Listening to the news this morning, I heard Trump supporters cheering the Supreme Court Decision endorsing the (Muslim) Travel Ban. They said it protects our country. It supports national security.
As I recall, 15 of the 19 terrorists who participated in the atrocities of 9/11 were Saudis. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia on Trump’s list? Why isn’t Egypt on the list? Does it have anything to do with the locations of properties or investments of the Trump Organization?
Does anyone doubt that the sole intent of this ban was to make a symbolic gesture that is anti-Muslim? I thought Gorsuch was supposed to be the great defender of religious liberty? Guess not.
http://time.com/4629308/donald-trump-business-deals-world-map/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
While we have debated in the past about history and fascism when discussing the current trend in American politics, one thing is inescapable. One side is actively using the mechanisms of governing to subvert and kill self-government. And they are succeeding. Will they continue to until they are successful?
LikeLike
The Saudi’s knew how to treat Trump to praise/manipulate him.
……………
Trump Tweet:
6 Nov
I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing….
LikeLike
Right here your sentence got into trouble: “Gorsuch was supposed to be the great … ” That clause can’t lead anywhere sensible.
LikeLike
What I said was that he was noted for his defense of religious liberty, yet in this case he upheld a ruling based entirely on discrimination against a religious minority. It did not bother him to vote for the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because of his religious beliefs.
LikeLike
Honing in on the inconsistency between those two decisions (borrowing from the Sotomayor-Ginsburg dissent)…
SCOTUS’ bakery decision was narrow: it did not say a business-owner can refuse to serve a customer on religious grounds, it said the state commissioners’ position included religiously biased statements against the baker and thus was evidence of unconstitutional governmental action.
The travel-ban decision is narrow in the opposite sense, upholding the President’s right to restrict travel in the interests of national security, while ignoring his religiously-biased statements supporting the ban, which provide ample evidence of unconstitutional governmental action.
LikeLike
Yes.
A single comment by a member of the Colorado Human Rights Commission was reason enough for the Supreme Court to toss out the cas of the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.
But Trump’s repeated declarations that he wanted a total and complete ban on Muslims was not enough to demonstrate that the ban was motivated by religious animosity.
LikeLike
In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in Korematsu v. United States to allow the government to take Japanese people from their homes and put them in prisons based on the false claim of national security. This remains a disgrace on our history.
Trump’s Supreme Court is now ruling against Muslims in the name of ‘national security’. How sad that ignorant people cheer.
He hates immigrants, women and anyone who isn’t white male. How low can this country go? Everyday is a new step downward. There is always something.
LikeLike
Thousands of Germans and Italians were also taken from their homes and imprisoned. It was war and bad things happen during war times.
That said, chump will make that period of time look lovely if he enacts his entire agenda. Anyone of any color, religion, or lifestyle he doesn’t agree with will be jailed.
Times are going to get very interesting over the next decade or so.
LikeLike
Not summarily; most Germans or Italians were foreign Nationals, not Citizens
LikeLike
When discussing the incarceration of Japanese Americans, let’s tell the whole story: It was an unfair–disgraceful if you like–action by Pres. Roosevelt and those who supported it. BUT, let’s also remember that we’d had a surprise attack on Hawaii, by Japan, killing around 2000 Americans. It stunned Americans the way 9/11 did. (I was 4 years old and “everyone” around us was talking about it. We lived in Michigan and weren’t worried about Japan attacking us–but there were stories of German Uboats with missiles coming down Hudson Bay and the St. Lawrence River. People in California were shaken and rumors of another attack, this time on the Pacific Coast, were rampant). So many Americans were in a state of semi-panic. There were actual German and Japanese spies among us, with continuing stories of espionage on the radio. It’s important not to exaggerate, or to, say, compare FDR’s actions to Trump’s. Meanwhile, after 9/11 our President Bush led us into a war with a nation which had no role in the attack, ignoring the nation of the attackers. No Japanese were killed as a result of FDR’s orders. W Bush’s actions have destabilized the Middle East and Europe. We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and surrounds. (As a history teacher, I’m sworn to get the story as straight as possible).
LikeLike
Jack: I think the parallel should be drawn between Japanese-American internment and the travel ban (rather than war in Iraq & consequent destabilization of the Middle East). The travel ban draws on the exact same sort of panic as post-Pearl Harbor & in-country wartime espionage. The fear fallout from 9/11 is still there, sustained by subsequent jihad-type-attacks ( & foiled attempts) evidencing extremist cells in US – and that is what Trump counts on & whips up to get popular support for the travel ban.
Granted, banning entrance to certain nationals is a far cry from, say, rounding up Muslims and putting them in camps. But that’s a slender thread on which to rest a SCOTUS decision which simultaneously overrules Korematsu and supports a travel ban expressly promoted by Trump as a “Muslim ban.” Sotomayor: “As here, the Government invoked an ill-defined national security threat to justify an exclusionary policy of sweeping proportion.”
LikeLike
The Korematsu decision was one of the “dirty dozen” worst decisions ever delivered by the court. Yesterday, 26 June, the Court issued a statement “repudiating” the decision. See
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/supreme-court-overturns-korematsu-673846
Over 110,000 US citizens of Japanese descent were “interned”. Only one man fought back. He lost the case. President Obama awarded him the Medal of Freedom.
LikeLike
I call BS.
Roberts overruled Korematsu to respond to Sonia Sotomayor, who compared The Muslin Ban to Korematsu.
She was exactly right. The court of history will denounce this decision too unless Trump destroys our democracy beyond repair
LikeLike
Gorsuch will defend religious liberty, as long as it’s his religion.
LikeLike
exactly.
He is wreaking revenge on behalf of his mother Anne Gorsuch, who was such an extremist that she was forced to resign from EPA during Reagan administration.
LikeLike
I lived in Saudi Arabia for one year. And I have lived for many years in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. I have served as a civilian contractor, on the front lines in the war on terror. And I have studied Islam thoroughly.
The recently upheld ban on travel from some countries, identified with harboring terrorism is more than justified. The ban is not against Muslims. Muslims enter our country legally, when they have the proper visas. There is no religious question, on a US visa application. (I used to work for the US State Department).
The ban applies to individuals who are resident in some countries which have been identified with harboring and supporting international terrorism. The fact that these nations have muslim majority populations, is incidental.
As a person, who has seen the fight against terrorism, up close and personal (two of my co-workers were killed by terrorists), I know that the ban is more than justified.
It is not based on religion, nor race, and any parallel to the unjustified incarceration of American citizens of Japanese descent, is a false analogy.
LikeLike
Charles, why not Saudi Arabia? 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. So was Osama Bin Laden.
LikeLike
I do not know why the ban does not include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (But I have some ideas why)
The USA has a very close and intimate relationship with the Magic Kingdom. We cooperate on all types of levels, including energy policy (of course!), and sharing of intelligence. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, like Iran used to be. We do NOT want another Islamic revolution, and a radical, terrorist government ruling Saudi Arabia, intent on obtaining nuclear weapons. A second Iran, is unacceptable.
The Saudis supply us with a great deal of intelligence and cooperation in the fight against international terrorism, and they do it very quietly and without fanfare.
Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national, and many of the 9/11 terrorists were as well. That does not mean that the Kingdom supports or encourages terrorism. The facts speak for themselves, the Saudis are doing the opposite.
LikeLike
15 of the 19 terrorists who killed 3,000 people on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.
If one wants to exclude terrorists, Saudi Arabia should be on that list.
Even in 2001, the Saudis were our close, close friends. The Bush family had a close relationship with the royal family.
This Muslim ban is a farce. Political theater.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, the ban is not about banning Muslims. There is no religious test on a US visa application. The ban is about controlling the entry of people into the USA from nations that support terrorism. When these nations decide to cooperate, and join the fight AGAINST terrorism, then our nation could re-visit and/or lift the ban against their citizens.
LikeLike
Hey Charles! What about Saudi Arabia, the single biggest supporter of terrorism in the world?
LikeLike
You are one sick individual, Chuck. I’m sure you’re aware that Saudi Arabia is currently in the process (with U.S. help, of course) of destroying Yemen, including bombing hospitals, schools, wedding parties, funerals and other civilian targets and creating one of the biggest humanitarian crises in history. But, hey, they’re brown people so who cares, amiright?
LikeLike
( I worked for ARAMCO, the Arabian-American Oil Company). Why does not everyone realize, that the United States government has to “suck up” to the Saudi monarchy, for many reasons?
OIL. The Saudis have one of the largest oil reserves in the world. The Saudis have influence over other OPEC nations, and can (to some degree) control the international price of oil. Our government cannot afford to antagonize the Saudis. I we are going to keep driving our SUVs, we must play nice with the Saudis.
