posted June 26, 2017 01:11 PM            

....The Supreme Court of the United States announced Monday that it will review the lower court injunctions blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring travel from six Muslim-majority countries.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court partially stayed the injunctions blocking enforcement of executive order 13,780:

We now turn to the preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the §2(c) entry suspension. We grant the Government’s applications to stay the injunctions, to the extent the injunctions prevent enforcement of §2(c) with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. We leave the injunctions entered by the lower courts in place with respect to respondents and those similarly situated, as specified in this opinion.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/26/supreme-court-reinstates-trump-travel-ban-muslim-majority-countries/

Supremes side with preschool in major church-state decision
Blocking religious institutions from taxpayer funding 'unconstitutional'
2 hours ago

The state of Missouri violated the First Amendment by refusing to allow a child care center to participate in a state-funded playground program solely because of its church affiliation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision released Monday.

posted June 26, 2017 11:30 PM            

Listen up.

Trump won 95% of what he wanted in the suspension of travel from those proscripted countries.

posted June 27, 2017 10:02 AM            

Some Loony-Tunes extremist judges from the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit along with some state Attorney Generals got dragged into the spotlight for rational Americans to get a gander at their extreme agenda.

When the dust settles, we'll find out that President Trump is in charge of foreign policy and national security, AND NOT a bunch of unelected Loony-Tunes judges whose legal opinions prove they're never read the US Constitution.

BTW, the Supreme Court decision was UNANIMOUS.

posted June 27, 2017 12:44 PM            

None of the perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks on American soil on or since 9/11 were from the countries targeted — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Theoverwhelming majority, according to the New America Foundation, were U.S. citizens or legal residents; restricting travel by Texans and Virginians would have affected more of them than Trump’s order.

posted June 27, 2017 12:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
President Trump got more than some people realize.

Some Loony-Tunes extremist judges from the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit along with some state Attorney Generals got dragged into the spotlight for rational Americans to get a gander at their extreme agenda.

When the dust settles, we'll find out that President Trump is in charge of foreign policy and national security, AND NOT a bunch of unelected Loony-Tunes judges whose legal opinions prove they're never read the US Constitution.

BTW, the Supreme Court decision was [b]UNANIMOUS.

Those lower court extremist judges got blitch slapped by the Supreme Court. [/B]

---

posted June 27, 2017 01:05 PM            

Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)

Madison:

posted June 27, 2017 02:09 PM            

Linking Herman Goering to a US Supreme Court decision? Utter lunacy!

June 27, 2017
Trump-hating circuit courts get a rude awakening
David Zukerman

The Ninth Circuit, later joined by the Fourth Circuit, decided (illegitimately) to put President Trump in his place, broadly rejecting his temporary suspension on travel from six Muslim-majority states – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen – that had previously been designated by the Obama administration as terrorism risks.

In an example of "what goes around comes around," the Supreme Court, in a per curiam – that is to say, unanimous – decision, gave the appellate courts their comeuppance, allowing President Trump's travel bans to be in effect as "against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all."

Never-Trump commentators would do well to reflect on the following statement in the per curiam ruling: "To prevent the Government from [suspending travel by] foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else." Clearly, the lower courts, in their zeal to injure the Trump presidency, gave no thought to whether a "foreign national" has a connection to the United States. Excessive, unwarranted, and unfair allegations against President Trump were persuasive at the Ninth Circuit.

How will the media, which lauded the appellate decisions for their anti-Trump bias, respond to the following, which reflects the views of liberal as well as conservative members of the Court? "Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party's relationship with the foreign national[.] And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself."

The ruling implies that the burden of the travel suspension "against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country" will not be magnified into an Establishment Clause issue by claims of anti-Islam animus allegedly made in political campaign remarks.

The ruling also accepted the government's request for writ of certiorari, and the issue will be set down for argument at the October 2017 term. Pending a decision on the merits, the travel suspension does not affect "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the [travel suspension]."

posted June 27, 2017 03:20 PM            

Just the general propaganda machine of this administration telling us we are under attack and beefing up the military to protect us. And taking the money of the main funders of terrorists in the ME to beef it up even more.

posted June 27, 2017 11:41 PM            

Have a good look at the title of this thread...about the US Supreme Court upholding the President's travel suspension.

posted June 27, 2017 11:55 PM            

Its a partial win for The Don but also for those who were harassed, deported wrongly and banned without cause because of a poorly written and worse executed edict.

posted June 28, 2017 01:08 PM            

The people who were wrongly barred, deported and harassed are vindicated by this and may now win their suits and hopefully resume their lives. We'll see about the rest in 3 months

posted June 28, 2017 03:48 PM            

No foreign national has any constitutional right to come to the United States...for any reason.

posted June 29, 2017 01:03 AM            

Yes, people were wrongly barred and if your name were Kachatarian or Patel it could have been you. No matter how long ago your family settled here.

posted July 07, 2017 08:04 AM            

“Because Plaintiffs seek clarification of the June 26, 2017 injunction modifications authored by the Supreme Court, clarification should be sought there, not here.”

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson said in a ruling Thursday in Honolulu that the Supreme Court is the proper venue to deal with the issue. (read more)
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-judge-denies-hawaii-s-motion-trump-s-travel-ban-n780366