Imagine if in some local courthouse, we discover that the judges are giving accused child pornographers a free pass. The accused come into the system, get booked and then a judge finds some reason to either let them free on their own recognizance or simply drops the charges. After a while, someone notices that this sleepy little courthouse has a rather high number of people arrested for kiddie porn, but that all of them get set free on some technicality by one of the judges. The public would want some answers.
Upon further inquiry, it is learned that the head judge belongs to some weird club that thinks the age of consent is immoral, that adults should be free to have sex with children and consume child pornography. Once installed at the court house, he hired other judges from his club, as well as clerks and secretaries. The whole courthouse was full of these people. Further, the child porn people heard about it so they would travel to this jurisdiction to indulge in their fetish, knowing the local court would give them a free pass.
Needless to say, such a thing would be the scandal of the century. Now, instead of something abhorrent like kiddie porn, let’s say the secret club is composed of people loyal to some strange religion or bizarre ideology. They think the laws of the country are immoral and seek to overturn the entire legal system. Instead of operating in a local courthouse, they are targeting the Federal system. In other words, it is the same sort of conspiracy, but the motivation is ideological and the target is national.
That’s what we have happening in the Federal court system. The system is riddled with judges who belong to a bizarre political cult. They are members of a legal sub-cult that does not accept the rule of law. Instead, they think the law and the enforcement of the law should always be in support of their cult’s radical agenda. As such, they no longer abide by the law as written and refuse to obey the authority that issues the law. That is what we are seeing on a daily basis, as Federal judges revolt against the legal system.
This is not a new thing. The legendary ninth circuit out west has been a dumping ground for lunatics appointed to the federal bench by their coreligionists. Rulings come out of the ninth circuit, only to be struck down on appeal. The reason the ninth existed, was that everyone acknowledged the existence of this cult, but instead of exterminating it and its members, the idea was to keep them bottled up in specific circuits. It was like a quarantine around an infected zone. Rather than kill the afflicted, they would be isolated.
To continue the metaphor, the virus has jumped the quarantine and now the entire system is showing signs of infection. For two years the Trump administration has been plagued with federal judges who just make up rulings out of thin air. In many cases they are ruling on behalf of plaintiffs who have no standing in the court. In other cases, they are simply making up legal theories so bizarre they would get a first year law student dismissed from school on mental health grounds. The Federal bench is in revolt against the rule of law.
In this particular case, the law is clear. It’s not just US law, but international law. There is a legal process for applying for asylum. No country is required to accept anyone who does not follow the procedures. US law is crystal clear on the issue, yet this judge is making up law that is direct conflict with black letter law. This is no less deranged than if the judge stood up, stripped off his clothes and declared he is an invisible chicken and that everyone in the court must cluck in worship to him. This judge is not mentally fit.
Yet, this judge is not an exception. He is now the rule. The Federal system is full of his fellow cultists, trained in a bizarre legal theory that insists there is no law, just an unwritten ideology that is the rejection of the very basis of western civilization. The boys at FTN jokingly call it the kritarchy , but it is not a bad way to think of it. Instead of the judge being a neutral interpreter of law, as is the western tradition, the judge in this cult is a shaman, charged with reaching justice, as understood by the teachings of his cult.
Kritocracy is a system associated with pre-modern societies, in which there was no central rule making authority. Instead of a legal tradition upon which judges relied, they looked to local custom. This works well enough, it’s better than anarchy, as long as the people within the community adhere to the same customs and beliefs. The idea is to reach a peaceful result, not a legally consistent one. In a modern, rule based society, this form of legal theory is as alien as human sacrifice. It is an assault on civil order.
The thing is, the outcomes are not important here. Even if this lunatic is overruled and the law is enforced, the damage that is being done to civil order is incalculable. Every time one of these cult members gets on the bench and starts making these bizarre rulings, public trust in the legal system is eroded. We are very close to the point where a majority of people no longer think we have a legal system at all. Instead, it is arbitrary rule by robed shamans. Therefore, the law is irrelevant and the system for writing laws is illegitimate.
We now live in an age in which the Federal court says the White House cannot decide who gets a press pass, but it is perfectly OK for the banks to collude to shut you out of the financial system, because they don’t like how you voted. The law says a business can fire an employee, because he does not accept the company values, but the same business must hire a mentally unstable man in a sundress and let him watch the female employees undress. This is a revolt against rationality and reason and it can end only one way.
Getting back to where we started, the remedy for that courthouse overrun by perverts is to clear out the perverts. That’s a simple answer to a small, isolated problem. What American faces is the near total takeover of the institutions by a secular cult that is evolving into a suicidal mystery cult. Removing the believers from positions of authority will not be peaceful. Allowing their madness to run its course will not be peaceful either, as the overthrow of order can only lead to anarchy. Either way, what comes next is chaos.
you are a good writer, and entertaining, but all you do is point out the obvious….how about pointing out some things that are not so obvious…peel the onion a layer deeper…like this, for example…yes, white americans are losing faith in the judicial system (and if they are not, then they are stupid (true fact: most are!))…but so what if they do lose trust in the judicial system? The police state is so well funded and pervasive that any sort of active rebellion by whites is severely punished…we are trapped..and we cannot rebel via the ballot box because a sufficiently large segment of the white population has been co-opted via one means or another…
…the only hope might be that if we get another big recession, it might weaken the government enough to allow true rebellion…but what the elites are doing is propping the economy by increasing the population and consumer demand via mass immigration…as long as the elites can cram in millions of immigrants annually, the economy will stay strong enough to fund the police state and to increase home prices enough to keep whites happy…
we are gonna be wiped out…in the not too distant future the only choice for us may be to be pretend to be a nonwhite or a tranny…
“Needless to say, such a thing would be the scandal of the century.”
I doubt it.
Half the country would either not hear about it or be told it’s a crazy conspiracy theory. Among the remaining half, a sizeable portion would call it “refreshingly disruptive”, “an overdue queering of the justice system”, and “a welcomed development in the struggle to decolonize the judiciary”.
Remember: Virtue lies in neutralizing that part of your brain that experiences disgust, for wholesomeness is oppressive.
Why would the President have to comply with this dingbats order? The President has the Constitution on his side.
The failure of Left-wing/liberal judges to follow the law or the Constitution has been a problem ever since the Warren Court. The fault lies in the cowardice and self-interest of Congress. Read the Constitution, the lower courts (district and appellate) are created by Congress and what cases they hear are also defined by Congress. Tomorrow Congress could say “federal courts have no jurisdiction over immigration law” and that would be that.
And of course, Federal judges have no real power. If Trump was to say, “Let Mr. Roberts enforce it” – Roberts could do nothing, if Congress agreed. What’s really happened is that – as usual – the Left is playing by Alinky’s rules.
They’ve found a way to use the conservatives “Love of the Constitution” and “The Rule of Law” to destroy them. All some Left-wing judge has to do, is say “Left policy X is Constitutional, Right wing policy is Unconstitutional” and the Right-wing turns to jelly, because “muh constitution”.
trump should pull a jackson, you made the ruling, you enforce it. let it go all the way to the supremes. The laws regarding immigration are clear and have been on the books for decades. just enforce the existing laws and throw them back at the judge.