-Terrorism. The Saudis provide a huge amount of cooperation in the fight against terrorism. They do this quietly and without a lot of fanfare. Regardless of the fact that Osama Bin Laden (and many other international terrorists) were born in the Kingdom, the Saudis are cooperating.
-Geopolitical. The Saudi peninsula is the heart of the Mideast. Other nations , especially Kuwait, are dependent on the Saudis for military protection, financial advice, and other concerns.
-Saudi Arabia is the center of the Islamic world, and the birthplace of Mohammed (PBUH). The two holy Mosques are in Saudi. Mecca is in Saudi. All devout Muslims are required to make the Pilgrimage to Mecca, at least once in their lives. Closing off travel to the Kingdom, would antagonize the entire Islamic world.
The USA is entwined with the Kingdom, in a thousand different ways. There is no way, that the USA would ever ban travel to the USA from the Kingdom.
Why can’t everyone see, that for geopolitical, energy, counter-terrorism, and other reasons, that a ban on travel, or any other disruption in our relationship is impossible?
Read more about it, I suggest “Inside the Magic Kingdom” by Sandra Mackey. (She is a woman who lived in Saudi, and interviewed many of the major players)
LikeLike
If this is not about Muslims, why did you feel the need to make a point about having studied Islam? What is it you allegedly learned in your study?
Incidentally, you know what the definition of “terrorist” is? A man with a bomb but no air force. We Americans, being the humanitarians that we are, deliver our bombs by airplane (or drone).
LikeLike
I have lived in predominately Islamic countries for many years. I study Islam, primarily as a hobby. When I lived in Saudi Arabia, I decided to learn all I could about the religion of 20% of this world. My studies have given me some insight into the problems of the Mideast, and terrorism. I felt it was worth mentioning.
I have seen the results of terrorism up close and personal. I have flown on aircraft, bringing the remains of slain US soldiers home. I do not see any reason for levity. We use our airplanes for other purposes than dropping bombs.
The terrorists also plant their bombs in roads, causing death and grievous injury. A co-worker lost a hand to a roadside bomb. I used to analyze bomb electronics at a lab in Afghanistan.
If you ever spent a night in a concrete bunker in Afghanistan, (I have spent many), you might think differently about the humanity of dropping bombs on terrorists.
LikeLike
You might want to stop and think why the “terrorists” are planting bombs that kill our soldiers and contractors, Chuck. Hint: it’s not about Islam. You can get bent out of shape about bombs “planted” in roads, etc., but until you (and this country) understand that we bomb wedding parties, funerals, rescuers, hospitals, schools and zillions of other civilian targets, it’s going to keep happening. What would you do if a foreign power were occupying your country and killing your people?
LikeLike
So the natural conclusion if we are banning whole nationalities based on a threat to security must be that a substantial proportion of not a majority of the people in these countries are interested in committing terrorist acts. What, exactly, have you seen in your travels that would indicate that this is the case? Even if it were the case, why is a “ban” needed? Why can’t this be solved by monitoring the activities of those perceived to be a threat rather than keeping families apart for no reason?
LikeLike
Charles thinks that “The recently upheld ban on travel from some countries, identified with harboring terrorism is more than justified.”
Really. Charles, do you ever do your homework and fact check.
“Donald Trump’s executive order restricting U.S. travel from predominantly-Muslim nations does not include countries where he has business interests.”
TRUE
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trumps-muslim-ban-exclude-countries-businesses/
“Michelle Chen — Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ doesn’t just target eight countries. It’s stoking hatred against Muslims in America.
A new report identifies an unprecedented rise in racial bias attacks after the president took office.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-muslim-ban-doesn-t-just-target-eight-countries-ncna868971
Trump’s list
Iran
Libya
North Korea
Somalia
Syria
Venezuela
Yemen
How many Islamic terrorists that attacked on U.S. soil came from those countries?
“after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.”
Zero.
The countries that have generated the most terrorists that go out and murder people in their god’s name are: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon — not even one of these countries is on Trump’s list.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/
LikeLike
Spare me. As employees of a 2WTC engrg co, my husband and I lost a number of friends and co-workers 9/11 in the attack carried out by terrorists from Saudi Arabia – and 9 families in our small town alone each lost a member – in ’93, a neighbor friend lost colleagues and experienced a terrifying elevator ride in the wake of the bombing by terrorists from Kuwait, Pakistan, and Palestine. I have family in France, England and Belgium near sites of terrorist attacks. We might just as well put all the Middle East and most of Europe on that list if we think we can travel-ban our way to national security.
