For the last several months, lower federal courts have been in contempt of our national sovereignty, overruling 200 years of case law, and ignoring the Constitution itself. Finally, the Supreme Court put an end to this farce ~

(In a unanimous decision, they) lifted key components of an injunction against President Trump’s proposed ban on travel from six majority-Muslim nations, reinstating much of the policy and promising to hear full arguments as early as this fall.

 
 
As a sovereign nation, the United States gets to decide who comes and goes into our country – otherwise what’s the point? We may as well eliminate our borders!
 
Trump’s executive order – actually a watered-down version of what he promised on the campaign trail – is intended to implement moderate refugee restrictions and put in place temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.
 
But the Left has mischaracterized his directive since the day it was issued back in January. In a typical display of deceitful hyperbole they acted as though it was unprecedented in American history, never mentioned the fact that the ban was only temporary and accused the president of betraying America’s founding ideals. (As David French noted, Chuck Schumer tweeted: “Tears are running down the cheeks of the Statue of Liberty tonight.” 😯 )
 
Immediately after the executive order was published progressives went into attack mode, as Daniel Horowitz related five months ago ~

Throughout the weekend, the ACLU shopped cases around to extremely liberal federal judges in five states to force immigration officials to allow non-citizens into the country who were subject to the restrictions of Trump’s executive order, vested in the president by statute. Never in our history have judges treated exclusions of foreign nationals like removals (deportations) and subjected them to the deportation process. But a district judge in California went a step further and used extremely dangerous rhetoric that, if left unchecked, will leave us without any control over who comes into this country.

 
To illustrate the absurdity of of the leftist position on unrestricted immigration Horowitz says ~

Consider the following perverse juxtaposition: the same liberal judges who believe American Christians and Jews cannot practice their religions with their own private property and must sell abortifacients and service gay weddings believe that Somali nationals can assert a religious liberty right to immigrate and establish Sharia law. The same individuals who believe that Americans can’t display replicas of the Ten Commandments in court houses believe that an unlimited number of Muslims have a right to come here under all circumstances.
 
Madison was one of the most passionate believers in religious conscience, which he referred to as “the most sacred of all property.” Yet he made it clear that it must only be honored “in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace” […]
 
By granting illegal aliens rights to be released into the country, serviced with education and health care and citizenship for their children — all at taxpayer expense — the courts are infringing on the liberty and property rights of the American citizen, not to mention the very essence of the social contract and consent-based popular sovereignty — the foundation and preamble of our founding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
I have less than total confidence in our present Supreme Court – but at least they got this one (mostly) right.

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related:
Is a little refugee reciprocity too much to ask for?
Don’t be duped – it’s not a “Muslim Ban” ~ It’s a temporary terrorist filter
Impeach Judge Robart for violating our sovereignty & Constitution ~ Another excellent commentary from Daniel Horowitz ~

In the long run, Congress must strip the federal judiciary of their power grab and restore Congress’ plenary power over immigration, as it was since our founding. However, in the meantime, it’s time to make impeachment great again.