Supreme Court victory to Trump gives him a big boost

This was the week that belonged to Donald Trump --- in a series of events that gave him the ability to shore up his sagging polls, and overcome the drum beating that he has taken from the detention of children from their parents at the Southern border of the United States, part of his zero tolerance policy towards illegal immigration.

On Wednesday, the biggest contribution to his presidency was the gift  from the Supreme Court, validating his travel ban against five predominantly Muslim nations.

While Chief Justice Roberts was expected to give some validation, as a conservative, to the ban, what surprised many was that he swept aside the taint of religious bias, that Trump, had uttered on more than one occasion, to say that instead that it was his job, as chief executive to protect the nation from harm, and in this case terrorism, from these countries.

GOP lawmakers and their most ardent supporters were vocal in condemning President Obama from not uttering the line “radical Islamic terrorists” and the Supreme Court decision, gives a judicial point to those that feel the brunt of those words; the validation is now complete, and while the overly broad decision, can be seen as a victory for America, it is really a partisan victory, and the roaring approval of Trump’s base.

Roberts placed his decision “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA," referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.” In particular he noted, that the Constitution “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.”

“The President has undoubtedly fulfilled that requirement here. He first ordered DHS and other agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of every single country’s compliance with the information and risk assessment baseline. He then issued a Proclamation with extensive findings about the deficiencies and their impact. Based on that review, he found that restricting entry of aliens who could not be vetted with adequate information was in the national interest.”

The fact that many of the visitors were American citizens, travelling abroad, in its original version, seemingly tainted by being on the soil of their native land, was not mentioned, or even seen in the majority opinion. 

Much of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, in the 2016 election, and even in office, has defined illegal immigrants, law abiding, or not, as “animals” and “invaders” desiring to wreak havoc on the American mainland, and that their wish to enter is solely based on that desire.

The argument is so broad, and so discriminatory that it gives support to critics of the president. But, as The Hill reported, “Roberts and the majority disagreed, arguing the government’s stated objective for the ban — to protect the country and improve vetting processes — was plausible.  

“Because there is persuasive evidence that the entry suspension has a legitimate grounding in national security concerns, quite apart from any religious hostility, we must accept that independent justification,” he said.

“Ultimately, what began as a policy explicitly ‘calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States’ has since morphed into a ‘Proclamation’ putatively based on national-security concerns,” said Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent.

“But this new window dressing cannot conceal an unassailable fact: the words of the President and his advisers create the strong perception that the Proclamation is contaminated by impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers.”

“That constitutional promise is why, for centuries now, people have come to this country from every corner of the world to share in the blessing of religious freedom. Instead of vindicating those principles, today’s decision tosses them aside,” Justice Ginsburg noted.

Correctly identifying this as a personal, and partisan, victory was the president, who said, “This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country.”

A recent Quinnipiac poll, in early June, showed that 85 percent of Republicans approved of  Trump's handling of immigration, while 42 percent of independent voters did not; and, needless to say the GOP numbers will now increase.

The issue of protection is not all that it seems, what is at stake is the age old tactics of playing to the base, mixed with some imperial powers, gave credence that Trump was here to stay, and that all other considerations, be they collusion with the Russians, or obstruction of justice, whichever came first, the issue is to win, at all costs.

With the midterm elections looming, Trump, and in turn, the GOP now has a powerful quiver of victories that can be used: the tax plan, the repeal of the Iran Treat, attacks on NAFTA, and this ban --- and supported by a series of controlled optics, the president favors, such as large campaign rallies, the battle with the Democrats, now painted as dis-loyalists whose soft stance towards immigrants, would threaten the safety of the country.

Then the news like a thunderclap that Justice Anthony Kennedy would retire in just over 30 days, giving Trump the opportunity to fulfill another campaign promise - recall ROE V. WADE in a destruction worthy of all that is sacred to the fiercest foes of abortion.

For those that opposed the passage of the 1973 legislation, the time for repeal is now, and as Trump had promised, he would dismantle it as soon as he was elected. Certainly, the battle will not be won without a fight, a huge partisan and ugly fight, but a win in this area, also means GOP support, even if he is impeached. The spoils will be theirs.

One of the linchpins of the liberal progressive agenda is the right to choose --- pro-choice -- and what better way to bring down the despised enemy of the people than to take one of their prime planks away, and leave liberals gasping.

"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be, that's what will happen," Trump said at the final presidential debate in October 2016. "And that will happen automatically in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

NPR, perhaps, put it most succinctly when they reported, “Kennedy's departure will usher in a fight for the future of the Supreme Court that many social and religious conservatives anticipated and hoped for during the 2016 campaign. Trump's promise to appoint conservative, anti-abortion justices helped turn out the base voters he needed to secure his surprise victory. Exit polls suggested the makeup of the Supreme Court played a major role for many voters on both sides, but more for Republicans.”

In an interview with NPR, Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins called the retirement of the court's swing vote "a day that we've been waiting for."

"Our goal in the pro-life movement has always been to make abortion illegal and unthinkable," Hawkins said. "So we want Roe to be overturned ... and we expect that,” they also noted.

While it can’t happen overnight, Trump’s ploy -- hand it to the states---.gives ample movement towards repeal, with Iowa being one example, having one of the most stringent and restrictive of anti-abortion laws in the nation.

“Nancy Northup, of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said restrictive laws recently passed by several states could work their way to the Supreme Court. She points to what is known as a "heartbeat bill" in Iowa, where state lawmakers recently approved one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation”.

“The law, which is being challenged in the courts, bans the procedure after a heartbeat can be detected, which is often before a woman knows she is pregnant. Other states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, have banned abortion at 15 weeks' gestation, and others have prohibited specific methods,” NPR continued.

Add to this heady mix of Trump’s success the tax reform --even though the Congressional Budget Office has said that it will increase deficits in 10 years, and especially disturbing is even if there was a move to permanize the individual cuts, the results will be the same, giving credence to his critics that the president does not know economics and does not care -- winning is the game.

Updated June 30, 2018 at 2:35 p.m. (CSDT)