Rolling with SCOTUS

LARRY ANDERSON
Larry Anderson

It is becoming evident daily that President Trump is beginning to roll like a Peterbilt. There are more successes now to the left‘s chagrin.

Most significant in recent developments was the 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court concerning Trump’s decision to deter the number of people entering the U.S. from certain Muslim countries deemed potential threats to this nation. It was established long ago these six countries were exporters of terrorism, and America was a primary target.

While Trump wanted stronger vetting for those wishing to enter, the left saw only the usual villains: racism, discrimination, and xenophobia. A couple of liberal federal judges even blocked Trump’s executive order until the proposal reached the highest court in the land. There the two judges’ activism flopped like a catfish on a river bank.

I wasn’t surprised by the ruling because it has always been quite clear the president has the authority to determine who can and can’t enter the country, especially when circumstances may be extraordinary as in threats to national security and citizens’ safety. Any leftist claim Trump was trying to do anything other than make the country safer is bogus, propagandistic and political.

What did surprise me was the unanimous vote. As you know, the court is presently 5-4, with the slim majority more or less conservative and remainder absolutely liberal. The vote tells us a couple of things.

First, the wording within the presidential powers description is so clear it is indisputable; the liberal judges had no leg to stand on. Because there was no dissent, the left’s hysterics over constitutionality ended. Thus concluded one anti-Trump attack.

Now, had the Supreme Court alignment been reversed, it is possible the liberals on the court would have voted differently, thereby presenting a majority opinion to the left‘s liking. Politics, in other words, could have trumped constitutionality because that is what the left does.

The left in minority prevented this possibility. It could be the four justices realized they would’ve lost anyway and decided to come in on the correct side despite their political preference.

Second, the ruling points out the condition of the liberal judiciary. The judges in the lower courts who blocked Trump’s immigration initiative had to know the measure was well within his powers but ruled against it anyway. If they didn’t know something so obvious, they have no business being judges. Their call was ridiculous.

Their ruling was political, not justice for a president investing in national security. Their intention, in my opinion, was to stall and embarrass Trump and to boost the failing left. It is also an example of how the left uses courts for political protection and gain. They have been doing this for years.

That should stop.

Don’t be surprised if this administration doesn’t break up leftist federal court monopolies such as the Ninth District, which springs from San Francisco and covers nearly a fifth of our population. Courts are supposed to uphold the Constitution, render justice, and protect the innocent. Their allegiance must be to law and the Constitution, not to political ideology or bias.

If a protective step against such districts is taken, we should be supportive. There is more than one way to guard the country and more than one need.

Finally, there was a sigh of relief within the U.S. after the Supreme Court’s rendering, even, I suspect, among those who detest Trump. Terrorism, you see, makes no distinction between left and right, and everyone, despite the political drama, wants to be safe in their own country.

The left must now move on to a new set of accusations regarding the president, perhaps unaware that so many are no longer listening to carping about a chief executive whose concerns so clearly align with their own.

Larry W. Anderson is a retired educator, author and Bearcat.