{UAH} US supreme court upholds Trump's travel ban

George Okello

 

There was nothing to cheer about that judgment for it was very expected only that the entire issue was marred in noise. Donald never did anything new, he threw a ban on countries that had already been thrown on it by The Obama administration. By the way when Obama threw it Democrats never screamed "Muslim ban". What is important is to realize that the Supreme court based its judgment on the safety of the country, the powers of the president, than on who has thrown in the ban. Do you really want to open up United States to visitors from Yemen? It is not even clear today whether Yemen has a passport controlling officer. Does Libya has a minister of internal affair that follows people to keep their records known? What is the color of the Somali passport? 65% of North Koreans are none religious people what religion did 45 target in banning North Koreans? 75% of Venezuelans are actually Catholics, is 45 anti-Catholics to ban Venezuelans?

 

There is also a separate argument that is more bothersome to critical thinkers, you see in Uganda when Museveni and Besigye under The umbrella of The Movement passed so many laws to decapitate UPC, those were none democratic laws but they were written and accepted by Dr Kiiza Besigye as a national political commissar, for he agreed with Museveni to stop all functions of UPC in Uganda. Through stupidity, the Uganda population saw no danger in attacking a political party un democratically for it was UPC anyways, they actually cheered about those laws and UPC died a slow and painful death to today. What Ugandans forgot was that the death of UPC the party did not remove those laws off Uganda books they actually remained. With time Besigye left the Movement and created a political party called Forum for Democratic Change {FDC}. Those that remained in the Movement went on Uganda books found the laws that Besigye used to torch UPC and used them against FDC, the party stalled and died too as UPC died. Dr Kiiza Besigye' s stupid laws are still on Uganda books to today doing exactly what Besigye wrote them to do. Protect The Movement illegally.

 

I have followed The Democrats closely, they are asking for the senate to write all kinds of laws to control the president. They want the senate to be able to decide who the president can pardon. Democrats want to pass a law on how 45 can set up tariffs against other countries. Democrats want the senate to control what foreign  leader 45 holds a summit with, Democrats want the senate to decide what leader the president can call on a phone. Democrats want to decide what country the president can trade with. Democrats want the senate to decide what time 45 goes to the washroom to shit. The idiots forget that 10 years from today, a Democrat is going to be the president and the senate is going to be controlled by the Republicans. All those laws are going to be on the books and that president is going to be controlled by those very same laws. What the Supreme court is reminding everyone is that if it makes a judgment it is not going to be limited to 45, that judgment is going to be on books no matter what leader comes to the people's house. And I opine that the decision was about the White House and what it can do when the lower courts parked with Democrat judges made decisions about Trump. It is going to be very interesting when he starts to expand this list with this judgment now in his hands.

 

Now sit, watch and learn how separating children walks into the supreme court, the decision is going to leave you with your mouth agape.

 

EM         -> { Trump for 2020 }

On the 49^th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"

 

From: ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com [mailto:ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Alcantara
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 2:54 PM
To: ugandans-at-heart <ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com>
Subject: {UAH} US supreme court upholds Trump's travel ban

 

Edward Mo irundrua,

 

Atleast something to cheer about after weeks of bad news!!!!

 

Bobby

 

US supreme court upholds Trump's travel ban

White House hails 'tremendous victory' after justices rule 5-4 that ban was within president's power to craft national security policy

Tom McCarthy in New York and Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington

Tue 26 Jun 2018 17.17 BSTFirst published on Tue 26 Jun 2018 15.22 BST

·         

·         

·         

Shares

6,537

 Protesters outside the supreme court in the wake of Tuesday's ruling. The White House said the court had 'upheld the clear authority of the president'. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

The US supreme court has upheld Donald Trump's travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority countries, in a significant victory for the administration and a blow to anti-discrimination advocates.

In a 5-4 ruling handed down on Tuesday, the court accepted the government's argument that the ban was within the president's power to craft national security policy and his authority to "suspend entry of aliens into the United States".

