News

Supreme Court upholds Trump’s travel ban

Protesters call out against the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Trump's travel ban outside the Supreme Court in Washington, on June 26, 2018. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON (RNS) — The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Trump’s temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from a group of primarily Muslim-majority countries in a 5-4 decision, arguing it is within the executive branch’s power to “suspend entry of aliens into the United States.”

“The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him … to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reads, citing a statute in the United States code on inadmissible aliens.

“By its terms, (the statute) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with ‘ample power’ to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the (Immigration and Nationality Act).”

The decision, known as Trump v. Hawaii, spoke dismissively of the argument that the travel ban violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing one religion: “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause.”

Four justices wrote two different dissents to the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that there is some evidence that exceptions to the ban are not being applied narrowly and show “anti-religious bias,” and would therefore “set the Proclamation aside.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that review of the ban didn’t “cleanse (it) of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created,” later adding, “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

Sotomayor also argued the ban violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees religious liberty, saying, “The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”

The court said it only considered the president’s executive order in making its decision, not Trump’s statements and tweets targeting Muslims, writing that “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.”

The president was quick to celebrate the decision, tweeting, “SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS TRUMP TRAVEL BAN. Wow!”

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, issued a scathing rebuke of the ruling.

“This ruling will go down in history as one of the Supreme Court’s great failures,” he said in a statement. “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 actions.”

Micah Schwartzman, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in the religious clauses of the U.S. Constitution, called the decision “a straightforward win for President Trump.”

“My read is that the 5-4 decision by the majority is a broader victory than many people expected,” he said. “Many thought the court would dodge this case — but it didn’t.”

Schwartzman, whom Sotomayor cites in her dissent, expressed frustration at what he described as the court “burying its head in the sand” by declining to consider Trump’s various negative comments about Islam.

“This was the big case: This was when the court was faced with clear religious animus coming from the president of the United States,” he said.

Schwartzman also argued there was a disconnect in the court’s approach to the ban compared with a recent Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited comments by CCRC officials supposedly deriding the religious beliefs of a baker who declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding as evidence of anti-religious animus — something Schwartzman argued the court ignored in the travel ban decision.

“There is deep and profound inconsistency from the court between Masterpiece Cakeshop and this case,” he said. “The travel ban case casts Masterpiece under a deep cloud.”

Nelson Tebbe, professor at Cornell Law School, agreed.

“In the Cakeshop case, the Court found that one or two statements by a multi-member board of officials sufficed to overturn its actions,” said Tebbe, who signed on to the same amicus brief as Schwartzman, in an email. “In the travel ban case, by contrast, overwhelming evidence of animus by a single decision maker, the President, was insufficient to overturn a policy with an obvious, discriminatory effect.”

The travel ban has endured a near-constant deluge of criticism since then-candidate Donald Trump first proposed a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims” entering the country while campaigning for president in December 2015. After he was elected, Trump signed an executive order instituting a more specific version of the idea on Jan. 27, 2017, banning refugees and migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The order triggered widespread protests at airports across the country, and an unusually broad spectrum of faith groups — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, National Association of Evangelicals, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the National Council of Churches — either rejected or outright condemned the ban.

The ban was also immediately beset by legal challenges. Within days, courts issued a nationwide temporary restraining order restricting enforcement of large parts of the ban. Trump subsequently signed a new version of the executive order that, among other things, removed Iraq from the list of countries affected by the ban.

That, too, was met with lawsuits: The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued yet another temporary restraining order in March 2017 that prevented the amended version from going into effect.

The debate made its way to the Supreme Court, which issued a per curiam decision on June 26, 2017, that reinstated parts of the order and set oral arguments on the case for later that year. But a third version of the ban was also signed in September, prompting the court to delay the arguments (this version was also halted by a Hawaii judge in October).

Oral arguments in the case were finally offered before the court on April 25, 2018, with a wide swath of faith groups signing on to several amicus briefs siding with those condemning the ban.

The government defended the ban, arguing that the president has the authority to create immigration policy, that the ban itself doesn’t amount to a “Muslim ban” that discriminates unconstitutionally and that Trump’s comments about Islam during the campaign were “made by a private citizen before he takes the oath of office and before … (he) receives the advice of his cabinet.”

But the state of Hawaii disagreed on several counts, arguing that since Trump has refused to disavow his previous remarks about Islam — such as “I think Islam hates us” — those comments still paint the ban.