I was inspired to post my own thoughts:
Speaking of cults. If this doesn’t want to make you round up leftists to hang from the lampposts, then we have already lost.
Tax Slave, thanks for making a shitty day 10 times shittier.
Told ya China was the USSR’s replacement. China was a bicycle economy, until they were lifted up with intellectual property theft.
But then , why do slow poison when you can do fast?
“The Aquarius ship has been seized and the NGO MSF is now under investigation for transporting infectious waste illegally to Italian ports.
Besides trafficking human beings, NGOs were also trafficking toxic waste into Europe.
TGP has just reported that a Federal Judge has allowed FGM.
Another great example of federal judges dictating social policy and abolishing children’s rights.
I’d venture that to long from now some Federal judge will allow child marriage and sex. And when that happens the country is dead and anyone who enforces such laws deserves termination.
Tell me again why we’re supposed to care so much about “FGM” when male circumcision is so common? They really are remarkably similar practices, for those who bother to do the research.
FGM is a neocon/”liberalist” red herring. Subjecting girls to daycare, single moms, 12 years of public school and 4 or more years of feminist indoctrination camp is far more barbaric. Banning female circumcision is like banning burkas, it’s a clumsy gesture that does nothing to address the real issues.
You miss the f**king point. The judge just made Islam exempt from out from our laws(carving a space out for Sharia) and setting a precedent where child marriage and sex(pederasty) is next, just like in England.And it also means one day you might be under the Muzzie boot getting curb stomped like the Brtis are because some judge allows it.
This is what it’s about but you don’t see it, you obsess over your foreskin of all things.
Yawn. Don’t let the muzzies in and this won’t be an issue. Keep letting them in and it won’t make one bit of difference what the official laws are.
FGM is a stupid hill to die on. All genital mutilation, male or female, is barbaric. Reeeeing about FGM is a lame attempt to get the attention of feminists who will never take your side. It reeks of center-left Sargonism, sperging over one aspect of a culture that shouldn’t be here in the first place.
Get it together. This isn’t the most important issue facing America. It’s not even in the top 10.
No. I’ve known shorn women and their husbands. It is hell for both.
There are huge downstream effects from this poison.
Nothing is worse than this for driving a society mad, nothing.
(Even though circumcision is the semitic wedge in, camoflagued as in all their evil half does.)
Right. Yeah. Sure. The mild and mostly aesthetic form of female circumcision that most Muslims practice is way worse than society being flooded with endocrine disruptors, birth control pills, hormone blockers for kids and sex changes for adolescents, flatlining white fertility rates, uncontrolled invasion from south of the border, destruction of contract law and executive authority, rampant hypergamy leading to catlady epidemics, rampant obesity, re-emergence of bubonic plague and other ancient diseases, anarchist mobs committing acts of violence and terrorism with impunity, decline of military and nuclear supremacy, or $150 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
No, no. None of that. What’s REALLY important is some hijab-wearing moslem ladies snipping their moslem daughters’ girly bits. It’s a national emergency! We must save the poor Muslim girls!
Do any of you people ever think before posting this kind of hyperbole?
Not to troll, but crazed women raise crazy kids, who become crazy men and women, and eventually you have the Islamic Middle East.
FGM is done without anesthesia; Islamic male circumcision, done at age 7, has similar effects- even infant circumcision has effects on the psyche.
He misses the point since he has his own agenda to promote. He really should get his own blog.
I was just using this case as a example of a federal judge grossly abusing his authority and just making shit up as he sees fit.
The implications of this, if it stands are very bad for the rest of us.
The Zman article was about the legal system you idiot. Not your litany of real and imagined ills that are eating you alive.
You posted nothing of relevance to his article. Nothing but giant rant.
The point is legal precedent to abuse and mutilate human beings. By the logic the judge used it would be okay for me to take a steak knife and cut your balls off because it’s part of my religion.
You have no f**king idea the precedent this sets or what it will allow some Lefty ruler to do us.
This is an unpopula opinion with conservatives but,
This situation is a perfectly predictable outcome of making the judiciary a separate and equal branch of government, while retaining a common law legal paradigm.
Common law is a fine system for a pre-modern society with a foreign conqueror ruling class as England had nine hundred years ago. It’s an ok system (not great but workable) for a modern country with parliamentary supremacy. It’s absolutely idiotic one for a country with a strong and vague written constitution.
This play we call the American experiment was intended to be cast w believers who accepted – and respected -:their various roles. Unfortunately, the very liberties and protections envisioned are all too often exploited by non-believers to undermine the experiment. Too many actors – citizens, politicians, judges, even merchants – are playing someone else’s role. The Left is producing Springtime For Hitler hoping it will fail.
The remedy is for Trump to say the ruling is not legitimate and ignore it. The same with the press ruling. Tell the judges they have no standing on these matters and start doing the job of the executive, which is to administer the laws. Maybe Nancy has the votes to impeach him, but if she does she’ll do it anyway regardless. Do the right thing and stop allowing leftist lunatics paralyze the country.
>Imagine if in some local courthouse, we discover that the judges are giving accused child pornographers a free pass.<
this is kinda related:
Detroit: Judge orders FGM charges dropped against Muslim doctor, says law against it is unconstitutional
Oh that’s bad, newrouter, that’s very bad. Child sex slaves are next.
This [kitarchy] works well enough, it’s better than anarchy, as long as the people within the community adhere to the same customs and beliefs. … In a modern, rule based society, this form of legal theory is as alien as human sacrifice. It is an assault on civil order.
If I may, this works even in a modern, rule-based society — but it stops when you introduce large numbers of alien or hostile foreigners and encourage them to refuse to assimilate.
The Devils Advocate – Why the Law ?
The problem we have is the conservatives: they value order to the point of absurdity. If we actually start ignoring the Sanhedrin, people will lose whatever faith they have in the system. (I would applaud that, but your average Congresscritter? Not so much.) These arrogant judges also gives the cucks something: a chance to duck every “controversial” issue. “Well golly, gee. I was against ‘gay’ marriage, but the court has spoken. We must obey the courts, or the rule of law will be blah blah blah.”
A conservative is useless as a revolutionary. Most right-minded people are cowards. Look how they collect muh guns for muh freedom, yet virtually none will ever consider the implications of that. Are you going to shoot that judge, Mr. Patriotic Murican? No, you’ll hand it in when the day comes.
Is now the time, then?
As long as the elite can shield themselves from chaos, they are indifferent to it. Globalism and leftist thought in general are religions. Cleansing and purification are central values as is battling heretics.
The Constitution has long been defunct. The evolution of the economy required a change in legal thinking long ago, and when the left began contriving legal arguments to serve their ideology and interests, to cage ourselves into “originalism” was a recipe for defeat (or treason). My understanding is that the Dissident Right’s notion of 1st amendment rights to free speech are those of the old left, not those of our American ancestors through much of our history. Is this correct?
Our conceptions of law, like our morality, like the contrived “human rights” secular religion, are contrivances of our existential enemies, fools, and men living in profoundly, wildly different times from our own. They all amount to artificial boxes, cages, in which we are inexorably led to our, the West’s, extermination. Out of the cage thinking is required.
