Should the Supreme Court have upheld the travel ban?

It represents prejudice & bipartisanship

It legally protects national security

 Getty Images: Win McNamee

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban on five Muslim-majority nations plus North Korea and Venezuela is prejudiced and wrong. Under the false pretense of safeguarding national security, the justices sanctioned a bigoted government policy that targets people solely based on their religion, asserts American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony D. Romero in USA Today. The Supreme Court is supposed to keep the power of the president and Congress in check, defending the Constitution and staying a-political and non-partisan. Instead, with this decision, the court is sanctioning religious discrimination based on partisan lines: Democratic-appointed justices viewed this as a Muslim ban while Republican-appointed justices did not.

Keep on reading at USA Today

The Supreme Court was right in its decision to uphold President Trump’s travel ban against people from seven nations that have raised his concerns about national security and vetting protocols. The justices found that the president had “lawfully exercised” discretion based on his worldwide findings that entry of people from these countries in question would be detrimental to national US interests, states Marina Medvin in The Hill.  The court also found that Trump had acted within his powers to protect Americans because the travel ban covers people from countries that do not share adequate information with the U.S. for an informed decision on entry, or whose citizens pose national security risks. As the banned nations only compose 8% of the world's Muslims, this ban is not anti-Islam.    

Keep on reading at The Hill
Where do you stand?
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
modal image