As your later post implies, the choice of listed countries is a political one – who Trump can and can’t risk offending in order to score political points – and he cynically garnered public support by whipping up religious intolerance during and after his campaign.
LikeLike
He left out the countries where the Trump Org does business.
LikeLike
This is rule by gut and id. If it’s not corruption or obstruction, it will be this that will undo his office, I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly it will inspire a larger and larger citizen resistance; we see what the ‘civil’ media tells us, that the ban was upheld and Trump is getting what he wants. We often are not told, however, how much fear, anger, frustration and anxiety is building AGAINST Trump and this Supreme Court.
LikeLike
I hope/ wish you are right. At the moment, polls show Trump support among Republicans at 95%. And I can’t find a cite, but I believe I just saw a poll on the travel ban at 47%-53%.
LikeLike
What does Republican support of Trump mean by the numbers not by the percents?
Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent
In 2016, it’s estimated that 138.8 million eligible voters actually voted out of more than 250 million. It doesn’t matter what they say, if they don’t vote, they don’t count.
43 million Democrats
33.3 million Republicans
58.3 million independent voters (I belong to this group)
According to Gallup, 9 out of 10 Republicans support Trump. That’s 29.97 million
Not counting independents, Democrats are already ahead by more than 13 million that vote.
“According to the latest NBC/WSJ polling, 43% strongly disapprove of President Trump and 25% strongly approve.” Not broken down by party affiliation
“Currently, Trump is polling very poorly with independent voters. Only 42% of them approve of the job he is doing. According to Gallup polling, his highest approval was 42% when he first took office, and his lowest approval point was 29% in early August 2017.”
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/follow-2018-us
It would be nice to see Republicans abandoning Trump but even if they don’t, and the numbers among Democrats and Independents remain strongly against Trump, that’s a good thing because Republicans are outnumbered and not by a slim margin of only 3 million votes.
LikeLike
Lloyd: Thanks for the encouraging numbers. This means there is really some hope that Trump isn’t doing well. Now, people need to get out and vote.
LikeLike
I feel optimistic that this time Democratic and Independents will not let the lying Russians or the lying Alt-Right media machine depress them enough to not vote.
There’s an old saying I like.
“Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.”
I also like one of Lincoln’s quotes.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some (Republicans, it seems) of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
LikeLike
Oh, >phew< (sigh of relief), Lloyd, thanks for the reality check those numbers provide!
Guessing by anecdotal evidence [i.e., listening daily to callers-in at CSPAN’s Wash Jrnl show], the average Trump supporter seems to double down in direct proportion to increased public opprobrium heaped on their fearless leader… So their 95% approval is kind of a good thing
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blaming Trump or the Trump organization’s investments for leaving Saudi Arabia and Egypt off the banned list ignores decades of important history.
The US govt has been very cozy with the Saudis practically since the kingdom’s inception, a marriage of convenience involving oil, money, and arms.
The US and Egypt have been closely aligned militarily since the 1970’s, with only a small pause in military aid after the 2011 revolution.
LikeLike
So you’re going with the quote attributed to FDR – “They may be bastards, but they’re OUR bastards.”
LikeLike
Good one.
LikeLike
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-26/trump-travel-ban-doesn-t-cover-saudi-arabia-or-the-u-a-e?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=180626&utm_campaign=sharetheview
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93United_States_relations
LikeLike
Yes, concerned, exactly: “oil, money & arms.”
LikeLike
As outrageous as many people find the “travel ban” to be, the public seems to be fairly evenly split on it. Which is interesting.
LikeLike
So half the country is xenophobic. I guess I don’t find that interesting, I find it par for the course.
LikeLike
That’s another way to put it.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court’s Green Light to Discriminate
By upholding President Trump’s travel ban, the justices have sent the message that the administration is free to turn prejudice into public policy.
