On Thursday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined the league of disgraceful judicial activism when they ruled against President Trump’s Middle Eastern travel ban with the absurd justification that it was “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam.”
We’d like to sit down with each of the 9 liberal judges who signed onto this ludicrous opinion and have them point out to us in the Constitution exactly where they derived this nonsense. And when they tried to point to the First Amendment, we’d slap them in their dumb faces with a photograph of the World Trade Center.
Nothing about the time-tested concept of freedom of religion means the U.S. has to stick its head in the sand and pretend we don’t see what’s really happening. As the left LOVES to say about the Second Amendment: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Except in this case, there’s actually nothing in the Constitution that comes CLOSE to saying that an executive order must not be “tainted with animus toward Islam,” even if you can prove that it is. Which is also highly debatable.
The Supreme Court has already issued a temporary ruling putting the ban back into effect (though by now much of it has lapsed) and it already set to consider the ban’s constitutionality in full thanks to prior rulings against it. But this hasn’t stopped the 4th Circuit and one other appeals court from striking it down anew, using the same, tired arguments that have been rejected before.
The premise of this ruling and some of the others is that by making remarks about a “Muslim ban” on the campaign trail, Trump magically gave up some portion of his right to exercise authority over incoming travelers and national security. Presumably, if he’d made disparaging remarks about all other religions, he would be stripped entirely of his ability to mark any country on the planet for travel restrictions. Which is patently ridiculous, absent from any law that any Congress has ever passed, and should result in every single one of these judges being thrown off the court in disgrace.
“An objective observer could conclude that the President’s repeated statements convey the primary purpose of the Proclamation — to exclude Muslims from the United States,” wrote Judge Roger Gregory, a Clinton appointee. “In fact, it is hard to imagine how an objective observer could come to any other conclusion when the president’s own deputy press secretary made this connection express.”
Well, here’s how:
There are NON-MUSLIM countries on the ban list. How about that, that wasn’t so hard.
Many MUSLIM countries are NOT on the list. Wow, we did it again.
Oh, and there’s nothing in the text of the order that says one word about banning Muslims. See, it’s easy unless you’re a liberal activist with an ax to grind, masquerading as an impartial man of the law.
Frankly, we think that circumstances being as they are, even a temporary ban of all Muslims could reasonably pass the test of law, but that isn’t what this is and it isn’t something we need to litigate. These judges need to get their minds right, the Supreme Court needs to correct these massively biased decisions, and we need to do what’s best for the security of our nation.