According to a 2017 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, 55 percent of Americans oppose the ban, compared with 40 percent who approve. Among major religious groups, only white evangelical Protestants expressed majority support (61 percent) for the ban, compared with 48 percent of white Catholics, 42 percent of white mainline Protestants, 37 percent of Hispanic Catholics and 31 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

Only 24 percent of black Protestants expressed support for the ban.

About the author

Jack Jenkins

Jack Jenkins is a national reporter for RNS based in Washington, covering U.S. Catholics and the intersection of religion and politics.

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

  • Evidently, the Supreme Court, with this ruling and with the ruling in favor of gerrymandering in Texas, is going to help President Trump Make America White Again.

  • Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg state the essence of this case most succinctly:

    Review of the ban didn’t “cleanse (it) of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created,” later adding, “Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.”

    Of course, if it hadn’t been for Mitch McConnell’s outrageous, unprecedented THEFT of the seat that should have rightfully gone to Merrick Garland, this decision more than likely would have gone the other way. If there is ever another Democratic Senate Majority Leader or a Democratic majority in Congress (which will only happen if the outrageous, unprecedented efforts to unfairly gerrymander congressional districts in Republicans’ favor goes the way of the dinosaur) I hope they decide never to hold any hearings at all on ANY judicial candidate for the Supreme Court put forth by a Republican president, whether it happens in year one or year eight of that president’s term. McConnell, after all, set the bar when he said, “we need to let the American people decide.” After that statement, no Republican can ever again muster up enough manufactured outrage to make their objection justifiable. Ever!

  • Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg made it clear that they are really not very interested in law, facts, or precedents.

    They are very interested in their own personal viewpoints.

    Calling the failure to approve Merrick Garland through the usual and longstanding political shenanigans of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries “THEFT” seems to indicate you wish to join them in their unrealities.

  • Evidently the Supreme Court is beginning to apply the law to facts duly ascertained instead of trying to write new laws and amend the Constitution by the seat of their pants.

  • “Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg made it clear that they are really not very interested in law, facts, or precedents. They are very interested in their own personal viewpoints.”

    …said the master of projection.

  • As it turns out I have somewhat better grasp of facts, law, and reality than you do.

    On the other hand you do have a lot of opinions.

  • WHAM! BLAM! Nasty and typically Christian BobbyJoJack Arnzen Carioca takes another insulting swipe at a poster.

    Bobby, we’re taking your guns away.

  • And if………………..that is a huge IF………………………..so what if he wanted to make American White again.
    Why is that such a bad thing. It was built by White people FOR White people. Like criticizing the Chinese for having the desire to keep China………………..well Chinese.

  • At least you’re willing to let your true racist colors show, which is more than can be said of the rest of the Republican clan who hide under their white hoods. But truth be told, Western Civilization was built by the Greeks and the Italians, my people, who not very long ago where called “brown people” by the white anglo-saxon people who drove the “red people” from their homes and stole their land in this country, claiming it for themselves. But please, do continue to live in your little fantasy universe if it helps you to feel superior to everyone else.

  • I doubt you’re educable on this subject, but for the sake of others who might stumble on to this thread…

    Unlike China, this nation didn’t evolve from an ancient ethnic enclave. It was purposefully designed on principles of justice and enlightenment. The fact that the founders were mostly white and male reflects the social reality of their time. The fact that those things are no longer enshrined in law reflects the reality that the apparatus they bequeathed to us actually works. We are, though imperfect, a nation that stands for more than the interests of a single empowered class.

  • Is that your vocabulary word of the week?

    No, it does not meet the definition of “projection”.

  • Given your perfectly consistent track record, I’m guessing it will be the vocabulary word of the year.

  • Except the court decided it wasn’t based on religion.

    The source of truth for our society in this case is the Supreme Court’s decision.

  • Expect the liberals to be be showing up at Justice Robert’s kids school to protest and to stick their fat, latte stained fingers in the eyes of the justices.

    These foul mouthed, ill-tempered, self-rigteous liberals are going to stop at nothing to have their senseless agenda implemented.

  • Wrong. The Nation was founded by the “Posterity” for the “Posterity”.
    All others would be guests.

  • Calling liberals foul-mouthed and ill-tempered is especially rich coming from someone who gleefully supports Donald Trump. Sorry, but you don’t get to say that with a straight face anymore. No one will take you seriously. That ship has sailed with you on it.

  • What makes you think Garland would ignore the Constitution like Sotomayor and Ginsberg do?

  • It’s the hypocrisy in them….the intolerance of the self-appointed “tolerant class” that undercuts every syllable uttered out of their plump windbags.

  • Just flag it as targeted harassment, which it is.

    It usually takes Disqus awhile to close these accounts or block them from where they’re causing trouble.

  • Calling liberals foul-mouthed and ill-tempered indicates he’s familiar with Maxine Waters and Hillary Clinton.

  • Posterity by definition means those who come after. Hence “post.” No nation is founded by its future citizens. Not without benefit of time travel, that is.

    Some of those “guests” were here when the first white inhabitants arrived and some were brought here against their will. Not a very nice way to treat guests.

    Roy, in case you don’t know it, your position is repugnant. I’m moving on.

  • Oh please, being a member of the rude party isn’t a get-out-of-jail free card for you to display rudeness with impunity any more than my being a member of the “tolerant” party requires me at all times to be tolerant, especially of the sort of intolerance that your kind habitually display. Besides, we Democrats are shedding our skin and learning how not to play nice anymore. Better get used to it.

  • “It was built by White people FOR White people.”
    Meanwhile in the real world, a lot of it (including the White House and the US Capital) was actually built by black people owned by white people. But don’t let the real world come between you and your bigoted delusions.

  • Unanimously ruling against the president you mean. We both know the intention and purpose of the travel ban was an illegal ban on Muslims from countries we do not have diplomatic relations with.

  • Kennedy is the one to be annoyed at here. Sometimes the guy just gives way too much deference to corporations and the federal government.

    Yes Republicans have acted outright traitorously to the nation. It is telling many are spending July 4th in Russia.

  • So did anyone did Nazi a white supremacist rant coming from Roy?

    Roy, you are as Christian as they come. Don’t ever let them tell you otherwise.

  • Not anymore. The original travel ban was about as illegal and unworkable as possible. After 3 revisions they neutered it to an irrelevant footnote.

    Lets face it, if you supported it because it was a Muslim ban, you proved the plaintiff’s point. If you can pretend otherwise, you have proven SCOTUS’s point.

  • No, they aren’t like Conservatives. People who make a habit of death threats and harassment as a way to show disapproval. They are far more polite. To my knowledge I have never heard a liberal politician call for assaulting people. But we have seen Donald Trump do that.

  • Said the person who supports legalized discrimination and most likely a white supremacist.

  • No, we don’t both know the intention and the purpose of the travel ban was an illegal ban on Muslims.

    In fact, having read the opinion, I’d say such an assertion is outright silly.

  • Wrong. Citizenship was meant for only White people.
    Just as Japan is for the Japanese. Just as China is for the Chinese.
    You won’t be happy until South Africa comes to America. WHITE GENOCIDE.

  • We’ve heard him do it repeatedly while his supporters repeatedly ignore it as though it never even happened. Two-faced hypocrites all.

  • And that’s the sum of the argument from the left…claim everyone is a boogie man.

  • Anyone who supports a mother killing her own offspring should be thrown out of the country, as we let in mothers who want to care for their own children.

    2 for 1 swap.

  • If, as this article says, only white evangelical Protestants support the Muslim ban among major religious groups; if less than half of U.S. Catholics support it; if the U.S. Catholic bishops wrote a powerful amicus brief stating that the Muslim ban is “blatant religious discrimination” that is “repugnant to the Catholic faith, core American values, and the United States Constitution,” then what Catholic moral teaching or what Catholic church are the more-Catholic-than-anyone-else folks holding forth in this thread representing?

    It’s clearly not the Catholic moral teaching of the bishops, the pope, or a majority of U.S. Catholics — though, to repeat myself, these more-Catholic-than-anyone-else folks holding forth in this thread love nothing better than informing others that they and they alone hold the fullness of Catholic truth and they and they alone are the most obediential Catholics on the block. Well, as long as that truth is confined strictly to attacks on abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage, and has nothing to say about, oh, love, justice, or mercy as the center of the Christian life.

    Go figure. Consistency, integrity, and fidelity to the bare truth are clearly not the strong suit of people like this.

  • I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Catholic bishops to come out with a “powerful amicus” about anything other than one on abortion or homosexuality. On any other subject they are lukewarm, at best. As former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner once admitted about the Supreme Court (after she stepped down from the bench, of course) Catholic bishops don’t lead public opinion, they follow it. How very brave of them.

  • They did actually submit a powerful brief against the Muslim ban to the Supreme Court: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/bishops-brief-against-ban.

