President Donald Trump’s national security plans have earned the support of a huge majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, which on a 7-2 vote issued a stay on Monday allowing the latest version of his travel ban to be implemented.
Trump’s goal is to use the travel ban to keep terrorists out of the United States.
But his critics repeatedly have portrayed his ban as a “Muslim ban” because the six countries that will be affected by the new travel restrictions are Muslim-majority.
The countries are Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen.
Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomoyor said they preferred to leave in place lower court orders halting the implementation that is part of the president’s plan to make America secure again.
The vote said the policy can take full effect while legal challenges are dealt with on a case-by-case basis across the court system.
The Associated Press said, “The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.”
At least two appeals courts, the 9th Circuit in California and the 4th Circuit in Virginia, are scheduled to hold arguments on the overall legality of the ban within days.
The stay issued by the high court Monday is a huge vote of confidence for the president’s strategy.
WND reported only weeks ago that the president’s plan is part of his overall effort to build a border wall, crack down on illegal aliens, and more.
According to the Hill, the lower courts, mostly in decisions by individuals judges who cited comments from Donald Trump while he was a candidate, said his plan unfairly discriminated against Muslims, even though the Muslim-majority nations Trump targeted have been significant contributors to international terror.
WND columnist Ilana Mercer earlier wrote that while a Muslim ban wouldn’t kill Americans, taking them in might.
“CNN’s Jake Tapper wanted to know if there was anything that could have prevented the murderous rampage, in Manhattan, by a Muslim immigrant who had been recruited to live in America for no good reason. Once upon a time that was known as a rhetorical question. To ask the question would have been to answer it,” she said.
“Broadcaster Mark Levin was no less obscurantist. You can’t bring certain individuals like the culprit, Uzbek Sayfullo Saipov, into the U.S. because … of their governments, Levin raged on Fox News. There’s no way to vet individuals from chaotic countries with ineffective governments.
“Sure, you can vet immigrants. Find out which faith they practice,” she said.
“Mark should have said, ‘You can’t bring Muslims into the U.S. because of their faith. It predisposes them to violence,’ which is pretty much what President Donald J. Trump stated during his 2016 campaign,” she continued.
“A Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, nor un-libertarian,” she said. “Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By ‘a risk factor,’ I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (‘Islam’s borders are bloody,’ cautioned Samuel Huntington.)”
A report in the United Kingdom, which has been watching Trump’s border security efforts closely, said the decision means that even close relatives of people in those countries will be barred from entry into the U.S.
The president signed an executive last January banning travel by people from several Muslim-majority nations into the U.S., and it has been revised several times.
Just last October 17, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson approved a request from Hawaii to block the latest version, arguing that it was simply targeting Muslims.
Just a week earlier, the Supreme Court had declined to take another case from Hawaii on the same issue.