Tigar lives in a beautiful 1.6 million dollar palace in the Berkeley hills. He’s in the white pages. Maybe stop by and thank him for his patriotism…
One of the enduring oddities of this kritarchy is that monstrous SC precedent known as Chevron Deferral, wherein decisions of organs of the Administrative State are ASSUMED to be licit. Never mind that these organs illegitimately co-mingle legislative, executive, and judicial powers and that the process of challenging their decisions is by design so onerous and ruinously expensive that the process becomes the punishment.
Everybody should read this book:
And watch these vids (here’s part 1) (all are short):
These are longer:
re: “Everybody should read this book:”RMV
I concur Biohistory: Decline and Fall of the West by Jim Penman (editor) is suoerb. Amazon has it as a Kindle edition at $1.99 https://www.amazon.com/Biohistory-Decline-Fall-Jim-Penman-ebook/dp/B01GKH3ZK8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542764683&sr=8-1&keywords=biohistory+decline+and+fall+of+the+west or https://tinyur[DOT]com/ycla8efb
So what. Not one of you will cease paying taxes. Let alone with notice to government. Sole official penalty being paid vacation at some camp with a salad bar and decent meat.
Nothing will happen until you refuse to cooperate. That’s okay, neither does anybody else follow through.
Discuss amongst yourselves over “cawfee tawk” kibbitzers.
This kind of anarchy isn’t confined to the courts. In Portland, the mayor has issued standing orders for the police to stand down anytime antifa chooses to take control of the streets:
The FBI is now labeling Proud Boys as an “extremest group”:
Everyone knows where this is heading. The left is using its control of the institutions to foment anarchy, to tear down the institutions that they themselves control, be it at universities, in local government or law enforcement. The left have convinced themselves and their supporters that the rule of law is both a vestige and instrument of white privilege and oppression, and hence illegitimate. Thus, anyone defending the rule of law is a racist and a fascist criminal to be targeted by shrieking mobs of SJWs. If the rule of law is a crime, then so must civilization itself be an even greater crime; in particular this must apply to European civilization, which is nothing but centuries of oppression and genocide. Hence anarchy becomes a goal, and revenge against whites – who still try to seek protection from the rule of law – the ultimate objective.
I’m trying to understand how a mental defective that styles himself Tekashi6ix9ine can film a 13 yr. old girl fellating a guy, IOW producing child porn, and gets probation, violate that and get probation ? Maybe we are already seeing that pedophile courthouse you talked about?
At this point I just wonder what’s going to happen first. The gun grab for the shooting
well i think the left is pissed off about losing the ussc so there sort of flipping the bird by intentionally trying to bankrupt the system. Its kind of a cloward piven type move.
Cults are perfectly reasonable. They’re even more reasonable than mainstream religion, they just have no critical thinking skills. Many of these judges are highly literate and articulate, top of their classes. Perfectly reasonable people.
That’s the problem. Reason, alone, is nothing more than a system set up to derive an outcome. When false inputs are put into a system, the system reads a false outcome. It’s the same thing as a global warming chart, false inputs, false outcome.
Reason and critical thinking are two different things. Reason is an interpretation of fact. If academia sets down a false fact, reason will not pick up on that. Critical thinking objectively examines the fact itself. Nearly every school in the country attempts to limit critical thinking, while applying reason to known false facts.
These judges are just widgets produced by the current reason factory. Only the setting up of alternate institutions can change this. That usually only happens after a social/economic/political catastrophe.
Yes the mind per se is just a machine. Or as one French pundit put it, a whore.
Anyone else read Tom Kratman’s “Caliphate”? In an amusing backstory section, President Buchanan (yes) has a Thomas Beckett moment after the Supreme Court tries to block him from deporting Muslims (after a nuclear 911). Somebody rids him of pesky Justices and is promptly pardoned. End of problem.
We either “give them business” now and stop our nation’s descent into madness or let them drive the bus over the cliff the and into civil war/anarchy, etc.
The later you don’t want in country swimming with nuclear and biological weapons.
We’re a first-world people living in a third-world country:
– Contracts are no longer valid. Any business can cut you off for any reason.
– Non-protected individuals are guilty until proven innocent of any accusation.
– If you challenge the narrative even slightly, FBI will label you as terrorists.
– Physical security is nonexistent. Police protect the mobs, not their victims.
– And of course, judges neither know nor care about the letter of the law.
This is exactly what living in a third-world country is like. Ask any Latin American.
If you didn’t know better, you would almost think that someone was cultivating the current situation before those in question were even in primary school.
Obviously these sorts of problems are complex, they can be traced to numerous interlocking sources etc.
But one of the big problems is that our insane, (((malevolent))), asleep-at-the-wheel immigration policies have resulted in a critical portion of our population being very new recent arrivals with zero connection to the West, meaning the actual historical and cultural and demographic force which transformed this patch of soil from just a heavily-forested piece of real estate into a bastion and iteration of a great and very particular civilization in record time. To the various Guptas, Mohammed’s, Shlomos, Pedro’s and Ching Chaos who are flooding into the country, America isn’t an actual historical place, it’s just a gigantic cookie-jar which they think anyone and everyone on Earth has a right to grub around in at will. Grab as many cookies as you can, Whitey will just make more. And if Whitey doesn’t, we’re fine with this place turning into another shit-hole, after all it’s what we’re used to.
So it makes sense for them to use the courts, the system, whatever comes to hand as a crowbar to beat Whitey over the head and steal as much as they can. As some no-doubt patriotic Chinese person was quoted in a news article a while back, speaking with perfect calm and serenity, “Look, you stole this place from the Indians, and now we’re going to steal it from you.”
In their minds, the System is not legitimate because it’s not their system, and they ain’t Us, and they don’t want to be Us, they just want our land, our women and our stuff. Who would want to join the team that gave away the whole stadium for free, because of some idle yammering about Slabery and Holocaust? Who would team up with rubes and simpletons like that?
The China Man is right. We took it by force and fraud and now it’s being taken from us in the same way. We actually turned our financial system to the Global Slave Masters. What a sin and crime against our own People.
Reading through Z-man’s post today, I kept also seeing the Catholic Church in the writing. Inhabiting and gutting institutions is what the Left is good at.
Yeah, I thought so too for the first few paragraphs. Weren’t the American bishops who were trying to deal with the homo-not-pedo crisis very recently given a ‘stand-down’ order from Rome_?
I have no standing to protest, not being a member, and I have no idea what the Roman Church should do, but being organized as it is makes it highly vulnerable to subversion, likely via Big U. Hell, they went for separate education and even those institutions were subverted by the Progs.!
In this country, there appears to be two active groups of bishops, the ones who were in on the whole thing directly or otherwise actively took the omerta pledge and looked the other way, and a very small outspoken group who openly agitated over the wrongs done. Then there is a third group, which appears to be the largest one, which doesn’t know what to do and has the deer-in-the-headlights thing going on. The first group has been weakening (see Bishop Wuerl’s exit process, and he was right in the middle of things), but then Pope Francis threw them a lifeline by squelching the entire subject.
