Editorial: High court reaches high point in travel ban

At least seven justices see the need for Constitution, security

With such an ideologically split U.S. Supreme Court, a 7-2 majority on anything, particularly something as controversial as President Trump’s travel ban on terror-prone nations, is a slam dunk.


A 9-0 majority this week would’ve been a slam dunk with a glass backboard shattering into shards on the court. And it would’ve been a refreshing statement by the justices that the constitutional separation of powers is both invaluable and inviolate.

Oh well. The apparent 7-2 unsigned decision to allow the terror moratorium to stand while legal challenges to it conclude in the lower courts is still a mammoth victory for constitutional principles, not to mention national security.

The two far-left holdout justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, either are so politically correct or doggedly dogmatic in their liberalism that they can’t see the constitutional mandate and vital importance of allowing the nation’s Executive Branch to police who comes across our borders.

Not to mention the practical, logistical imperative of preventing thousands of judges from setting national security policy or second-guessing the commander-in-chief.

This isn’t about Muslims, religion, ethnicity or any other PC red herring the ACLU wants to trot out. It doesn’t matter if the travelers involved are little green men from Mars.

The point is to protect Americans by vetting those who come here. And if Mars did indeed attack, as Hollywood has had fun with over the years, that planet would be subject to a travel ban too.

As long as judges and justices can find their way around the Constitution.



Thu, 12/14/2017 - 23:34

Letter: Parade huge success

Thu, 12/14/2017 - 23:34

Letter: All the man can get

Thu, 12/14/2017 - 23:34

Letter: Who else settled?

Thu, 12/14/2017 - 23:33

Editorial: Moore trouble for GOP