Gay Patriot Header Image

Good News, Bad News from the SCOTUS

Posted by V the K at 1:29 pm - June 26, 2017.
Filed under: Legal Issues,Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States has reinstated most of the PDT Administration’s temporary restrictions on travel from six (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) unstable, politically chaotic states where terrorism is a problem.

Despite left-wing talking points to the contrary, immigration bans have been highly effective in protecting large cities like Tokyo from terrorism. Meanwhile, in multicultural London, the “bridges not walls” people are now building walls on their bridges to protect their pedestrians from Mohammedan psychopaths practicing the hot new vehicular jihad fad.

The increased scrutiny the PDT Administration would like to subject travelers entering from sketchy states seems like a reasonable precaution. Hell, the TSA will soon be inspecting your reading material before you board an aircraft. Why do we let people from dysfunctional terror states in with far less scrutiny?

California is instituting a ban on government travel to states that hold politically correct views on illegal immigration and transgender bathrooms. No leftists are upset by this. Some travel bans are more equal than others.

The SCOTUS has also agreed to hear a case to determine whether Wedding Cake Fascism is Constitutional. With the four left-wing justices plus Anthony Kennedy, I don’t think this case is going to work out well for Liberty.

Share

17 Comments

  1. The State of Tennessee has an absolutely delicious response to California:

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/06/tennessees_scathing_response_t.html

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 26, 2017 @ 1:56 pm - June 26, 2017

  2. Most people who are pushing or have exceeded 80 years need to be careful of their health because their full lives are just about over. Here’s hoping the elderly, yet pathetic & recently full off already-apologized public liberal statements, Ginsburg retires. Soon.

    Kennedy has always been a disappointment. From day one.

    I’m all for keeping our important distinctions between church & state; but have evolved & settled into the conclusion that there does need to be some slack in some matters & that if there are other businesses who provide the all important job of bake me a cake for the gay; then no one is being denied a service. Despite the importance of normal laws against discrimination & the obvious concept that if one is baking cakes they’d better be ready for things they don’t like (which actually applies across the board to everyone). I won’t say anything more about it cuz I know how literal some people love to be about it all.

    But, if Scalia used to acknowledge that the right to bear arms isn’t all inclusive & beyond regulation, then people need to be ready for something that chips at the separation of church & state. If just a little bit. In favor of the self-righteous bible thumpers who just don’t like baking cakes for happy gays ready for their big day. To the detriment of the happy smiling gays who think everyone & everything needs to acknowledge them without exception.

    As for the travel ban, the president should craft a new one, because he hasn’t had a win there. Just in SCOTUS.

    Comment by Hanover — June 26, 2017 @ 3:03 pm - June 26, 2017

  3. Left wing gays want to make political points, while conservative gays would go to a wedding planner that didn’t mind doing homosexual weddings. If they hit a conservative Christian, they would go elsewhere and not sue.

    I recall a time that I had horrible service with a gay friend of mine in Alexandria VA, which is full of homos. Anyway, I didn’t sue, I just never went back and told other gays about the treatment. If they lost 5% of their customers, that would hurt the bottom line.

    Comment by davinci38 — June 26, 2017 @ 7:40 pm - June 26, 2017

  4. When it comes to Kennedy, he is good on some issues and not on others. If he retires, I hope Trump puts another conservative on the court like Grouch. And if Ginsburg retires, put in a moderate conservative instead of a right winger. While you may not always get a good ruling, it is immeasurably better than Comrade Ginsburg.

    Comment by davinci38 — June 26, 2017 @ 7:42 pm - June 26, 2017

  5. I meant to say Gorsuch. The stupid spell checker does this to me all the time.

    Comment by davinci38 — June 26, 2017 @ 7:42 pm - June 26, 2017

  6. V the K,

    Any thoughts on Pavan v. Smith?

    CCP

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2017 @ 8:02 pm - June 26, 2017

  7. Hanover,

    I could not agree more. People always point the the 1963 Civil Rights Bill, but forget that in the South it was not just businesses who were discriminating against blacks, it was the government as well.

    Despite their bellyaching gays have not experienced that same kind of systemic discrimination. So, to deliberately target only Christian businesses is not only harassment, it is discrimination of it’s own, since they wouldn’t dream of asking a muslim owned bakery to do the same.

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 26, 2017 @ 9:09 pm - June 26, 2017

  8. Davinci – the one to replace Ginsberg should be to the right of Thomas.

    Comment by Rdm — June 26, 2017 @ 9:17 pm - June 26, 2017

  9. Whatever happened to the old adage, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Why would you even want to give business to someone who doesn’t want it? Just forget them and find someone who wants to serve you. That’s what’s so great about capitalism…there’s more than one business out there that you might find is even better than the one refusing to work for you. I am tired of being told what I have to think, believe, and support.

