Democrats thought they had Trump on the ropes with the “save the children” crusade. Naturally the MSM went insane over the alleged mistreatment of those poor little children separated from their parents at the border. Few noticed that most of this was also done during the Bush and Obama administrations. They didn’t even notice that some of the most viral pictures were taken during the Obama administration, were taken at an anti-Trump rally or were just pure fakes.

The entire narrative was shattered by the Supreme Court. Not only was the Trump travel ban upheld, the Supreme Court verified that Donald Trump has extensive authority regarding how immigration laws are upheld.


Here is actual wording from this decision.

  1. The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. Pp. 9–24. (a) By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with “ample power” to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. Sale, 509 U. S., at 187. The Proclamation falls well within this comprehensive delegation. The sole prerequisite set forth in §1182(f) is that the President “find[ ]” that the entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

End of conversation. This should have been a surprise to no one. On April 23, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB1070.


It made it a state misdemeanor crime for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorized stated and local official’s enforcement of federal immigration laws, and penalized those found to be knowingly sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal immigrants. The Obama DOJ challenged the law as usurping the federal governments authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. It argued that: “The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country. “

A Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae was filed by Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. That was an 8 to 0 decision with Elena Kagan recused.

The only thing stunning about this latest decision is that four Supreme Court justices ignored, for political purposes, the constitution and the decision they had made six years ago. The constitution is clear. The federal government has exclusive power regarding immigration and under the laws passed by congress that power is given to the President of the United States.

Odds are that all the lawsuits filed against Trump by all several states are doomed for failure.

Even liberal Federal Judges will hesitate to ignore a Supreme Court decision that so clearly defines the authority of the President. This is a very strong opinion and the court set the standard:

(d) On the few occasions where the Court has struck down a policy as illegitimate under rational basis scrutiny, a common thread has been that the laws at issue were “divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests.

This demolished the liberal nonsense that if they “feel” the President made this decision because of personal prejudice that is enough to stop him from acting. That only applies if the decision is “divorced from any factual context from which [the Court] could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests.”

This is a complete and total victory for President Trump and every legitimate constitutional lawyer and federal judge understands that. This did a lot more than just uphold the Travel ban. It upheld the power of the President of the United States.

In addition, the opinion written by Judge Roberts strongly rejects the emotional argument by Justice Sotomayor in dissent. It is clear that Roberts is disgusted with liberal justices who are willing to ignore the constitution and previous court decisions because of personal feelings and emotions.

Shortly after writing this, the Supreme Court overturned Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed 431 U.S. 209 (1977 and ruled in favor of Mark Janus v. AFSCME This is a bombshell ruling that will have an immediate and devastating impact on public sector unions. Two states, New York and California, will feel the most impact. For the last 40 years, anyone who worked for a state or federal government in certain states, like California, was required to pay union dues, even if they did not want to belong to the union and totally disagreed with the politics of the union.

Here in California EVERY statewide office is currently held by people strongly supported by public sector unions. When right to work laws were passed in Wisconsin and Michigan the results were dramatic.  In Wisconsin The NEA, the teachers union, lost more than half its members. In Michigan, the NEA has lost about 21% of its teachers in the first three years.

This will bring change to California. The unions will almost immediately lose money, lots of money. Their ability to dominate every statewide election is at high risk. They will also lose members, lots of members. It will be worse here because of CalPers, which many people consider to be insolvent. There will be desperate attempts to reverse this decision, but that is unlikely to happen any time soon.  A lot of people knew that Abood vs. the Detroit Bd. of Education was wrongly decided, but it took over 40 years before this was overturned.  It is impossible to overstate the impact of this earthshattering decision.  Be prepared for loud screams of outrage by the liberal left, then the real pain begins.


Leave a Reply