SCOTUS: Muslim ban "squarely within President's authority"
 

Or actually, the law makes it squarely within the President's legal authority to get away with being a fucking bigot.

One would think that the members of the high court would figure out a way to keep anybody, including the president, from blatantly discriminatory behavior. If the law does not protect people from bigoted acts, it seems to me it's the high court's responsibility to make adjustments in the law. Seems to me that blithely saying "Well that's the law for ya", isn't what the Supreme Court is supposed to be about.

See below...reckon this was squarely within der Fuhrer's legal authority according to the nazi high court.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...o_%2820%29.jpg

Bigots have the right to be bigoted as long as their bigotry is within the law.

Probably the Supremes noticed that Trump was the one who ran ISIS government out of the huge land area which they occupied and decided to give him a free hand.

Remember we use to drop leaflets on ISIS.

Didn't Obama drop lots of ordnance on them too?

Yes, but they had still ruled/governed openly. And there was a reluctance to hit ISIS oil convoy based on the dubious claim that the drivers were civilians.

This ruling means little more than a demonstration that one SCOTUS vote separates us from upholding the rule of law vs throwing the rule of law under the bus.

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Shortly after the United States Supreme Court upheld Donald J. Trump’s controversial travel ban, millions of people from other countries expressed puzzlement that anyone would want to travel to the United States at this juncture.

In interviews with people from around the world, respondents said that the travel ban struck them as unnecessary, because the United States was not currently on the list of the top hundred countries to which they would consider travelling.

When asked to name the reasons they felt that a travel ban was superfluous, many of those interviewed cited the United States’s gun violence and crumbling infrastructure, as well as its broken educational and health-care systems, while others singled out its President’s startling disrespect for democratic norms and human rights.

Given those views, most of the foreigners interviewed said they found the news of the Supreme Court’s decision baffling. “When I heard that the United States was having a travel ban, I assumed that was to keep people from leaving,” one respondent said, echoing the sentiments of many.

Upholding the third attempt at a Muslim ban (after two failed miserably) that has no particular purpose other than to feed some red meat to his cultists (since 9/11 no one in the United States has been killed in a terrorist attack by someone from the countries in the Trump executive order) is somehow related to the rule of law? How ya figure?

There is precious little that your Lying Dotard has done that hasn't undermined the rule of law. He promised a Muslim Ban on day one, but ended up taking 1.5 years to deliver this useless policy.

Well, if you'd tone down the drama a bit, the answer is simple. The Prez - no matter who it is sitting in the chair - is legitimately executing his role when directing another part of the executive branch to change procedure.

See? Wasn't that easy?

You obviously don't understand what "rule of law" even means. Its definition "the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws" is something Trump constantly tries to undermine with his impulsive and arbitrary brainfarts, as he did with versions 1&2 of his Muslim ban, not to mention his recent border fiasco, transgender ban, his Executive Orders on sanctuary cities and his incessant attacks on DOJ, free press and the truth.