June 26, 2018

Taking America Backward Again.

We have, at our helm, a hateful and ignorant man who is not worthy of this democracy.

I say this with no ill will, or hate. I do not enjoy saying this—I would be first in line to support anything kind or fair that would come out of today’s White House. But say this we must: today’s news is heartbreaking.

I consider myself a liberal. A moderate. But, first, I consider myself a citizen of a democracy (or a republic, if you will—we’re both). So my following words are not offered in the spirit of partisanship. The historic Republican party has accomplished many great things.

But today’s Supreme Court approval of President Trump’s hateful immigration ban is a stain on who we are as a nation.

Today’s Muslim Ban would not have happened had we voted Hillary, and not lost our Supreme Court pick, or if Mitch McConnell and his GOP hadn’t thrown the Constitution out and for the first time in American history blocked a President from appointing a Supreme Court justice.

If you aren’t livid and inspired to right this wrong, you aren’t paying attention.

Trump’s pick is the youngest on the Court, and will rule against values of equality, environmental responsibility, fair business, mindful regulation…for up to four decades. It’s a major reason conservatives put up with Trump—they got to steal the Supreme Court.



Kennedy’s concurrence says, essentially, that while this is a valid exercise of presidential power that the judicial branch cannot/should not set aside, public officials must remember that they took an oath to uphold the constitution, and that this is even more important when that official is doing something that the courts have to defer to.

It’s very clear what he’s saying: even though he felt that, under the law, he had to rule for Trump, he does not believe that Trump respected core American principles (freedom of religion) when issuing this ban. ~ redditor

Specifically, he says:
“There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of Government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention. That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects. The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the Judiciary can correct or even comment upon what those officials say or do. Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and premise.
The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and promises the free exercise of religion. From these safeguards, and from the guarantee of freedom of speech, it follows there is freedom of belief and expression. It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs. An anxious world must know that our Government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so that freedom extends outward, and lasts.”

Read 13 Comments and Reply

Read 13 comments and reply

Top Contributors Latest

Waylon Lewis  |  Contribution: 1,349,815