In what may be the worst decision since the infamous Korematsu case, when the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the court Tuesday by a 5-4 vote upheld President Donald Trump ‘s Muslim travel ban.
Like the Korematsu decision, Trump v. Hawaii elevates legal formalities as a way to avoid addressing what everyone understood is really at issue here — namely, prejudice.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion downplays Trump’s anti-Muslim bias, focusing instead on the president’s legal power to block immigration in the name of national security…
…We might well be celebrating the fact that the Supreme Court had finally and expressly repudiated Korematsu, which it had never fully done before. Instead, Roberts’s declaration reads like a desperate attempt to change the subject.
The truth is that this decision and Korematsu are a pair: Prominent instances where the Supreme Court abdicated its claim to moral leadership.
RTFA. Please! Noah Feldman cuts through the breast-beating of Trump and his peers. Pimps for bigotry.
Eideard 
Judge Roberts believes in judicial restraint. It helped the left on the affordable care act cases. But it helped the right in this case. If used consistently it helps those who passed the laws or issued the decrees.
June 26, 2018 4:13 PM: “In Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, the justice [Kennedy] penned a brief concurrence in which he almost seemed to apologize for his vote. “There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention,” Kennedy wrote. “That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects.” The fact that “an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.” Shorter Kennedy: Trump did a bunch of bad things, but what do you expect me to do about it?
But who said the president’s decision to exclude millions of Muslims from the U.S. is “free from judicial scrutiny”? The Supreme Court just did, in a decision that Kennedy enabled. It’s certainly true that, as the justice wrote, the Constitution protects the “freedom of belief and expression” for all. On Tuesday, however, with Kennedy’s critical assist, the court ducked its duty to enforce that promise, authorizing the president to punish those who believe differently than he does.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedys-travel-ban-vote-shows-hes-done-playing-the-wise-centrist.html
Well, that is ridiculous. If the president violates the constitution it is the obligation of the court to so rule. Roberts is even worse (dumber) than I thoughyhe was.
“In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross.” [Friedrich Nietzsche]