    You’re right that they have long undercut their ability to be listened to respectfully about matters like this by their monomaniacal focus on abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage. They have spectacularly undermined their role as moral teachers through their alliance with white evangelicals for several decades now, by their handling of the sexual abuse crisis, etc.

  • Well get outta town! Who’d a thunk it? Sadly for the bishops, no one’s paying any attention to them. They were tuned out long ago and cast into the dung heap of irrelevance by most thinking people.

  • Good to know you are an immoral fetus worshiper who considers women to be personal property. A woman’s body is her own and none of your business. Your narcissistic need to pretend you have a say in the matter only tells me how little you respect the lives of people. Those born.

  • You are not denying any of it being true. You are just annoyed at the label. Such a snowflake.

  • It’s not worth engaging with any such smearers. They’re IQ is too low to see their own inconsistency.

    They have limited faculties.

  • It’s the aborting women who are claiming the child is theirs to dispose of.

    They don’t understand their hierarchy of rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of rights, are contingent.

    These words make the liberal’s brains hurt because their education has become some watered down. They can only emote and whine.

    Thinking about abstractions “is too tough”.

  • Are you alluding to the fact that Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy are Catholic, that Scalia was Catholic before he passed away and that Gorsuch was raised Catholic? We have a rich recent history of five Catholic Republican males making bad 5-4 decisions all by themselves.
    It has been a puzzle to me why that has been happening for several years without most people ever seeming to notice the ill effects of this denominational curiosity at SCOTUS.

  • Do the math, folks, and wake up to the Status Quo in America. Which is: millions of people just love Trump!

    That’s a lot of people, “according to a 2017 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute”:

    (1) 1 of every 2 “Americans oppose … President Trump’s temporary ban on refugees and immigrants from a group of primarily Muslim-majority countries”.

    (2) 2 of every 5 “approve.”

    (3) 3 of every 5 “white evangelical Protestants expressed … support … for the ban”.

    (4) As did 1 of every 2 “white Catholics”.

    (5) As did 2 of every 5 “white mainline Protestants”.

    (6) As did 2 of every 5 “Hispanic Catholics”.

    (7) As did 1 of every 3 “religiously unaffiliated Americans.”

    (8) 1 of every 4 “black Protestants expressed support for the ban.”

  • Wake up to this fact: three million more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. Americans love Hillary Clinton more than they love Donald Trump. If it weren’t for the slave-era electoral college and Russia’s help, she’d be the president now, unlike the illegitimate vulgar orange usurper who now squats in the Oval Office.

  • So you are claiming ownership over the bodies of women. They must do as you command when it comes to all of their most personal decisions. And you have the nerve to claim to be a moral person. For shame.

    “They don’t understand their hierarchy of rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of rights, are contingent.”

    Such hostile, arrogant, nasty crap.

    S1utshaming being the cornerstone of your beliefs. But no, the fool who demands that women’s bodies be subject to their whim, such as you is the one who lacks understanding of such things.

    Rights as a person begin at birth. For you that is when they end. My view makes sense in a society which values liberties. Yours is autocratic immoral crap.

    I can understand why you spout this garbage. It must feel good to aggrandize yourself and attack others.

    Now run along. Adults are talking.

  • Still not denying a word of it. But showing how thin skinned you are about such things being pointed out.

  • That label does apply to the shameful words and actions of Hollywood actors and comedians. It’s a Chicken Little, knee-jerk irrational emotional response to what is admittedly an unfortunate event (Trump as president).

  • WAKEY WAKEY:

    “Donald Trump Is Not Popular, But Hillary Clinton Is Even Worse”
    – Newsweek, September 7, 2017.

    “Hillary Clinton is Less Popular Than President Trump”, Time, July 19, 2017.

    “POLL: Hillary Clinton’s approval rating is even worse than Trump’s”
    – Business Insider, July 18, 2017.

    “New poll shows Hillary Clinton is even less popular than Trump”, CBS News, July 18, 2017.

    “Poll: Hillary Clinton is less popular than Trump”, Slate, July 18, 2017.

    “Finally, a Poll Trump Will Like: Clinton Is Even More Unpopular”, Bloomberg, July 18, 2017.

  • So, as for 2 of every 5 “Hispanic Catholics” and for 1 of every 4 “black Protestants express[ing] support for the ban”, your judgment is they all just wanna “help President Trump Make America White Again.”

