So, in keeping with the law, as passed by congress, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the executive in regards to the travel ban. There are a couple of points made in
the decision that I think should be noted (since the MSM won't do it):
1) Foreign Nationals Have No Constitutional Right to Entry:
Nonetheless, although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen.
Direct blow to the "open borders" crowd. And no, a US Citizen does not have the constitutional right to bring a foreign national into the country.
2) The Courts Cannot Substitute it's Own Assessment for that of the Executive
More fundamentally, plaintiffs and the dissent chal- lenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom. They suggest that the policy is overbroad and does little to serve national security inter- ests. But we cannot substitute our own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters, all of which “are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.”
Justice Thomas deals with this later.
3) The Use of Irrelevant Events:
Finally, the dissent invokes Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944). Whatever rhetorical advantage the dissent may see in doing so, Korematsu has nothing to do with this case. The forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Pres- idential authority.
Since foreign nationals have no constitutional right of entry (among other things) internment camp examples, where the rights of citizens were violated are not even relevant. That we have Supreme Court judges that do not understand this, is quite troubling to say the least. Now let's turn to Thomas' concurring remarks:
Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.
That is exactly right.
Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or antireligious.
This too.
The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad.
Duh.
It's as if Thomas shares my belief that this case is and was a total waste of time and should have been stopped dead in it's tracks in the lower courts.
District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
Indeed this is the real issue. Even today we have a new ruling with a nationwide injunction against the executive on extremely dubious grounds. This issue takes up most of Thomas' concurrence which I won't repeat here but you should read it.
Lastly Sotomayor....
Just weeks ago, the Court rendered its decision in Mas terpiece Cakeshop, 584 U. S. ___, which applied the bed rock principles of religious neutrality and tolerance in considering a First Amendment challenge to government action. See id., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (“The Constitution ‘commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state inter vention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures’”
Yes. Yes it did...in regard to a US Citizen who's constitutional rights were abridged. Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights. How does she not understand this?
And then we have this footnote:
7 It is important to note, particularly given the nature of this case, that many consider “using the term ‘alien’ to refer to other human beings” to be “offensive and demeaning.” Flores v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 718 F. 3d 548, 551–552, n. 1 (CA6 2013). I use the term here only where necessary “to be consistent with the statutory language” that Congress has chosen and “to avoid any confusion in replacing a legal term of art with a more appropriate term.” Ibid.
Political correctness in the court system. Never mind that "alien" has been used in reference to any foreign national since before "space aliens" of the "Aliens" franchise kind were stuck into the national consciousness. If I were on the court, I would say "alien" at any and every occasion I could find.