    Comment by TAD — June 27, 2017 @ 2:19 am - June 27, 2017

  10. California’s law that “restricts” travel to red states sounds awfully contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Here’s hoping a gay conservative sues the hell out of Californication and pushes that stupid state towards Illinois-style bankruptcy.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 27, 2017 @ 3:14 am - June 27, 2017

  11. I travel a lot and I am on the side of the TSA, but way too many TSA stations are overstaffed with idiots. The most common “game” is that everyone is a potential terrorist and if there is anything that could possibly be suspicious, it IS suspicious. Then, at another time a guy asks a couple of questions and you get led around the pat and frisk and sent on your way.

    I am sensitive to the real need to search computers, cameras, books, and the likes. What I do not understand is how what is in your suitcase in the belly of the plane is less dangerous than your explosive shoes in the passenger section. If a bomb blows in either place at 30,000 feet, nobody will much care where it was in the plane when it went off.

    So, we have to assume that the TSA luggage inspection is as rigorous as the zealous TSA agent who assumes your belt buckle is a killer. Color me skeptical.

    We have no reason to let anyone into the USA just because he wants to come here. I have zero concern about informing every Muslim who asks to come to the US just exactly what he must do to assure us of his human qualities and why we are scrutinizing him more thoroughly than others. Ditto thug-types from South America and felons form anywhere.

    I will go a step further. If a foreign guest commits crimes in the United States, I believe we should have a court system and a separate prison system for him. Deportation is one thing, but recidivism by illegal aliens is quite another. Even the US druggies in all their stupid stupor learned eons ago not to screw up in Turkey. In that respect, we should be like Turkey. There are places in the volcanic wastelands of Nevada where these critters could be housed and fed in safe isolation from We the People. I really don’t much care if rival gangs have gang wars in prison. I would stop short of putting it on reality TV, but when jackals and hyenas tear each other up, I am not surprised. I don’t see why they get to do it in public housing sections on the streets of Chicago.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2017 @ 5:38 am - June 27, 2017

  12. Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, noted a week back that Illinois should be forced into bankruptcy. He then added that after doing so, the state should be returned to territorial status and not allowed to reenter the Union until it had established its credit worthiness and submitted itself for statehood with a new constitution and all of the rest.

    I saw an interesting map of Illinois in which it was divided up and pieces attached to Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin. That would be fine with me. Although I wonder is Wisconsin is ready to take on Chicago.

    If California wants to secede from the Union, let them. But they must become a separate country or revert to territorial status. Hawaii has the same notions. So, ditto Hawaii.

    I am of the notion that a “union” is “all for one and one for all.” If that is not the case, then pack up your cares and woes and hit the road, Jack, and don’t come back begging’ for mo’, mo’, mo’.

    Let the states work out their little social justice hissy-fits as they so please. But when they become exclusive vis-a-vis other states, they are no longer playing by the rules of the union. They are reverting to a “confederation” mindset.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2017 @ 5:59 am - June 27, 2017

  13. Again noted by Glenn Reynolds, Eastern Washington would like to Secede.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2017 @ 7:18 am - June 27, 2017

  14. Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, and Northern California all want to split from their western portions, and the idea of all three joining together in a new state of Jefferson is an idea that has been simmering for a while, and may become a raging fire soon.

    Comment by Craig Smith — June 27, 2017 @ 8:22 am - June 27, 2017

  15. Anthony Kennedy never met a Government confiscation of private property he didn’t like.

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2017 @ 8:26 am - June 27, 2017

  16. Heliotrope (12), Hawaii does sort of have grounds for seeking some kind of independence. American businessmen, with backing from the US military in Hawaii, did overthrow the monarchy after years of interference. Was the monarchy perfect? No, but it was the established government and trying to balance the needs and traditions of the native Hawaiian people with a modern society. Senator Hayakawa said of the Panama Canal, “we stole it, fair and square.” The United States didn’t even go that far with Hawaii. (The US government was not united on that score, I don’t remember which President, but one refused to take over Hawaii.)

    The various Hawaii for the Hawaiians movements are disunited, and spend a lot of time fighting each other, so there is not one group of people to deal with. (There are, for example, two main claimants for the throne.)

    Comment by TheQuietMan — June 27, 2017 @ 3:09 pm - June 27, 2017

  17. #16,TheQuietMan, I respectfully disagree. With that logic there is no country in our modern world that could keep itself together & the planet would become a patchwork of a million tribal acreages, everyone satisfied that all the wrongs of history have been made right. No one capable of achieving, no one capable of feeding themselves.

    Hawaii has no grounds for seeking independence. Everything that it is now, is American. The day of taking territory is long over, we’ve got new frontiers & the rest of the galaxy to explore. We’re not apologizing for history & we’re not going to fragment because some drunks in their bars, downtown Honolulu, think they deserve a universe of their own.

    I was born in Honolulu in its last months as a territory. I don’t take kindly to those that think it’s okay to rip it all apart. The old Hawaiian woman that cared for my toddler self would have thrown those drunks out the door. She was every bit an American.

    Comment by Hanover — June 27, 2017 @ 9:01 pm - June 27, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.