The bad guys have done the typical thing of pulling people in to their point of view, or otherwise forcing them out of the organization entirely. Just like every male of any political importance got a free trip to Pedo Island.
It’s fun to watch the liberals have to choose which perverts to admit to their club: Their efforts to avoid actually saying “Pillow biters good, Kiddie diddlers bad” are a hoot. The Graudian is doing a yeoman’s job in avoiding the topic entirely.
All true. To translate it into older terms, it’s just a simple “gangster state,” where one party acquires all the positions of justice and power, abandons any notion of equality under the law, and simply uses power to help friends and smash down enemies.
Accelerationism is the only answer now. Maybe just right-wing judges doing the same thing: issuing nakedly partisan diktats; throw it all into chaos; burn it all down. The problem is that “conservatives” are too innocent for their own good. It’s like the boy scouts taking on a Mexican heroin cartel. America–America as such–is in the end game now.
(P.S., shit, when I typed “gangster state” into DuckDuckGo to brush up on my gangster states, expecting stuff about China, S. America, Africa, etc., the very first result was by the Zman:
You’re becoming a real influencer. Keep up the good work.)
“Accelerationism” – is something I’ve been arguing about with “conservatives” for at least 15 years now. They constantly revert back to form and keep trying to fix shit that the leftists break. Every time the leftists take a dump in the pool – the right wingers dive in and clean it up and tell all the other swimmers nothing is wrong.
Ha! That is starting to happen more often.
I’ve always been in the burn it down camp. I think now that the Trump phenomenon is running on fumes, it is time for white people to vote in democrat primaries for the most insane people on the ballot. A speaker Maxine Waters or a president Kamala Harris would send 80% of whites into our camp.
Whites tend to be the least tribal, note that in Hungary’s most recent election that 30% of the people voted for parties explicitly saying they were in favor of mass immigration. And this was after 250K of the Merkeljugend had just three years prior trashed the city of Budapest on their transit to Germany.
I kept arguing that Hillary should get elected – by the same train of logic.
back in 2008 I told liberals I wanted Obama to get elected – and when they asked why (increduously) – I answered: “because the way I see it is that he will destroy liberalism in this country and collapse the Democratic party”.
They didn’t like that. It made them mad. The best part is: it came true.
You can get 95 per cent of Whites into your camp, through all manner of clever strategies, and it still won’t make any difference in the long term outcome, so long as all the choke points and bottlenecks are controlled by (((non-whites))). Which they are.
Trump ran a brilliant well-nigh unimaginable presidential campaign using (importantly) his own money, and articulating a highly rational, clear-minded diagnosis of what was wrong with America and how to fix it. His support base was solid and impassioned. And two years later nothing has happened. Why? You answered it in your OP: we are not governed by the Executive Office of the United States, we are governed by Hawaiian Federal Judge, and his (((mentors back at Harvard.)))
Maxine Waters is a genius, and Empress Kamala is even more awesome than the God-King Obama. And anyone who hasn’t helped destroy a Confederate statue can no longer use their MasterCard. (And hey, after all, isn’t it RILLY problematic to call it a MasterCard? Isn’t that just dripping wet with the trrrrble legacy of Slabery — and also Holocaust, which you goyim are also somehow guilty of, despite it happening in another country on another continent and your grand-parents fought to stop it, you’re still guilty. Because Martin Luther King sailed to Ellis Island on a slave ship, and saved Uncle Moshe from being kicked out of the Everwood Estates Country Club by the evil Harrington Hallsworthy IV, who spent all his time whipping slaves. Then we all sat at lunch counters at Woodstock and defied barking fire hoses, and ended Vietnam by burning our bras and marching for abortion. Or something.)
As long as the dumb goyim continue to believe the fake historiography and fake victimology which they have been very carefully saddled with, they’re not going to squirm out from under this.
People are going to have to stop viewing the USA as an inevitable political solid eternal entity, and start viewing North America once again as what it always was: a very attractive desirable piece of real estate which can be organized in any manner of ways — some to the benefit of the Iroquois Confederation, some to the benefit of the Kingdom of France, some to the benefit of people with, well, other ideas.
Lester, your rants are occasionally epic.
Well if you’re gonna play a crackpot, might as well make it a zany one.
Isn’t it high time for a corporate merger of Slabery Inc. and Holocaust Inc. — America’s two great eternally unforgivable Original Sins, only one of which actually happened here. Slavery and Holocaust, together again at last!
We can call it the Slolocaust: this way leftards will only have to point and shriek once instead of twice.
Well said, sir. Take a map and turn it sideways. Take a Globe and turn it upside down. It’s mind expanding. And all Land is sword land ultimately….
First we have to determine who IS White via genetic testing. Otherwise any victory would be Pyric. And capitalize White why don’t you?
The important thing to note here is: Congress can strip the jurisdiction from the courts on immigration. In fact they actually did this in 1996. This is a “check and balance” that has atrophied. If the public dislikes the jurisdiction stripping, a new Congress and President can be elected, in contrast to the lifetime court appointment. The courts are getting away with it because Congress is derelict.
Another point, the GOP is absolutely feckless in terms of Congressional procedure. The Dems forced votes on DACA thanks to something known as the “discharge petition”. The GOP, if it truly wants to survive, must do the same on a stand-alone E-Verify bill. Even the farm-state representatives should see the reaper in the mirror, rather than the bribery that would otherwise await them. There are certainly at least 20 Dems in the House that can be pressured to vote in favor, and certainly enough Senators that can be pressured to not filibuster.
Pervert Number One, of course, is Vaughn Walker, who voided California’s anti-homo marriage law.
In the old days, this guy would have his ass kicked pure and simple.
We need to make these tyrants pay a price for their disloyalty and perversion.
And then that judge “married” his boyfriend, didn’t he?
“What a crisis! My wedding dress clashes with my husband’s!”
The source of much of this legal mischief lies in the universities which prepare the minds of our legal eagles. Pre-law undergraduate studies channel these people into various multi-kult and oppression studies courses, along with the usual degraded deconstruction courses on history and literature. The entire effort is designed to produce the kinds of minds that are susceptible to the modern neo-Marxist view of culture. With that sort of outlook, is it any wonder that we are witnessing the self-immolation of our nation? It has been baked into the intellectual cake for decades.
Law Schools are accredited by the ABA, rather than by the Department of Education. This is a major problem, as it means that we lack “civilian control”. As something like 70% of lawyers are left-wing, the ABA routinely demands more affirmative action in law schools, to the extent that they won’t revoke accreditation from schools where most students fail the Bar. Note the demographics of those schools.
Important to note that the bar exam has existed far longer than law schools. Some “state bar associations” are mandatory membership, but the ABA is a voluntary organization, but yet it exercises quasi-governmental power. A state bar tried to stop a friend of R. Spencer from becoming a lawyer. A similar situation exits with the AMA, albeit that they restrict the number of US doctors rather than dilute the number. Foreign physicians have a loophole in the J visa. Quelle surprise!
I remember when I was a kid (MA) some woman whose brother had been railroaded by the “justice” “system” was motivated to study for and pass the bar via self-study without the benefit of the credentialing institutions. The Horror! They fixed that little glitch pdq. Now, no matter how bright or motivated you are, you must become a debt-slave and/or tick the boxes before they’ll let you into the club.
