Tom Tancredo writes at Breitbart about the Trump Executive Order and the 9th Circuit court decision,
Yes, there were snafus and mistakes in the first 48 hours of implementation, and indeed, legal “green card” immigrants who are already full-time residents of the United States should not have been affected by the travel ban. Those temporary problems were quickly corrected but were magnified all out of proportion by a partisan media anxious and even gleeful in their rush to embarrass the president to the maximum.
Did the executive order discriminate against Muslims? No. It quite rightly discriminates against terrorists from seven Muslim majority nations — seven nations identified by the Obama administration as having very high incidents of visa fraud and refugee infiltration by terrorists.
Does the executive order give an illegal preference to Christian refugees? No. It gives some preference to refugees who have suffered religious persecution by being a minority religion in their home country. That preference will apply equally to Muslim refugees in any non-Muslim majority nation.
One other regrettable byproduct of the media-generated hysteria over the “travel ban” is that the public spotlight was diverted from the equally important executive order signed by Trump two days earlier on interior immigration enforcement.
That executive order aiming to end “sanctuary cities” and other unlawful obstructions to immigration law enforcement has not yet been challenged in federal court, but sooner or later, it will be. Why? Because the left thinks they own the courts– they can always find an activist district court judge to agree with their noxious views.
There are two answers to the rising plague of lawsuits by progressives seeking to use activist judges to rewrite our Constitution. First, Trump will appoint replacement judges who revere the Constitution above leftist ideology. The second answer is to dethrone the courts as the “last word” on the Constitution. The truth is, the Constitution established three co-equal branches of government, not judicial supremacy. Where do you suppose did THAT curious doctrine came from? A court decision, of course.
Read more here.