entry into the U.S. from nations that produce and harbor terrorists remains unabated as a result of the unwise ruling of other judges.
Yet, the situation is now being set up for the eventual resolution of this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Let’s hope reason prevails.
We’ve already seen good sense prevail in one state’s high court (the banning of Sharia Law should be another logical step in the right direction), so perhaps this trend will continue…cross your fingers!