…Whatever message the Court intended to send, the one that Trump and his administration will take from the ruling is that the president is free to implement any discriminatory policy he likes, so long as his advisers launder the president’s bigotries through facially neutral language. Trump has derided Latino immigrants as “rapists” and “criminals” who want to “infest” the country, called Muslims terrorists, and expressed anger about people from “shithole” Caribbean and African countries coming to the United States. Roberts has given Trump a green light to turn his prejudiced sentiments into public policy, provided that he make a minimal effort to veil that prejudice, without fear that the Supreme Court will overturn them.
In addressing the constitutionality of the order, Roberts writes, “we must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself.” So the president need not even cease to make bigoted generalizations about religious and ethnic minorities publicly—the high court’s conservative justices will, in evaluating the policies motivated by such prejudices, disregard them, so long as they can find some other superficial basis for their existence.
For a president and administration whose guiding principles have been deliberate cruelty and the fervent, unpersuasive denial of that cruelty, it is a moment to celebrate. Everyone else should understand that when the Trump administration comes for them, America’s highest court will do nothing to stop it.
Read More:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-supreme-courts-green-light-to-discriminate/563756/?utm_source=eb
LikeLike
Guess which Muslim countries are not included in Trump’s Muslim travel ban. He does business in all four:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-26/trump-travel-ban-doesn-t-cover-saudi-arabia-or-the-u-a-e?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=180626&utm_campaign=sharetheview
If the others want to get off the list, they should open a Trump Hotel.
LikeLike
The exclusion of those countries has far less to do with Trump’s personal business interests than with long-term U.S. relationships based on money, oil and arms as concerned citizen posted above. Every administration – Democratic and Republican – has been on friendly terms with those countries for decades because they serve U.S. interests.
LikeLike
Excellent article, thanks for the link.
LikeLike
BTW
Janus decision should be tomorrow.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.sj-r.com/news/20180626/its-another-day-without-janus-v-afscme-decision%3ftemplate=ampart
LikeLike
The Supreme Court has become a Partisan political agency rather than an impartial judicial branch. I fear that the election of Trump will have lasting negative consequences for reproductive rights, human rights and environmental issues.
When will the Supreme Court become elected with term limits?
LikeLike
Term limits for the Supreme Court will only happen with an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and even attempting to do that is dangerous because once that door is open, what else will the GOP change in the Constitution?
The Koch brothers have wanted to rewrite the U.S. Constitution for decades. What do you think they would do if they had that chance?
LikeLike
I take your point, but SCOTUS is now packed with ideological right wingers who are going to advance the conservative agenda for decades to come, able to overturn any democratic initiatives.
LikeLike
True, but as long as the GOP holds the power in all three branches of government, handing them a Constitutional Convention would be like opening Pandora’s Box. In the end, we’d probably not get the term limits and would rue the changes to the Constitution we did get. Those changes would turn into horrible nightmares for most of the population.
LikeLike
The framers designed the judicial branch, specifically NOT to be elected, and to have permanent lift tenure. This is to ensure that the judiciary is totally independent, and not subject to the whims of the mob.
The framers justifiably feared direct democracy, and mob rule.
LikeLike
Charles,
The Supreme Court follows elections
Anyone who thinks Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are independent is certifiably stupid.
LikeLike
The individual members of the court are free to “follow” elections as they see fit. They are not subject to the electorate.
Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, and when Warren asserted his independence, Eisenhower regretted the appointment.
Neil Gorsuch is a man of sterling integrity and character. He is so well-respected and admired, that when he was nominated for his previous judgeship, he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
LikeLike
Gorsuch is a rightwing zealot. He is in no way independent. He is the Manchurian Candidate, nurtured by his equally extremist mother Anne Gorsuch, who had to resign from the EPA in Reagan administration because she was an extremist. Gorsuch is no Earl Warren.
LikeLike
The framers of our Constitution never imagined that a man of low character like Trump would ever be elected. They created the electoral college to assure that the “best men”of each state would weed out men of low repute. Read Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #68.
Or if that’s too challenging, read this brief summary: http://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/
The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent the election of demagogues like Trump.
LikeLike
And the “framers” fears have been justified because the U.S. is now in the control of a greedy, lying, racist, manipulating, fascist mob called the Trumpish Alt-Right.
LikeLike
I keep asking on many topics, “What is their endgame?”
Internment camps because the population of poor, “illegal,” uninsured, out of work immigrants will not be able to live. And, the folks with guns are just waiting for the first riot.
Now it’s Banning immigrants.
Raising rents on people already working but living in low income housing.
Seeing “both sides” of a white supremicist rally.
take away Health care.
