Supreme Court probably right to uphold travel ban. Terrible policy, and Congress's responsibility. But Congress ceded a giant national security exemption to the president. And who determines what qualifies as "national security"? POTUS. Bad law. Easily abused. But still the law.
-
Show this thread
-
I've written many times how the travel ban is terrible policy. -Counterproductive for counterterrorism strategy -Boon to jihadist propaganda while doing little, if anything, to thwart terrorists' efforts -At least partially motivated by bigotry -Haphazard execution made it worse
3 replies 6 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
But the judiciary answers "is this legal?" not "is this smart policy?" or even "is this right?" Law granting POTUS power to suspend immigration for NatSec reasons does not require the president to justify the claim. Saying "it's for national security" is enough.
5 replies 3 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Travel ban is another lesson in norms-not-laws. Congress gave POTUS powerful national security exemptions on trade and immigration. Assumed presidents would use these in good faith (rarely, only in emergencies). Trump's using them in bad faith. But the law doesn't say he can't.
2 replies 12 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Congress should immediately retake its Constitutionally-designated power over trade and immigration. End the "national security" tariffs and "national security" travel ban. That would make Americans safer and more prosperous, and restore checks-and-balances to the system.
4 replies 19 retweets 48 likesShow this thread -
Not the judiciary's job to improve national security strategy or stop Congress from voluntary ceding power. That's the responsibility of the people and their elected representatives, not 9 unelected judges Think, liberals: Do you really want SCOTUS to have such power? This court?
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Short version: Travel ban is terrible policy. Makes Americans less safe. Violates American values. Sign of Congressional weakness and institutional rot. But legal. (END)
4 replies 14 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @NGrossman81
I find Sotomayor’s dissent powerful. Efforts to show this is not a Muslim ban are a sham. 1st Amendment says we must tolerate refusal to sell gays a wedding cake, but religious tolerance is irrelevant here? Repeats court’s mistakes on Japanese-American internment.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's where my heart is. But I think an objective reading says the travel ban is different enough from Japanese-American internment--for example, the ban affects some non-Muslims, and leaves many Muslims unaffected--that it passes Constitutional muster. Narrowly. But still.
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
I was leaning there upon reading the majority opinion. But I felt she was thorough in showing that efforts to make this a "not Muslim ban" were just window dressing. First Amendment ought to prevail.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.