Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Trump is militantly hostile to Muslims and nations targeted for regime change.
His policies speak for themselves, waging war on multiple Muslim-majority countries, banning entry to America from designated countries.
His policy has nothing to do with protecting national security, nothing about screening out “radical Islamic terrorists” Washington created and supports – everything to do with hyping fear, justifying endless wars, keeping unwanted Muslims out of America, along with Venezuelan officials and North Koreans.
His proposed great wall along America’s southern border targets unwanted Latinos the same way.
Christians and Jews are welcome, especially from favored nations. Treating them one way and Muslims another is flagrantly racist.
Refugees, asylum seekers, and others from the wrong countries are unwelcome in Trump’s America. Islamophobia is official regime policy. So is hate-mongering to justify unjustifiable policies.
The nation’s Supreme Court is stacked with right-wing extremists. On Tuesday, they upheld Trump’s travel ban, affecting five predominately Muslim countries, along with North Korea and targeted Venezuelans by a narrow 5 – 4 majority – wrongfully claiming “the Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review.”
No such justification exists. Trump’s Muslim ban is an extension of his war on Islam, far exceeding his predecessors in terror-bombing ruthlessness.
His regime is responsible for dropping powerfully destructive bombs in targeted countries every 12 minutes since taking office, a breathtaking pace of mass slaughter and destruction – 44,000 bombs during his first year in office, civilians overwhelmingly harmed most.
Responding to Tuesday’s High Court ruling, the ACLU’s immigration rights project director Omar Jadwat minced no words saying:
“This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures. It repeats the mistakes of the Korematsu decision, upholding Japanese-American imprisonment and swallows wholesale government lawyers’ flimsy national security excuse for the ban instead of taking seriously the president’s own explanation for his action.”
“It is ultimately the people of this country who will determine its character and future. The court failed today, and so the public is needed more than ever.”
“We must make it crystal clear to our elected representatives: If you are not taking actions to rescind and dismantle Trump’s Muslim ban, you are not upholding this country’s most basic principles of freedom and equality.”
The ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, International Refugee Assistance Project, along with other organizations and individuals others sued the Trump regime in federal court – on grounds of the First Amendment’s prohibition against “law(s) respecting an establishment of religion” and Fifth Amendment “due process of law” rights.
Last October, a federal district court in Maryland blocked Trump’s ban. So did a federal court in Hawaii a day earlier.
In February, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against his travel ban, calling it “unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam,” adding:
“On a fundamental level,” the ban “second-guesses our nation’s dedication to religious freedom and tolerance.”
Last December, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Trump’s ban, saying it exceeded his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Supreme Court earlier let the ban stand while challenges worked their way through lower courts before issuing its own ruling on Tuesday.
It’s up to a future Congress to try overturning Trump’s ban with legislation passed in both houses by a two-thirds veto-proof majority – or after he leaves office by a simple majority if his successor opposes his action.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