  • Yes — and the fact that there such a substantial number of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic (Sotomayor is also Catholic) rather undercuts the argument of some U.S. Catholics that Catholics remain a persecuted, denigrated minority without political clout in the U.S. There certainly is a history of ugly anti-Catholicism in American culture, and it’s still in evidence in some quarters. But the argument that Catholics remain a marginalized community in the U.S. is obviously wildly unconvincing, given data like these about who sits on the highest court bench in the land.

  • An uncivil remark accusing others of being uncivil. Irony is lost on conservative cretins.

    I will say this, I have never seen liberals try to give bigotry color of law. Conservatives, when not attacking working people, do nothing but that.

  • I don’t know if Schwartzman and Tebbe are deliberately being disingenuous, or actually that blinded by their prejudices. In the Colorado case the Supreme Court had two parts to its ruling: that a law of general applicability was NOT applied evenhandedly, and that the reason for that failure was because of clear prejudice against religious beliefs. It sent the case back to the lower court (and another in Washington) for a reappraisal of the case based on that finding.

    Beyond that, I can’t say I’m surprised here. The Left has long looked to the courts to win what it could not win at the ballot box, but that has exploded since Trump’s election (though in fairness the Right was following their example during the Obama years). The Court showed a distinct disinclination this term to become the final arbiter of political questions, and probably rightly so — in this case, presidents have long enjoyed broad latitude, granted to them by Congress, in deciding who comes into this country. Does the Court really want to seize that power for itself because it doesn’t like how THIS president exercises that power? Apparently, the answer is a narrow NO.

  • Sorry to disappoint you, but the Electoral College is in no way inconsistent with a republican system, so the vulgarian Trump is the legitimately elected president. Mind, I wouldn’t mind a constitutional amendment requiring that the electoral votes be divided up by House district with whoever wins the state getting the two electoral votes for the Senators, but the current system still has the advantage of requiring a candidate’s support be broad as well as deep.

  • You call logic (the idea of nested, or contingent rights) “nasty crap”.

    Got it.

  • If you call your nasty minded spew, logic then, you should probably wait until you finish high school before you try posting an argument online.

  • I despise President Trump but the popular vote is irrelevant and if the situation were reversed Democrats would hardly be calling for the abolition of the Electoral College – which reminds us that we are a collection of states and we vote that way. I voted for Clinton (lesser if the evils) and it is my opinion outside forces didn’t cause her to lose since she had more popular votes. She – her own fault – lost a few key states.

  • What you call “their monomaniacal focus on abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage” they’d characterize as a focus on life issues.

    Since it is their religion it’s hard to argue they can’t focus as they wish.

    I would be careful about characterizing “their handling of the sexual abuse crisis”. There are over 5,000 bishops in the world, and only a handful have been involved in lawsuits or other problems.

    Without exception those bishops who ran into problems failed to follow Canon Law both in the running of their seminaries, which would have weeded most of the offenders out, and in their handling of the accused.

    Canon Law requires that a fair consideration of the accused be made and, if they are found culpable, they be dismissed from the clerical state, not sent off for counseling.

    Some American dioceses had zero lawsuits because they followed the rules.

  • The Supreme Court ruled it is NOT a “Muslim ban”.

    Since it is not, that addresses most of your issues.

  • Well, good Catholics ARE now being marginalized by bad SCOTUS decisions from their own brethren. I wonder if they know.

  • Why the ban on citizens from terrorist countries?

    As the koranic/mosque driven acts of terror and horror continue:

    The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century

    ■”The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. ”

    and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.

    and more recently

    1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

    1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

    2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

    3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action,  and 928 in non combat roles. Iraqi civilians killed as of 05/10/2013/, 113,249-123,978 mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

    4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

    5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

    6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

    7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

    8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

    9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

    10) – Afghanistan: US troops  killed in action,  killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror

    11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

    12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.

  • 13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,

    14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane’s wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.

    15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.

    16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.

    17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.

    18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.

    19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country’s controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011

    20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011

    21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.

    22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) — Hena Akhter’s last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh’s Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.

    23) “October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. ”

    o 24) Mon Jun 4, 2012 10:18am EDT
    o
    BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed car outside a Shi’ite Muslim office in central Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 190 in an attack bearing the hallmarks of Iraq’s al Qaeda affiliate.
    The bombing on a Shi’ite religious office comes at a sensitive time, with the country’s fractious Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs locked in a crisis that threatens to unravel their power-sharing deal and spill into sectarian tensions.”

    25) BURGAS, Bulgaria | Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:27am EDT

    (Reuters) – A suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed seven people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, the interior minister said on Thursday, and Israel said Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants were to blame.

