Supreme Court restores Trump travel ban, religious freedom, and sanity

President Trump, Christian and lesbian bakers, and children on playgrounds all got good news from the Supreme Court; opponents of Trump's travel ban will try again next year.

0
824
US Supreme Court - Image courtesy of http://www.baucus.senate.gov/
US Supreme Court - Image courtesy of http://www.baucus.senate.gov/

LOS ANGELES, June 26, 2017 — With three decisions, the United States Supreme Court did more than restore an executive order and the rights of some churches. The judges overwhelmingly voted to restore sanity. Too many Americans, including some activist judges, have substituted feelings for codified law. In two key cases, the Supreme Court voted with their legal heads regardless of their moral hearts.

The court gave a major victory to the Trump administration when it reinstated Trump’s travel ban from several nations closely aligned with global terrorism. While the court crafted a very narrow exemption for individuals who could prove ties to the United States, everyone else from those nations can now be restricted. The High Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court, which is often accused of extra-judicial excesses.

The reinstatement is temporary—the court will hear complete arguments in 2018—but the decision to reinstate the International Refugee Assistance Project was a unanimous.


Supremely well done, SCOTUS upholds “travel ban”



The reason it was struck down was simple: Liberals went judge-shopping to find judges who would declare Trump’s executive order an unconstitutional, religiously motivated Muslim travel ban. They argued that the policy was discriminatory.

Trump had the law on his side because, on this issue, the Founding Fathers said so. They created created a system that includes numerous checks and balances, but in some things they gave the president complete authority. Presidential pardons are absolute. So is the president’s authority with regards to matters of immigration. As the Chief Executive and the Commander-in-Chief, the president is responsible for national security. The president can implement an entire ban on immigration to America from anywhere. This has been done by past presidents.

As trained psychiatrist and columnist Dr. Charles Krauthammer pointed out, there can be debate on the wisdom of Trump’s travel order, but not on its legality. Liberal constitutional scholars Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz both agree that the authority to enforce border security rests solely with the president. Opponents of that authority have every right to work to change the law by amending the constitution, but Trump legally fulfilled his constitutional duty as he saw fit. Even the High Court’s liberal judges agreed.

In the case of Trinity Lutheran Church vs Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the High Court again allowed logic and common sense to reign. Missouri had a program allowing various entities to apply for state funds for the purpose of public safety. In addition, the state wants entities to use a newer brand of crushed rubber ground covering that makes playgrounds safer for children. Trinity requested funds to allow it to install the new rubber material.

Trinity’s application was rejected on the grounds that to grant it would involve government in the promotion of religion. This specious argument fell apart at the Supreme Court. While Trinity is a church, the funds they requested had nothing to do whatsoever to with religion. Using safer crushed rubber to protect children from playground injury is an issue completely divorced from politics and religion. The fact that Trinity is a church is totally irrelevant.

The state was actually arguing that children who play on church playgrounds deserve less protection than those on secular playgrounds. This is blatant discrimination, and a clear case of a church receiving less government protection simply for being a church.

Lastly, the court agreed to hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake celebrating their gay marriage. Again, this is a case of the anti-religion pendulum swinging too far to the secular left. Nobody can be denied service in a restaurant based on religion or sexual orientation. That is settled law. Nor can anyone prevent anyone from buying a cake “off the shelf.” However, the law is less settled on the requirement of artists and artisans—painters, musicians, photographers, couturiers, flower arrangers—to perform on demand as the client desires.

There was no burden on the gay couple in this case. They went to another bakery down the road, which provided a cake to their specifications.


Suicide bomber hits Mecca because Saudi’s are not Islamic enough


For those who want to hear another voice from another side of this debate, Courtney Hoffman is a liberal and a lesbian small business owner who makes kettle corn. She does not want to be forced to cater a party thrown by religious Christians who object to her beliefs.   

With these three decisions, the Supreme Court has begun the process of restoring sanity to a nation veering off of the rails. The late New York City Mayor Ed Koch often referred to himself as “a liberal with sanity.” Turley and Dershowitz could refer to themselves similarly. They are pro-liberal, but pro-law first.

The President of the United States takes an oath to protect America from all threats foreign and domestic. His authority to do so is for now almost absolute. Americans have the right to be free from having religion forced on them. This right is also near absolute. Americans also have the right to be free from having anti-religious secularism forced on them. This right is also near absolute.

These cases are only complex for people guided by the world they wish to force upon the rest of us rather than the binding constitutional document that severely restricts their interference in our lives.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.