I had my share of pre-law students back in my teaching days. I think we’ll all agree that “Dunning-Kruger” should be listed as the cause on Western Civ’s death certificate… and there’s no more Dunning-Krugery bunch, in all the world, than pre-law students. I used to take sadistic delight in reaming them — there they’d sit, grinning like naughty little kids who just cut a fart in church, with holes in their arguments big enough to fly a blimp through. I never actually made one cry, but not for lack of trying. I’m sure some of them are judges now, which is why they’ll never take me alive. Viva la resistance!
Pre-law is a strange bird created by undergraduate advisors with too much time on their hands. Unlike pre-med, there are no prerequisites for law school other than the LSAT and a bachelors. This is credentialism, just as Law is somehow a “J.D” but was formerly an “LL.B” which it still is in commonwealth countries. Even someone of middling IQ can see the scam written in Latin.
My theory on why lawyers tend to wildly overestimate their IQ is this. Most lawyers come from a pool of students who score high normal, but leaning toward high verbal, rather than spatial and analytical. As a result, they end up in non-STEM classes, where they are the smartest kids in the class. When they get into law school, this confirms to them they are the smart guys and while in law school they rarely run into anyone to the right of them on the curve.
Further, you don’t have to be a genius to follow the thinking of Louis Brandeis or Benjamin Cardozo. You don’t even have to be a legal scholar to understand legal theory. On other other hand, there are plenty of math PhD’s who are baffled by areas of pure mathematics. To be in a STEM field is to be reminded everyday that you know a tiny fraction of what can be known. The result is lawyers have an obvious threshold to cross into being considered a smart lawyer. Since it is not a high bar, most are able to at least pretend to cross it and think they are a genius. A similar phenomenon seems to be at work in economics now.
And lawyers are so ridiculously “protective” of themselves. I’ve tried asking co-workers who are corporate attorneys to point me in the right direction for a project and they just won’t. There are exceptions out there, but they are rare and to be cherished.
The problem with economists is that it seems to have turned into a field where they think they can approximate and predict economic behavior with equations and math , when – as Mises pointed out: economics is more of a study of human behavior , akin to psychology or sociology.
Which is why people like Krugman constantly get shit completely wrong.
After watching and listening to all the different points of view for a long time – I came to the conclusion that one of the ways you separate a real economist from a charlatan – is to see if they can ACTUALLY predict future behavior. Pretty much every single leftist “economist” I’ve ever seen – Krugman being a prominent example – never get a single goddam thing correct.
The Austrians on the other hand – aren’t perfect, but they do actually get their predictions of the *future* correct on occasion.
Hence – they have my ear. And the rest of them don’t.
Well remember, he’s not on our side. He said, a Welfare State cannot coexist with open borders. Yet he’s for open borders. AND he’s for the Welfare State. So? I’d say he’s a Liberal who wants to overwhelm the system a la Cloward Piving. Beyond that, he doesn’t like Whites and doesn’t identify as White.
Huh? Who is “he” ?
So many ways to approach this column. First, when you mention an “unwritten ideology” one has to think of how this started, and Corwin’s The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law (1965). This pamphlet basically unleashed the idea that judges could basically make shit up because of tightly held beliefs and gave them academic backing.
Here I go again: The French Revolution was preceded by a judicial crisis. The Parlamentof Paris https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlement, in the years leading up to the Revolution, mainly acted as a brake on any reforms of the system that any of the Kings proposed, they, in this way acted as a conservative body of sorts, while the king was in the position of trying to find ways to make the system work. One can quibble about where the blame lies for the necessity of reforms, but the fact is that the kings were trying to make the system work, while the parlements basically set themselves up as an opposition party. Their resistance to new taxes got them public backing, as did their call for the Estates General to be convened in order to settle the question of new taxes. That body had not been convened since 1614, it was now 1789. Pulling a 150 year old precedent out of one’s judicial ass is in many ways similar to making shit up ab nihilo.
This backfired on them and cost them their public backing when they insisted on constituting the Estates in the same manner as in 1614, rather than allowing the enlarged Third Estate representation reflective of the enlarged economic and numerical status they had achieved.
This is in many ways similar to how our current judiciary deludes itself that it is on the side of the people, when, in fact, they represent elite opinion.
In France they got their Revolution, but here’s how it ended up:
This behavior of the parlements is one of the reasons that since the French Revolution, French courts have been forbidden by Article 5 of the French civil code to create law and act as legislative bodies, their only mandate being to interpret the law. France, through the Napoleonic Code, was at the origin of the modern system of civil law in which precedents are not as powerful as in countries of common law. The origin of the separation of powers in the French court system, with no rule of precedent outside the interpretation of the law, no single supreme court and no constitutional review of statutes by courts until 1971 (by action, before the Constitutional Council of France created in 1958) and 2010 (by exception, before any court) is usually traced to that hostility towards “government by judges”.
As you can see, history is rhyming again. No matter what kind of self-importance these cultists attribute to themselves, they are headed for a denoument.
re: “No matter what kind of self-importance these cultists attribute to themselves, they are headed for a denouement.” teapartydoc
Spell it out. What kind of resolution do you see? What is the outcome? Victory for the Judges or the Executive? Civil War? 100 million Mestizos entering the USA or 200 million entering?
I don’t know how it will happen. Z has already pointed out that rule by judges is an attribute of more primitive societies. I am pointing out what has happened in fairly recent history how a society dealt with its judiciary when it decided to try and run things.
It took quite some time for the French to repudiate the parlements. Nearly a hundred years. I cited 1965 as the beginning of this current trend. I doubt if I’m going to be alive when this is finally resolved.
The bigger context for this phenomena is even more worrying; the large majority of people in the modern world believe in magic. TV logic rules everywhere, at every level. What is there left to save, to restore? Are even 10% of the population living in the real world?
On the bright side, at least the over population problem is going to be solved…
It’s even worse. If there were still adults in the room, Roberts would assert himself and the Judiciary would promptly rein in these nutjobs using internal controls and remedies. That they do not do so is evidence that the whole system is rotten and dysfunctional, not just a few bad apples. The good news is that we are reaching critical mass more quickly rather than the slow glide into the ditch, which is the typical method of keeping the natives from rioting. Half the country is now preparing to have a snit of indignation and the other half is moving the shotgun over by the front door.
Personal security… go no where without it.
Social security = 2A in practice.
We already have chaos when reason is not honored, my friend.