Vouchers and privatization.
Gerrymandering congressional districts.
Handpicked right wing and understaffing judges.
Controling (buying up stations) media.
THEN WHAT?
ENDGAME? Poor, unhealthy, illiterate out of work people of color. And a mess of guns.
THEN WHATt?
Scapegoats? Professors. Scientists. Immigrants. Teachers. Hence, the guns.
Supreme Court rulings supporting their racism and poverty growth? Internment camps.
Maybe a China-rule restricting number of children of growing populations.
It’s sick.
President can’t express attitude about African-Americans. He just blames the NFL players for being unpatriotic.
He doesn’t have to express attitude abot Hispanic population. He keeps using MS 13 gang.
They talk in code: they can’t name who and what they hates – so
social justice = redistribution of wealth and Robin Hood;
unpatriotic = black,
gangs = immigrants;
Democrats are worried the “shaming the president” will backfire.
Don’t shame him and them – EXPOSE THEIR TACTICS.
LikeLike
Wait, What?: Very well stated. The future looks grim if the GOP’s gerrymandering and voter repression keep Democrats out of power. Dems aren’t perfect but they aren’t as extreme as the GOP. [Greatly Overrated Pricks]
LikeLike
For every terrorist we keep out with this travel ban, thousands will be created by the adverse publicity in places where we are attempting to prop up shaky regimes whose only justification for existence is that they allow American investment. Any Muslim on the fence just got a PR nudge toward the terrorist side. The fence just got lighter. The terrorists just won another one.
Remember the Black Hand? They were a Serbian terrorist group,that hated Austria-Hungary. When they went after Franz Ferdinand, it was not because he was an extremist, but because he represented a moderate path to Serbian self-government under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Terrorists love to stir strident opposition. They hate moderates. Trump is playing into he hands of the terrorists. Bush had the sense to differentiate between terrorism and moderate Islam. Obama had the sense to do the same. Regardless of whether you agreed with their policies, they at least had the sense to separate these groups. Trump plays to a political base that fears all Islam, not because they are violent, but because they are different.
The tragedy is that his policies will not have their negative effects until he is out of office.
LikeLike
Sigh. Commenter Charles is one of those who has a “genuine” perspective on the fight against terrorism in general, and Islam in particular. He insists the Trump travel ban is NOT about religion (Islam) when Trump clearly has said – again and again – that it is. He campaigned on it. The conservatives on the Court bought the charade, though it likely didn’t take all that much to convince them.
History will not be kind to John Roberts.
LikeLike
Keep in mind, this is not a “muslim” ban. There is no religious question on a US visa application. It is ban on travel from countries which are allegedly supporting terrorism. And, the ban includes a ban on travel from North Korea, which is officially atheist, and Venezuela, which is predominately Roman Catholic.
LikeLike
There are no tourists from North Korea. Venezuela was thrown in to pretend Trump did not call repeatedly for a complete and total Muslim Ban. We are not stupid, Charles.
LikeLike
Anthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America
No one expected Kennedy to allow Donald Trump to pick his successor. But he has. And it should forever taint his legacy as a jurist.
…The worst part is that by retiring in the middle of the Robert Mueller investigation, Kennedy is letting Trump pick one of his own jurors. He obviously had to know he was doing this. And what are we do if the Supreme Court holds sometime in the near future by 5-4, with Kennedy’s successor in the majority, that the president is indeed above the law?
It could be that Kennedy would have been part of such a majority anyway. But if Trump’s two justices are part of that five, it will taint the Court forever, and it will tarnish what remains of our democracy, as the highest court in the land will have ruled that the crookedest president in modern history cannot be called to any kind of legal account.
Kennedy had to have contemplated all this as he pondered his resignation…
https://thebea.st/2z3Z5JO?source=email&via=desktop
LikeLike
If a 5-4 Alt-Right majority in the Supreme Court rules that Trump, the president, is above the law, I predict an eruption into civil war in the United States. Many cities will burn.
What the US experienced during the Rodney King riots will be small in comparison.
The anger will shake the planet.
LikeLike
Fareed Zakaria: While the Supreme Court…has upheld the ‘travel ban’…the ban is a solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist, because jihadist terrorism impacting the United States is largely caused by terrorists long resident in the country.”
“Of the 422 terrorism cases tracked by New America since 9/11, 85% involved US citizens or permanent residents.”
LikeLike