    26 ) September 12, 2012
    U.S. AMBASSADOR KILLED
    Envoy to Libya dies in rocket blast

    27) Boston Marathon horror – April 2013, four dead, hundreds injured and maimed for life.

    28) San Bernardino massacre, December 2015, 14 dead, 22 seriously hurt,

    29) Orlando Massacre- June 2016, 49 killed, hundreds injured by radical, koranic Muslim.

  • Only after the third try. When Trump finally decided to rely on experts to draft one.

    Legal at this point is a very low benchmark. Certainly not one indicating whether something is right or sane.

  • Not at all. But nice try.

    So what was the alternative to the ACA?

    Absolutely nothing other than less people being insured and much higher insurance premiums for many others.

    What was Trump’s alternative to the “bad Iran deal”

    Absolutely nothing and actually enabling Iran to restart a nuclear weapons program without restraint.

    Why does marriage equality annoy you?

    Because you are a bigot who wants to discriminate against gays for its own sake.

  • 1) insurance pools run by individual states or group of states. They are more flexible.
    2) will soon pull out of Iran deal. Hope NK will work out well and Iran can follow suit. Until Iran leaves Israel alone there will always be issues.
    3/4) it really doesn’t. What annoys me is people that self identify as hyphenated groups. I do not like the balkinization of our country.

  • 1. Hardly. That was the status quo before ACA and we had over 10 million uninsured people creating public hazards and one of the largest economic stresses on those who work for a living

    2. There was no alternative suggested or tried. It was a bonehead move which undermines any credibility in negotiation with the US. NK is already trolling the US on the subject. Iran has been largely avoiding confrontation with Israel in favor of the proxy wars with Saudi Arabia. Israel’s right wing is playing up Iran as a threat to for political advantage domestically.

    3. You are annoyed so many people are being so “uppity” and seeking not to be discriminated under color of law. To be treated as human beings. Oh well.

  • 1). The ACA has made it far worse for the majority of Americans; and that was before trump touched it. Sad to say but better to back to where we were and put the 10 million on federal assistance.
    2) what do you want to try with Iran or NK? Either they capitulate and give up nukes or we make sure they don’t economically or militarily. Be honest on this one- BO did not make a good deal and he didn’t lay congress approve. We’ll see what DT does. Hoping NK plays out the right way; but we shall see.
    3) I don’t remember 3. Probably about you wanting the wall 3 feet higher than I do. 🙂

  • 1) Completely false. Thanks to Trump health insurance costs for families rose dramatically and over 2 million people who were insured are not. My own situation was actually made worse than the pre ACA conditions. Thanks to de facto repeal and NOTHING IN ITS PLACE, I now pay $5k a year out of pocket that I never had before. Trump owes me money, the deadbeat. 🙂

    2) The previous deal with Iran worked. They were complying. Trump messed up badly there. Too late to undo that mess. Iran now has an incentive not to cooperate.

    We have already been cut out of substantive action with NK because Trump was so dismissive of SK and a loudmouth. China and SK are plotting their own course of action without us. We got kiddie tabled. What we do is wait out the regime. War is off the table, sanctions are already off the table. Trump messed up badly there and got trolled by a dictator.

    3) Again, you would be on the wrong side of the proposed wall to protect our nation from its enemies. 🙂

  • FYI -under the ACA, my premium went from 14k per year to 26k. My employer then cancelled our company policy.
    The people who can’t afford insurance just go to the ER anyway. We pay for it one way or another.

  • https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

    “(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”

    Dissent in Trump v Hawaii

    “JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, dissenting.”

    “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle. It leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally as a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” because the policy now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns. But this repackaging does little to cleanse Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 of the appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created. Based on the evidence in the record, a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.“

    and then a long analysis of 2016 campaign speeches, making the argument that every presidential action can and perhaps should be second-guessed by an unelected Federal judiciary.

  • Your company policy was most likely one which barely covered state minimums. You were paying for garbage coverage all that time.

    “The people who can’t afford insurance just go to the ER anyway. We pay for it one way or another.”

    Or go bankrupt or create public hazards for the rest of us. That was a rather depraved answer.* Either you have no clue what you are talking about or are just being a troll.

  • Ok. Glad you got all the answers. And here I felt bad bacause you no longer have the free insurance that I pay for. Oh well, guess you’ll have to get a job.

  • It helps when one thinks for themselves and bothers to learn and understand a situation. All you were left with were snide remarks.

    Have a good weekend and happy 4th

ADVERTISEMENTs