Dad…..what is reason? An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence. And how does one arrive at reason? By making a declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction. Even reason can be perverted by your head and heart. Ultimately rule of law is either 1) the ever constantly changing rule of law by man, OR- 2) the immutable law of God. The moment the law in this rule of law does not reflect God’s law, that same moment you will begin to see tyranny whether through the legally-protected oppression of one man against another, one group over another, or of the state against man. Look..it’s really simple. My parents were Trotskyites and I didn’t want to face this as lived in the world of rational “science” and lefties. Then the epiphany happened I mean out of nowhere bang. You either live by the rule of law by man, which means the laws keep changing.. changing.. changing until one day you wake up to find a law passed that changes Tuesday from Reds Tamale Day to Roast your Kid on the Weber Kettle Day. It’s entirely possible. No joke. Go ask an Aztec. That is what this whole article is about. Conversely, God’s laws DO NOT CHANGE. Good Grief!..I was not raised with God..Jesus…Christianity..yet the logic is irrefutable. I was in foreign territory and had to walk backwards scuffing up dust, grumbling and waving arms to say Hi to God. Still do…and he laughs! For argument sake, you don’t have to believe; just believe in the immutable structure (which leads you back to the maker, Ha!), or sure as hell with the rule of law by man you’ll be walking in quicksand one day, with that stupid judge. Or on the Weber Kettle. oh..wait…what is that I see smoking on the horizon….Good God! It’s a giant Weber Kettle!
“Further, the child porn people heard about it so they would travel to this jurisdiction to indulge in their fetish, knowing the local court would give them a free pass. Needless to say, such a thing would be the scandal of the century. ”
*Should* be, not would be – this has been the situation at the BBC for decades, yet nothing curative has happened, and the organisation still gets 3.8 billion pounds p/a from a mandatory TV licence tax.
No actual abuse of anybody in any way (eg ‘Rotherham’ and *many* other similar cases across the nation; 10,000-plus slaves in modern England) is ever going to be large enough to trigger an effective backlash when the mass population have been hollowed-out by the (self-)removal of God from their minds.
The Western populations are deeply mentally sick, crazed, senseless – and unless *that* changes, nothing will change for the better.
I spent the day in the court jury pool a few weeks ago. Took the time to assess the demographics and get a take on the potential jurors attitudes. Obviously hardly anyone wants to be on jury duty but from what I have observed with interviewees and my personal conversations is this:NO ONE BELIEVES IN THE SYSTEM ANYMORE!
A more jaded bunch has never existed.
(oh and of course the first to be recused by the defense attorney were all older white males.)
As others have said here, either Trump finds his inner Jackson and makes a stand or much worse (for all us) comes later. He couldn’t even muster a meek defense for the Acosta fiasco.
David_Wright. Earelier this year, I served on a very long trial. The jury included some immigrants from “non-western” countries, and some “members” of our educational system. These people lacked a basic understanding of the law. Feelings ruled.
Trump talks a whole hell of a lot but in the end gets little accomplished. The corruption is embedded far too deep in all facets of society for him to overcome alone. Peak Trump was during the campaign in 2015-16. It’s been pretty much downhill from there. He’s not going to negotiate us out of this morass. And he’s not gonna be Jacksonian, so don’t kid yourself. I do think his heart is in the right place but the damage to our country was so systemic that a breakup is likely the only possible cure, if there’s a cure at all.
The fix was in when Trump appeared before AIPAC and basically brought his own knee-pads. Hillary did the same the very next night. This was before either got nominated.
I just read 8 U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum. You can too. Here’s the relevant text:
It sure seems to me that the judge wasn’t making this up.
Perhaps there are legal twists I can’t untangle. The law itself is horribly written, with all sorts of exceptions which are not subject to judges but the Attorney General. Still, it’s hardly a clearcut example of a rogue judge. It looks to me like the judge is reining in the executive doing something he’s not allowed to do.
Leonard: Note the terms “IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES OR WHO ARRIVES IN THE UNITED STATES.” The key here is “IN.” If our central/national/federal government has any one purpose, it is to DEFEND the nation against invasion, attack, or intrusion of any kind. If the U.S. military and/or U.S. Border Patrol cannot keep invaders OUT, then they are useless. Once “IN,” anyone can claim asylum then commit criminal acts to avoid deportation. The fundamental question is “WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED IN AT ALL?”
Re: “WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED IN AT ALL?”
Because once they are here – they can apply for asylum!.
And once they apply for asylum – the court would likely squash any entity that tried to deport them.
Ready made sequence of events to “legally” allow the whole world to run over the border.
I can apply for asylum. The legitimacy of the application is not assumed. The Administration gets the job of setting rules for evaluating these claims. More important, the ACLU has no standing. The court should dismiss the case on those grounds. This absurd idea that a third party with no interest in the issue can petition the court on behalf of imaginary parties is itself a mockery of the law.
Exactly. Standing is a fundamental legal concept. Basically, to have standing to file suit, you must suffer an injury caused by the defendant’s conduct that is likely to be redressed by a ruling in your favor. Even if the substance of the law is clearly in your favor, you don’t necessarily have standing. Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump’s asylum ban is clearly contrary to the law, the ACLU and other pro-immigration groups still do not have standing to challenge it. The lack of standing in this case would be obvious to a first year law student.
But the pro-immigration groups argued that the asylum ban harms their mission (of helping immigrants or whatever) and impairs their funding, etc. The judge and everyone involved knows that this is totally absurd. But, it’s like the court dismissing the charges against all of the pedophiles in Z Man’s analogy.
Also, the ACLU and their allies supposedly have 3rd party standing on behalf of soon-to-be illegal immigrants who aren’t even in the country yet. Third party standing is a complete contradiction in terms. It’s like cold heat or dry water. You have to assert a claim on your own behalf to have standing. Third party standing is ludicrous.
The lack of standing is not even legitimately debatable. They are just making shit up. This has become an everyday occurrence in our legal system. I am naturally inclined to want to try to work within the system and follow the rules. But it has gotten to the point that I’m not willing to cluck to worship the invisible chicken judge.
The only real question at this point is who will be proscribed first? if DJT must act decisively before the end of his term
Are you surprised to learn that Congress should be indicted, tried, and hung for treason?
Note that the Z-man does not cite any statutory or jurisprudential authority for his contention that the judge just made it up in defiance of black letter law.
Its one thing to be against any more black and brown admissions; its another thing to be dead wrong on the law regarding asylum applications.
Too many millions of white men and white women have voted for democrat and republican party politicians who have created the statutory framework permitting asylum.
It would appear that white men and white women have categorically rejected the proposition that the United States should absolutely prohibit any asylum.
It would also appear that white men and white women have categorically rejected the proposition that the United States should terminate all immigration.
Moreover, white men and white women have emphatically declared, in overwhelming numbers, over several generations, that the United States shall not be a nation which prohibits the immigration of black and brown third world analphabets.
All of the above is reflected in the federal statutory scheme governing asylum and immigration. Put another way, there is no black letter law prohibiting asylum applications or that asylum applications can only be made if the applicant enters in a place designated by POTUS or that immigration can not be sought by third world, low-skilled negroes or Squatemalans.
Falsely and / or ignorantly ranting that the federal district court judge just made it up in contravention to black letter law does not become any one on our side.
Criticizes Z for not citing law. Cites no law.
He made the contention without support. It is his burden to carry his argument.
You are sometimes very obsequious. Its as if you are afraid to go at with the host.
What you should be doing with your time is investigating how you found yourself in the ridiculous nonsense cult called libertarianism. Instead of being mad at me for pointing it out, try some self-examination to possibly learn how you were so easily lured into something so silly and ridiculous.
