Yesterday we told you about President Trump’s big win at the Supreme Court regarding his executive order limiting immigration from jihadi-infested nations. The unanimous decision to allow most of his executive order to take effect was notable given that supposedly learned judges in multiple courtrooms across the country said time and time again that Trump’s order was unconstitutional.

Each time they did so, it was another blow against the president in the court of public opinion. Millions of Americans were led to believe that the new administration had no idea what the Constitution required.

A few legal scholars said that the president was right and that the left-wing judges were wrong. Monday, the president was vindicated.

Having said that, the justices attached strings to their decision, allowing most but not all of the order to take effect.

In a separate opinion, my favorite justice, Clarence Thomas, noted the court was creating problems for the administration. Here is what Justice Thomas wrote:

Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding … whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country. The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a “bona fide relationship.”

Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined Thomas in expressing their full support for the White House’s position.

Once again, the Supreme Court is engaging in legislating instead of adjudicating. It carved out what we hope is only a temporary exception, which appears to suggest that in some circumstances the president’s legal authority to restrict immigrants or refugees may be trumped (no pun intended) by other factors.

In this situation, the court said that if someone wants to enter the country and can demonstrate a connection with an entity in the United States, the president cannot restrict that individual until the court revisits the issue in the fall. There are suggestions that such connections may be relatively minor, such as being accepted to a U.S. college.

As Justice Thomas wrote, this guarantees further litigation, generated by left-wing attorneys who want nothing more than to tie this administration down.

There are rumors that this compromise was another John Roberts “special,” reminiscent of what he did to justify the constitutionality of Obamacare’s individual mandate as a tax. That was disturbing, and so is this.

A 5-to-4 decision upholding the president’s complete power to regulate access to the country would have been better than a unanimous decision suggesting it can be limited. While we celebrate Monday’s partial victory, we remain frustrated by the court’s continued penchant to legislate.

Ginsburg Should Recuse Herself

When the Supreme Court takes up the broader constitutional issues involved in President Trump’s executive order later this fall, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse herself.

As you know, the Left insisted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself from investigating the Trump administration due to his outspoken support for candidate Trump during last year’s presidential campaign.

Well, Justice Ginsburg was also quite outspoken when it came to candidate Trump.

She called Donald Trump “a faker.” She also said this: “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president… Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Since the election Ginsburg has said, “We’re not experiencing the best of times,” and suggested that she takes hope in the public resistance to President Trump.

I am pleased to report that dozens of House Republicans are demanding Justice Ginsburg recuse herself when the Supreme Court takes up the president’s travel ban. In a letter released Monday, nearly 60 congressmen warned Ginsburg that her comments demonstrated “personal bias or prejudice” and that her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Speaking of Bias…

CNN is reeling from yet another fake news scandal. And kudos to our friends at Breitbart and to James O'Keefe for exposing the truth.

Last Thursday, CNN published a report alleging that Anthony Scaramucci, a friend of President Trump, was connected to a Kremlin-controlled bank. The story was completely false. Scaramucci threatened to sue the network, and by Friday CNN had issued a full retraction. There was more fallout Monday night as three top CNN reporters “resigned.”

What is striking to me is that these reporters were not young journalists fresh out of journalism school and still learning the ropes. They were veterans of CNN’s investigative unit.

One was an executive editor who had been at the network for 16 years. One had ten years of experience and was a Pulitzer Prize winner. Another had 30 years of reporting experience. But in their desire to smear President Trump they lost all sight of journalistic standards and decency.

Meanwhile, Project Veritas captured a 15-year CNN producer admitting that the Russia investigation is “mostly bullsh-t.”

Fortunately, the media’s efforts appear to be backfiring. A new poll finds that 54% of Americans believe the deep state is leaking classified information to damage President Trump and reverse the results of the election. That is the real scandal we should all be outraged by.

Sources of Anti-Semitism

For some time now I have been sounding the alarm against rising anti-Semitism in America. I have urged elected officials to consider the relationship of increased immigration to rising anti-Semitism, and I have warned of the hostility toward Jews that is growing on the progressive Left.

While the media often portray anti-Semitism as a phenomenon of the Right, a new report from the University Of Oslo Center for Research on Extremism suggests something very different. The researchers examined nearly three hundred anti-Semitic attacks in England, France, Germany and Sweden. Here’s what they discovered:

• 60% of anti-Semitic attacks were committed by those expressing radical Islamic views.

• 23% of anti-Semitic attacks were committed by those expressing left-wing views.

• Only 9% of anti-Semitic attacks were committed by those expressing right-wing views.

Clearly, the vast majority of anti-Semitism in Europe is coming from the hatred of radical Islamists.

A recent report from Austria found that nearly half of newly arrived Muslim migrants held anti-Semitic views. It would be foolish to believe that Muslims coming to America are any different.

But the Left is a far greater source of anti-Semitism than the Right. That is a big reason why many British Jews have abandoned the liberal Labour Party.