As soon as Donald Trump signed his travel ban executive order, liberals mobilized the “resistance.”
Protests sprung up nationwide and the left cherry picked friendly judges to strike down the order.
But the Supreme Court just ruled on the case and handed down the decision that drove a stake through the heart of the resistance.
In Donald Trump’s first week as President, he signed an executive order banning travel from countries tied to terrorists.
Lunatic protesters stormed airports in protest and liberal groups raced to friendly judges in kangaroo courts to win injunctions blocking the order.
The judges – who are really nothing more than liberal activists in black robes – pinned their arguments on statements Trump made as a candidate.
Their argument boiled down to any other President besides Donald Trump could have signed this order and it would be lawful.
While journalists cheered the “humiliating” defeats of the President in the lower courts, eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
And Trump was completely vindicated with a sweeping 5-4 victory, crushing the liberal resistance.
The court agreed with Trump that the order fell within the authority of the President as laid out by statutes passed by Congress.
Justice Roberts wrote:
“Finally, the Proclamation properly identifies a “class of aliens”—nationals of select countries—whose entry is suspended. Plaintiffs argue that “class” must refer to a well-defined group of individuals who share a common “characteristic” apart from nationality. Brief for Respondents 42. But the text of §1182(f), of course, does not say that, and the word “class” comfortably encompasses a group of people linked by nationality. Plaintiffs also contend that the class cannot be “overbroad.” Brief for Respondents 42. But that simply amounts to an unspoken tailoring requirement found nowhere in Congress’s grant of authority to suspend entry of not only “any class of aliens” but “all aliens.”
The liberals who sued Trump over the executive order’s case had no foundation in law.
In fact, Roberts noted the plaintiffs didn’t even contest the legal merits of the executive order.
The Chief Justice wrote:
“The Proclamation is squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA. Indeed, neither dissent even attempts any serious argument to the contrary, despite the fact that plaintiffs’ primary contention below and in their briefing before this Court was that the Proclamation violated the statute.”
Their entire argument rested on the fact that they yelled Trump was a racist at the top of their lungs.
The Justices considered this argument and smacked it down with ease, writing:
“Plaintiffs argue that this President’s words strike at fundamental standards of respect and tolerance, in violation of our constitutional tradition. But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility. In doing so, we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.”
Liberals had hoped defeating Trump in court on the travel ban would signal that the political tide had shifted and Trump was on the run.
Instead, Trump won a crushing and decisive victory and got the last laugh.