Leonard, thanks for the lesson in the law. Any interest in reading what “8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens” says? Well, I’ll show it to you:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
So…in short, you have no idea what you are talking about. Care to retract your assertion? Probably not..
You ought to give the link. Here it is.
There is a conflict between 1182(f) and 1158(a)(1). This seems obvious to me, but perhaps it isn’t to you.
Who is supposed to resolve conflicts in the law? Well, Congress can do so if it can arse itself to. (I note that Republicans have control of both houses and the Presidency.) But absent Congress doing something, it falls to the judiciary.
In any case, my original point is that the case is not clearcut. So no, I don’t care to retract my assertion.
The conflict was resolved when the Supreme Court upheld the President’s so-called Muslim ban in Trump v. Hawaii last year. Here is a link to the ruling:
“Held: The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. Pp. 9–24.”
I suppose you think it is the duty of our court system to examine each and every instance when the president exercises this power?
Really, give it up. You are wrong. He will be vindicated, and this is nothing but lawlessness on the part of our lawless court system.
It’s not in conflict. It’s straightforward. Here are the asylum rules unless the president declares such immigrants detrimental to the US. That’s a clear cut reading.
An example would be corporate having a policy of all stores will be open 7am-9pm. The manager may change the hours for employee and/or customer safety issues. That’s a simple, logical reading. There is only a conflict to people intent on violating the law and looking for a fig leaf of coverage.
Leonard, “absent Congress doing something” nothing is done. The judiciary does not make law, Congress does. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be.
As long as you’re giving links, you might have given the one for §1158. Here it is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
And what you have repeatedly missed is §1158(2)(c): “Additional limitations
The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).” In particular a requirement that applications must be made at points of entry is a permissible limitation, and the President can order the AG to institute that “additional limitation” by Executive Order, or otherwise.
Your interpretation would have allowed the German saboteurs apprehended on American soil in World War II to have claimed asylum. Given that they had failed, and the Third Reich was rather illiberal towards its political enemies, their claims might have had a fair chance of being approved by the present judiciary. A president should have the authority to declare certain “aliens” to be “invaders,” who may be forcibly resisted and have no due process claims. Otherwise, the present asylum law is a national suicide pact.
By that definition If the Russian army invaded they could ask for asylum.
Ernst Fraenkel nailed this back in the 1930s — it’s the “prerogative state.” He said that the 3rd Reich had “normative law” and “prerogative law.” Normative law was black-letter law, and you’d get real, impartial justice, even from the Nazi-est judge, if it were a matter of a speeding ticket or something like that. But when normative law conflicted with ideology, the prerogative kicked in. In their case it was a little easier — let the guy off, as normative law demands, but with the Gestapo ready to meet him on the courthouse steps — but the principle is the same. I forget exactly how it all worked out in the end, but I don’t think it was good.
Somewhere in my travels I ran across a piece where the author compared the conviction rates of the US justice system, the Nazi justice system – and the Soviet era justice system in the USSR. The scary conclusion he came to was that the conviction rate of the US system – was close to 95% – and the Nazi and Soviet systems were some number of percentage points less than that ( I don’t remember the specifics).
It should be somewhat sobering to contemplate that if you get caught up in the US “justice” system – you’re almost guaranteed to get convicted.
Sounds like something Conrad Black might have authored, as he fell victim himself to the US Justice machine.
Clearly you’re not familiar with Cook County, Illinois.
We have to be damned careful about where we get our info. The press cannot be trusted further than you can throw them. The judge did not exactly order the Whitehouse to give that twerp at CNN his press pass back. There was more to it than that, that the vast majority of media slobs deliberately left it out.
The judge ordered the reinstatement of that press pass, AND the establishment of a code of conduct at the press conferences. In effect, he told BOTH of the parties to play nice – and if Accosta acts up again after the establishment of the new rules – or any of those other media losers start misbehaving – they can be turfed as legally as church on Sunday. Ergo – Trump won. In that particular case, I think the judge was bang on the money and actually made a good call.
I am stumped as to the purpose of the appeal process. And many other media devices like plea bargaining… and so-called ‘hate’ crimes. All these things do is promote more crime and injustice. And these activist judges are going to have to be dealt with at some point. Either the law belongs to we the people or they the politicians and if they want to fight about it – I’m in.
The court has no place in the process of issuing press credentials. It’s just points how toxic this lunacy is on the minds of most Americans. Rule by judge is just accepted, while rule of law is ignored.
Well put! The presidency is a separate branch of government and the judiciary has no more authority to order its affairs than the president would have to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by executive order.
The whole thing is ridiculous from a legal standpoint..Presidents can’t be ordered to hold press conferences, nor can any other aspect of the way they administer things be reviewed by a court…But we are living in a lawless time, and many of these Federal Judges are nothing but marxist saboteurs, as Zman has pointed out. Pinochet had the right, and only, solution to the embedding of such individuals in the legal and academic systems.
The press are invited into the White House. Now, according to this fool of a judge (an obvious liberal suck up), they have to be afforded due process before they can be thrown out. Taken to its logical absurd extreme, this means once someone is invited on public property, no what they do, no matter what their behavior, they can’t be thrown out unless they get a hearing first. We are two countries. The sickness on the left continues unabated.
He was a trump appointee citing an earlier precedent. Basically it said that since the White House voluntarily put in facilities for the press, they had to let A hole Acosta in. It did open the door for a formal set of rules which the WH press corps never had to live under. I bet a lot of journos are really hating on Acosta right now.
The politicians are so awful, judges looked good in comparison. Until now.
Sorry, Z – but no. Any disagreement between two parties can be brought before the court. I could, for example, sue you for damages for my butt hurt over all the rotten things our rude colleagues have said about me here. The court may or may not choose to hear the case. If they do, the metric of the so-called ‘reasonable man’ will apply to any decision they make. This is basic tort law, and the object of it is to get the parties to settle in a sensible fashion. If the court found in my favour and awarded me damages for my frivolous suit, yes – you could complain and have a point. I conceded that People have been doing so about frivolous law suits for as long as I have been alive.
But that wasn’t what happened here; the judge ruled that the two parties have to respect each other’s rights; and he actually slapped the media slobs across the wrist and set Trump up for the punt if they don’t grow up. This is actually a case of the legal process working exactly the way it should.
>> Any disagreement between two parties can be brought before the court.
You are dead wrong about this. Civil Procedure 101: The court must have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and be the appropriate venue. Then there’s the question of whether the matter presents a justiciable controversy, is ripe for adjudication, and is not blocked by other exceptions such as the political question doctrine.
I have not followed the case closely but a court injecting itself into what are essentially questions of White House protocol is problematic. The court should have abstained in the same way courts abstain from ruling on rules of the House or Senate. If ever Trump were going to take a stand this was a good decision to do so.
A. Prove the court did not have jurisdiction.
B. The issue at hand was First Amendement rights for a major news network. Hey- I hate CNN and Acosta as much as the next guy, but a court of law still has to recognize their rights, distasteful as it is.
C. The point you boys are missing is that this was a win for Trump. I think it may be a major turning point too; the next time the media acts up, Trump can throw these a-holes out on their ears and when the libs in the courts try to interfere – they will have absolutely no grounds for doing so. If they proceed anyways – they will set the stage for a justifiable revolt against the judiciary. It won’t matter what your politics are at that point; even lefties will be forced to concede the courts need to be cleaned up and purged.