Minutes after the ruling was issued, Trump tweeted: "SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!"

Supreme court rules in favour of anti-abortion clinics in first amendment case

 

Read more

The White House called the ruling "a tremendous victory for the American people" and said the supreme court "has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the United States" despite "months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians".

Opponents of the ban have said it has not made the country safer, while singling out Muslims for unfair treatment and violating constitutional protections against discrimination on religious grounds.

"This hateful policy is a catastrophe all around – not only for those who simply want to travel, work, or study here in the States, but for those seeking safety from violence as well," Ryan Mace of Amnesty International USA said in a statement.

"The Muslim ban's bigotry should have been as clear to the supreme court as it is to the Muslims demonized by it," a statement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) said. "Apparently, everyone but the supreme court can see the decision for what it is: an expression of animosity."

But even as the court upheld the ban, Chief Justice John Roberts criticised Trump, and emphasised the importance of the principle of religious non-discrimination in US history.

 

This ruling will go down in history as one of the supreme court's great failures

Omar Jadwat, ACLU

"The president of the United States possesses an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf," Roberts wrote. "Our presidents have frequently used that power to espouse the principles of religious freedom and tolerance on which this nation was founded."

Roberts pointed out that George W Bush defended "the true faith of Islam" after the September 11 attacks and said America is "a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth".

"Yet it cannot be denied," Roberts wrote, "that the federal government and the presidents who have carried its laws into effect have – from the nation's earliest days – performed unevenly in living up to those inspiring words."

Trump has issued three executive orders curbing travel from certain Muslim-majority countries. Lower courts have blocked various versions of the ban. The current order was allowed to come into full effect in December 2017.

The ban targets travelers from Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia. It also includes limited sanctions against North Korea and Venezuela.

Neal Katyal, the primary lawyer who argued against the administration's travel ban, condemned the supreme court's decision as "unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and un-American".

"We decided long ago that America doesn't exclude people based on nationality or religion alone. Today, that principle has been challenged," Katyal said in a statement.

Katyal, who served as the deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration, nonetheless sought to underscore the progress that had been made in watering down the travel ban from the policy Trump first unveiled in January 2017. After several successful challenges in court, Katyal said, the Trump administration had been forced to bring the travel ban "more in line" with the constitution.

"While we continue to believe that this third version fails that test, there is no question that by striking down the first two travel bans, the judiciary forced a recalcitrant administration to at least give its order the veil of constitutionality."

Roberts's opinion did not address the question of whether it was intended to exclude Muslims specifically.

Tears, despair and shattered hopes: the families torn apart by Trump's travel ban

 

Read more

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor found "stark parallels" between Tuesday's decision and Korematsu v United States, the 1944 ruling in which the supreme court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans.

"As here, the government invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion," Sotomayor wrote. "As here, the exclusion was rooted in dangerous stereotypes about, inter alia, a particular group's supposed inability to assimilate and desire to harm the United States."

The American Civil Liberties Union also accused the court of repeating the Korematsu decision.

"This ruling will go down in history as one of the supreme court's great failures," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project.

Roberts rejected the link to Korematsu, however.

The president issued his first travel ban just a week after taking office in January 2017, prompting widespread chaos and protests at airports and in cities across the US.

The appeals process ultimately forced the conservative-leaning supreme court to determine the validity of the travel ban, which in its third version seeks to bar or limit entry to immigrants from the five Muslim-majority countries.

Opponents of the travel ban argued the policy was a watered-down attempt by Trump to make good on his campaign pledge to ban all Muslims from coming to the US.

The first Muslim elected to Congress, Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat, said the ruling was unjust and "will someday serve as a marker of shame" for the US.

While earlier versions of Trump's travel ban indefinitely suspended all refugee admissions to the US, the president signed an executive order in October that resumed the processing of refugees. In doing so, Trump also called for a 90-day review of the program for 11 countries, most of them Muslim-majority, which are deemed "high risk" by his administration.

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com