Supreme Court Says Muslim Travel Ban Can Stay

It took multiple attempts, but the Trump administration finally prevailed at finding a version of its Muslim travel ban that the judicial branch is willing to allow. It’s a victory for those who champion racist and Islamophobic values, and a definite loss for the country as a whole.

Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court’s five conservative justices gave the White House the go-ahead on a travel ban involving mostly Islamic countries. The justices cited the president’s discretion to utilize the Immigration and Nationality Act for this purpose.

Twice before, lower courts have struck down Trump’s travel restrictions. Each time, the Trump administration revised it an attempt to find a way to make it seem less discriminatory while still maintaining its original objective. The third time was the charm… for the Supreme Court anyway.

Never mind that it most definitely started as a way to block Muslims from entering the country and that Trump himself made it a campaign promise. There was ample evidence to suggest that the White House’s policy was manufactured in violation of the First Amendment and immigration laws, which forbid discrimination on the basis of religion.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that it was important to “consider not only the statements of a particular president, but also the authority of the presidency itself.” In other words, he wouldn’t want to undercut the president just because he’s a bigot, even though the court has the authority to do just that.

As for whether Roberts thinks Trump is acting on a bias, he wouldn’t weigh in. Instead he said he looked at “whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country.” Apparently, Roberts thought it was at least plausible, and that was sufficient for him.

Roberts also declined to weigh in on whether the White House’s policy would have any positive effects, writing, “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.” Basically, the court totally copped out on being a necessary check and balance to executive power.

Per the Trump administration, the latest version of the travel restrictions is “different” because it was formulated after examining over 200 countries’ terrorism threats and travel security measures. (Wait, that wasn’t part of the earlier drafts?) Officials added some restrictions to Venezuela and North Korea, presumably to make it seem less focused just on Muslims.

By granting the president the power to maintain the existing ban, the Supreme Court has also signaled that Trump could add more countries to his banned list, which currently includes Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Iran.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the most passionate opposition to her colleagues’ ruling, comparing the reasoning for the ban to that which was used to create Japanese-American internment camps. The ACLU concurred with her, declaring that “the ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures.”

 

Photo credit: Thinkstock

98 comments

Annabel Bedini
Annabel Bedini2 months ago

....and I'd add, the Muslims I'm talking about are not apostates. They pray the required number of times a day, go regularly to the mosque for Friday prayers, fast during Ramadan and so on. Maybe we could say that there are as many ways of being Muslim as there are of being Christian?

SEND
Annabel Bedini
Annabel Bedini2 months ago

Mike A
Why do all the Muslims I know preach and live tolerance and good neighbourliness with Christians, even marry Christians? And why do the Muslims I know have great respect for women, love their wives as equals, at most seeing them as so precious they need to be protected? There seems to be a big gap between what you quote from the Q'ran and what happens in real life in the Muslim community. I wish I knew a Q'ranic scholar who could find counter quotes to back up what I see on the ground. After all even Jesus said 'I bring not peace but a sword' (may have got the wording slightly wrong and haven't time to consult chapter and verse, sorry) but we know that was not his main message. What you quote is certainly scary but it honestly is NOT the way most Muslims live.

SEND
Mike A.
Mike A.2 months ago

Although Islamic law is intended to rule over all faiths, it is insufferable for unbelievers. For reading a Bible, one might have their hand chopped off or be imprisoned for life. For leaving Islam, death is the only appropriate punishment, as Muhammad commanded.

Again, the definition of justice is not at all the same definition that Westerners who live under democracy think of, but this is just another example of effective taqiyya to fool the ignorant unbeliever.

SEND
Mike A.
Mike A.2 months ago

Women are to be treated as livestock. Muhammad preached in his final sermon to his followers that women “are like domestic animals with you and do not possess anything themselves…Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely.

SEND
Mike A.
Mike A.2 months ago

In Quran 2:191, Allah reminds that the acceptable punishment for those who “reject the faith” is continuous war and slaughter. Although Muslims attempt to twist the meaning by citing 8:61, which states that if an enemy wants a peace treaty, Muslim must oblige them and live in peace. However, they fail to disclose that this treaty can be revoked at anytime for any reason, as Muhammad displayed when he slaughtered the peaceful, unsuspecting Banu Qurayza Jews with whom he had made a treaty.

Islam means peace in that they believe that there can only be peace when Islam rules the world with Sharia law. In short, Muslims believe they are warring towards world peace through force and slaughter, the same way Muhammad did.

SEND
John W
John W2 months ago

And it's not a Muslim Travel Ban..

SEND
John W
John W2 months ago

Thanks Brian F :-)

SEND
Annabel Bedini
Annabel Bedini2 months ago

Brian F
Oh for goodness sakes, we have been here before!!!!! You know perfectly well, but refuse to admit to yourself, that the fringe extremists of ANY and EVERY religion including Christianity, issue death threats to those they oppose. In any case Hirsi Ali did NOT criticise Islam she criticised extremist radical Islamists. And you know it. So PLEASE stop with your anti-Muslim hatred. Don't you see that people like you are fostering the sort climate which inevitably leads to violence. THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED THIS. Yes, I'm shouting!!!!!!

SEND
Brian F
Brian F2 months ago

Hirsi Ali is receiving death threats because she dared to criticize Islam. Is this a religion of peace?

SEND
Danii P
Past Member 2 months ago

Thank you for sharing.

SEND