Renk: Trump Travel Ban Constitutional
The United States Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s Travel Ban is constitutional and the injunction to halt the travel ban has been lifted.
I wonder how the judges on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 2 other lower court judges feel about the implicit admonishment the Supreme Court handed down to them.
I have talked about this before and still believe we need to make it easier to remove judges from these courts who either do not understand the constitution or are making their rulings for political motives.
In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the Supreme Court justices said the president has very important national security powers that the courts must respect. This ruling also reaffirms the Presidents has the constitutional powers to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants.
There was one change to the travel ban the Supreme Court’s ruling stated:
An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country as a refugee can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded, but when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.
The “bona fide” relationship could be either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection.
Three members of the court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch also issued their own opinion in which they stated they would have gone further and upheld the president’s entire policy. In their own opinion they stated “I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” because the decision will create a “nightmare” for the administration, which must come up with definitions of what constitutes “sufficient connection.”
Anyone who follows the news knew the Presidents travel ban was constitutional and the lower courts would be overturned. The lower courts were not ruling based on law but instead chose to rule based on their ideologue and that is extremely dangerous.
These judges that do not appear to understand our law or are just plain partisans and are very dangerous and must be removed from office. We do not need judges who rule via their ideologue whether that ideologue is left or right, they must rule via the law.