Search the Lounge


« Trump v. Hawaii | Main | Trump’s Supreme Court List »

June 26, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The important lesson today is that we rule on what the law is, not what liberals think it means and not what a candidate for office said about a hypothetical law different from the one before the court.

For example, if someone were to ask whether a court could force the Red Chicken to serve a cake decorated with the "MAGA" logo, liberals would say "NO WAY" ... because discrimination against political opinion is ok in an establishment serving the public at large. That is because the law is not the issue; for liberals, the law is whatever outcome the liberal wishes (and the identity of the actor, see, e.g., 2014 at the border).

Liberals look only at the result that they want and the party being attacked. If the end is the "right" one, and the party attacked in the "right," in their view, the law be damned.

Here, the court decided that selective and irrelevant quotations -- the liberals stock in trade -- did not require holding unenforceable a law that had nothing to do with "banning Muslims."

Sorry, liberals, but the law didn't "ban Muslims," the president has not suspended due process, etc. He may be at fault for many things, but, liberal hysterics rarely identify the correct reasons one might be outraged.

THis "ban" was not one of those justified reasons for concern.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

^^^anon, Your post is peppered with the word Liberal. I am not sure what a Liberal is. I do know that it is just a label.

What is relevant is that people or good will, like Justice Kennedy are very troubled by the bigoted language and rhetoric of Donald Trump. However, it appears that he wants to preserve the dignity and powers of the President in times of national emergencies. What I really see is not an attack on "liberals" but an attempt by a Supreme Court to save and preserve an Article II entity from the ravings of a mendacious baffoon we elevated to the Presidency.

Phil Devine

I doubt that Trump's travel ban would have attracted much opposition, except for (and this is a big except) the massive evidence that he is severely biased against Muslims. (We are not talking about the implicit bias which certain people invoke to accuse all and sundry of racism and other secular heresies.) Not only Kennedy but also Roberts, was worried about this: he went out of his way to overrule the Japanese American Cases. The record of motive hunting in constitutional jurisprudence is not encouraging. Previous examples have mainly expressed the Court's own bias against conservative Christians. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as being blatant: I am tempted to say that one of Trump's problems as a politician is that is not mendacious enough. I share some of 'anon's concerns about liberals: many years around the academic world have made me only too aware of the mendacious baffoons that infest it. (One of them encouraged his followers to threaten a fellow student with anal rape for defending Catholic views on marriage-- at a nominally Catholic school no less.) But how is a religiously and culturally diverse society going to get along without some form of liberalism?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad