Republican appointees dominate the Supreme Court. Donald Trump had more appeals court judges confirmed in his first year in office than any previous president. And he will go on filling judicial vacancies with the help of the GOP-controlled Senate. If it was not obvious before this week, it should be now: Liberals should not expect the courts to save them.
Any lingering hope evaporated when the justices upheld the administration's travel ban — which critics regarded as a naked effort to keep Muslims out of the country. Where did they get that idea? From Trump, who promised a total shutdown on Muslim visitors during the campaign and has often expressed aversion to them.
His raw hostility invited a challenge on the theory that the policy violates the First Amendment by targeting a religious group for exclusion. But the court decided by a 5-4 vote that the ban fell within his rightful powers.
A torrent of outrage issued from advocacy groups and Democratic officeholders, who flayed the court for an "abhorrent" decision that "gives legitimacy to discrimination and Islamophobia" and ranks with "the worst and [most] outrageous Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history."
Was the ruling wrong? I would say so. But outrageous? No. Trump's rantings on the topic have been ignorant and bigoted. The policy itself, though, rested on outwardly impartial criteria with a credible basis in tangible concerns about public safety.
Just because Trump claims the North Korean threat has been eliminated doesn't mean it has. Just because he wants his followers to think this policy punishes Muslims doesn't mean it does.
It is not implausible to say the ban is consistent with the constitutional powers of the president — and with the authority granted him by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Keep in mind that the administration revised its original ban in an attempt to conform to the law and the Constitution. The justices concluded it succeeded.
The ruling may be disappointing, because it preserves a policy that is tainted in its origin and dubious in its value. But its judicial validation is not the end of the story.