GILL: The Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices’ Narrative-Driven Questions About President Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’ Shows a Split From American People

On Wednesday’s Gill Report, broadcast live on WETR 92.3 FM in Knoxville, conservative political commentator and Tennessee Star contributor Steve Gill discussed the blatant politicizing of the questions by the liberal Supreme Court Justices during oral arguments Wednesday over President Trump’s ‘extreme vetting’ national security protocols, and why every voter should be paying close attention.

“The Supreme Court today – the US Supreme Court – was dealing with the ‘Trump Travel Ban.’ Sometimes wrongly portrayed as a Muslim Travel Ban, even though you’ve got countries like Venezuela and others that are not Muslim countries, included in the countries that are recieving more vetting to make sure that dangerous people don’t come into our country. People we don’t know who they are or what they are here for.” Gill said.

He continued:

The Supreme Court today – the US Supreme Court – was dealing with the ‘Trump Travel Ban.’ Sometimes wrongly portrayed as a Muslim Travel Ban, even though you’ve got countries like Venezuela and others that are not Muslim countries, included in the countries that are recieving more vetting to make sure that dangerous people don’t come into our country. People we don’t know who they are or what they are here for.

Well, the President got some divided support and opposition from the Supreme Court today as the case over the ‘Travel Ban’ was being argued. It seems like the Court’s conservative justices were more sympathetic to the authority the President has to limit immigration in the name of national security.

It should be pretty easy law. It should be pretty common sense that the President and the Executive Branch should be able to restrict people coming into our country who may pose a danger to our country.

And yet the liberal justices were peppering the government lawyers with questions about, ‘well, doesn’t this prevent people from coming in?’ and ‘what about the tweets the President did during his campaign that show his REAL motivation?’ is the argument they were making rather than what is actually in the law.

The bottom line is that about six-in-ten Americans support the ‘Trump Travel Ban.’ Six in ten either strongly or approve of the ‘Travel Ban.’ Only a small percentage don’t think the President ought to be able to keep people who may pose a danger to us, who we don’t know who they are, who have not been properly vetted from coming into our country.

Now, I don’t think the Supreme Court looks at polls. But they might ought to listen to the American people on this one. Because the American people are applying the common sense that we shouldn’t just let anybody – regardless of who they are, what they’re here for, or where they’re coming from – into our country without asking some basic security questions to determine who they are and why they’re coming here.

Again: the American people get this. And yet you’ve got some members of the Supreme Court who are putting their political agenda ahead of he law and ahead of common sense trying to find a way to just slap Presdent Trump down.

And that’s what you’re going to get with the Kagans and the Sotamayors, and soem of the others on the Court who are there maily to persue a politial agenda rather than to preserve and protect the Constitution.

That’s why we ought to be watching very carefully in this next election for the US Senate as to who will be on the Supreme Court if people like Phil Bredesen versus Marsha Blackburn are in the position to confirm or deny confirmation to conservative justices.

We need more Neil Gorsuches. We won’t get them with a Phil Bredesen-led US Senate.

Listen to the segment: