The Gross National Debt

Monday, June 26, 2017

The sound of splodey heads Part I

The US Supreme Court today delivered two opinions that are causing terminal migraines, especially for those on the left.

The great majority of those with splodey heads did not and will not read the High Court's decisions. I did.

I wish I could find the left-winger who recently said people who complain about the High Court's decisions should just shut up. He said the Court decided and that is the way it is.

Ain't enough Tylenol in the world right now to cure his headache.

Cognitive dissonance will do that to a person.

On wid de show!


The High Court unanimously blocked the major injunctions of lower courts on the president's travel bans. Unanimously. As in all of 'em, including the most liberal justices. None left out. Evvabuddy.

And the sound you hear is that burning brain cells. But I already said that.


Here is the SCOTUS decision in full.

In case you wonder, "certiorari" - a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court.


Here is the executive order. 

It is referenced in the SCOTUS decision often by a funny looking symbol, §, that is the legal squiggle for Section.


To start, I wanted to see what authority the Liar in Chief has over international affairs. As I will say often, don't take my word for it. Find out for yourself.

Under the Executive Branch powers, "Section 8: 1: The Congress shall have Power…3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…"

Is granting people permission to come to this country is the same as commerce? It is a bit of stretch, but only a bit. People constantly come here to get jobs. That's commerce. Is that a function of the government where they come from or an individual decision? Both. Governments do send people to other countries to do work. Individuals make a decision to move to another country to work.


Connection actually matters here. Part of the EO deals with commerce and part of the SCOTUS decision references commerce. "At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former category." The "tie" can be economic or a matter of having family already here.

SCOTUS said the EO ban on people who have no connections to the US can stay for now. "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."

Straight outta the decision; punctuation marks and all-

"But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all.

"Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national.

"(“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . ha[s] no constitutional right of entry to this country”)."

And "To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."

"appreciably injure its interests," is a major point here. SCOTUS does not define what those interests are in this decision. It has defined those interests in other court cases. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which SCOTUS does use and reference in decisions, also spell out those interests. and for SCOTUS cases which rely on the Declaration - .

Got a bona fide connection? Y'all come on in. "The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against 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 provisions of EO–2."


The High Court also SEEMS to say what we already know. Campaign promises are a bunch of hooey. "In addition, the Fourth Circuit erred by focusing on the President’s campaign-trail comments to conclude that §2(c)—religiously neutral on its face—nonetheless has a principally religious purpose."

In other words, what the POTUS said on the campaign trail and what he does in office have to be considered differently. Actions matter. Words, much less so.


Three of the judges wanted to body slam this right away.

"JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the Court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would stay them in full."


If you read this far, you may be wondering what my opinion is.

After reading the SCOTUS decision, I support it. Like is another matter. The High Court has reasoned this one out very well.

Under the current state of the state in this nation, this is workable. If things were different, I might have a different opinion.

What I do not believe is: The current administration will take this time to develop reasonable and intelligent screening protocols to let people into this nation. Rather, the current Golfer in Chief (and where the HELL are the cantservatives and why aren't they complaining about this?) is going to use this time to blather inanities, make vague promises and complain that his efforts are being thwarted.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Hi. I welcome lively debate. Attack the argument. Go after a person in the thread, your comments will not be posted.