After being shot down by a federal appeals court, President Trump’s temporary ban on travel from six dangerous Middle Eastern countries will be going before the Supreme Court. In an interview with Fox & Friends, Vice President Mike Pence said he was “very confident” that the court would return with the right decision.
“The ability to come in to the United States of America is a privilege, not a right,” Pence said.
The vice president pointed to recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and England as examples of why it was so important for the U.S. to be able to implement a program of “extreme vetting.”
“In both cases,” he said, “we see a grim reminder of the ruthlessness of those who threaten out country and threaten our allies.”
Commenting on the administration’s emergency filings with the Supreme Court, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said the DOJ was “confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism.
“The president is not required to admit people from countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism,” she continued, “until he determines that they can be properly vetted and do not pose a security risk to the United States.”
The rulings we’ve seen thus far do not bode well for the Trump administration’s chances with the Supreme Court, but we’re holding out hope that our entire judiciary has not been sold out to the forces of liberalism and political correctness. We shouldn’t need “conservative” judges to fight back against the wrongheaded decisions of the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts. This is one of those cases that should be a slam dunk, 9-0 decision by our esteemed high Justices. The president of the United States – love him or loathe him – clearly has the authority to do what this executive order aimed to do. Especially under the circumstances.
Do you think for ONE MINUTE that the courts would have blocked Barack Obama if he’d issued an identical order? Hell, one of the lawyers for Hawaii actually ADMITTED in open court that, had this order been issued by Hillary Clinton, it would have likely been constitutional. Now just how in the hell can a lawyer make that admission and STILL get a favorable ruling from the panel of judges.
How, unless the judges are just brazenly partisan fools who would rather violate the law than risk being shunned by their liberal buddies at the local country club?