You don’t back a powerful opponent like the Democrat/Media complex into a corner with a snap of the fingers. It takes time. Trump is giving his enemies the rope they need to hang themselves. Notice that there was no tweet storm after this? Something is cooking here and I can’t wait to see how it plays out.
Before you try to correct others (Z Man in this case), you should know what you are talking about. You say any disagreement between two parties can be brought before the court but that’s incorrect. The court needs to have jurisdiction. The plaintiff needs to have standing to bring the case.
Then you say that the court may or may not choose to hear the case. If there is jurisdiction, standing, etc., the district court is required to hear the case. The judge does not just choose to hear the case or not.
You also talk about basic tort law and the reasonable man standard. This case was not a tort. The reporter claimed that he was deprived of his (make believe) rights by a government actor without due process. He was not suing another private individual for injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.
No, it’s not. An injunction is supposed to be granted only if,among other things, the requesting party is deemed likely to prevail if itsfactual allegations are assumed to be true. But CNN submitted the videos of Acosta’s bad behavior and the judge should have simply rejected CNN’s request on the grounds that Acosta had obviously forfeited his press pass through his bad behavior.
When you say ‘there was more to it’ with approval, you have been cucked. There is NO WAY to rationally construct a “property right” to a press pass. All the pass really is is a ticket to a football game. If you cannot conduct yourself civilly at a football game, you will be removed, period. (Unless you are in Philadelphia, of course.)
It’s Marbury v Madison Version 10^10.0 – the judge assumed he had the authority to “reinstate” White House press passes and require a code of conduct. Regardless of whether it is a “win,” the judge usurped authority and arrogated to himself a power he does not (or at least did not) have. That is where the damage is done.
it is easy for us to be blinded by what we think is the silver lining in every indignity. Bad habit to get into.
This judge was appointed by Trump. For a supposedly astute business man, Trump has an extraodinarily bad sense of hiring people. My theory is that Trump was a bone thrown out to the Populists/Right to pacify them. Now that he is in, his job is to run out the clock.
Trump has outsourced the selection of judge and justice candidates to the GOPe. Google Leonard Leo and read up on this.
That’s nonsense. The alleged precedent was a case where someone had been denied a press pass without explanation, but the court did NOT order that he be given a press pass, merely an explanation, an opportunity to rebut, and a final written decision. HERE the judge DID exactly order the White House “to give that twerp at CNN his press pass back”, never mind the video showing he had abused the privilege. And the judge lied about what the video evidence showed.
Also, in Sherrill the three judge panel vacated the district judge’s order that the Secret Service set up judge-approved standards and procedures, while here you say the Trump-appointed kritarch has adopted exactly such an overweening remedy.
Do you have the text of his injunction-granting decision? I have the CNN filing and the government’s response, but not that decision.
What will happen is rulings will be ignored. When will a President pull a Jackson and tell the Federal Courts to get bent? How many decrees came out of Rome in the 400’s and were promptly ignored? It’s really worse than you describe due to the three felonies a day rule. Everything is illegal and they use prosecutorial discretion to decide who goes to prison for life. I have a friend that was offered the deal of a lifetime. Six months in federal prison or go to court and take a chance on forty years of federal prison. His crime? Scaring the political establishment by running for office. He was in his late forties, very successful, and very wealthy. He wanted to fight, but his lawyer talked him down. He lives in another country now. It bears repeating, this will not end well.
The “Jackson Moment” might well be here with this “migrant” caravan. Apparently some Hawaiian Judge has ordered that Trump must let them in the country. If he complies, it’s the end. If he tells them to get bent, it’s a different end. I thought the crisis point would come faster than people think, but this is faster than even I thought. We’re in a world of trouble right now.
The only thing that will work is for the administration to start busing the migrants into the richest neighborhoods and just letting them out. Give them tents and bedrolls, maybe some camping gear and let them set up migrant cities in rich enclaves.
Start using imminent domain to force rich liberals to house and feed their pets.
They’ll just gut buddies to overturn the order.
Now if you can get an Andrew Jackson in office or a Caesar to take over, this might work.
I think its going to come down to eliminating institutions at the root.
If we are very lucky, they’ll take an oath to the new Constitution and a single uniform interpretation.
if are less lucky, a lot of people end up tried for treason and the building is now a public park.
If we are really unlucky, its filled with crucified corpses of the losing side.
I’m betting on the Bosnia X Rawanda option myself but I’m Gen X and have an exaggerated version of that generations famed cynicism so I could be wrong.
As with all the rational “solutions” I’ve seen over the last decades, this one will not be implemented either.
Too bad, but rationality has specifically and categorically banned and deplatformed.
The Hamptons would be an excellent destination spot for that tactic. Plenty of open land for them to setup tent cities.
Carlsdad: Beverly Hills is festive this time of year, and the weather is great.
I would LOVE to see them bus the Mojados to Medina so they can camp out and take a dump on Bill Gates’s lawn.
Hmm. Georgetown, DC, springs to mind.
“The only thing that will work is for the administration to start busing the migrants into the richest neighborhoods and just letting them out. Give them tents and bedrolls, maybe some camping gear and let them set up migrant cities in rich enclaves.”
That looks like an opportunity for a nonprofit corp and a gofundme. Flyover country would support it wildly.
Especially rich Jewish neighborhoods. Amen?
Unfortunately, with the media’s full support, I think it will be a leftist president that will break the seal and tell a federal judge to get bent. The changing of the rules in the Senate could never have been accomplished by a Republican majority because the wailing from the press would have been 24/7. Long term consequences? No idea.
I agree. If SCOTUS gets a constitutionalist majority, the Left will suddenly discover the principles of checks and balances, judicial restraint, and so forth. They will ignore and defy any ruling not to their liking.
Good comment! I wonder if the new acting attorney general will be made of sterner stuff than Jeff Sessions and instruct national government officials to disregard any court orders not approved by the attorney general. Federal marshalls attempting to enforce the court order would be disarmed and taken into custody. This would provoke a constitutional crisis but the Democratic House is likely to impeach Trump anyway and, as Z Man notes, we’re probably headed for chaos anyway.
That and the fact we now have the max time to the next election — two years to demonstrate that sky-is-falling hysteria is overblown. But Trump truckling in the matter of Jim Acosta makes it clear that he’s no Jackson, as we already knew.
Fwiw, it was a San Francisco, not Hawaii, Federal Judge. Jon Tigar to be exact.
The Hawaiian judge’ is applied as a generic term for the Resistance judges that legislate from the bench against the Trump Administration.
Wait, you think that after all the betrayals and half measures Trump is going to pull an Andrew Jackson? He hasn’t even issued the birthright citizenship EO like he promised before the midterms . Ivanka and Jared would blow a gasket if he did such a thing, not to mention the deep State functionaries that he still hasn’t uprooted. Trump will play the game & totally comply with whatever the judges order him to do. Of course he’ll win at SCOTUS but that still lends legitimacy to the system (i.e., only judges can overrule other judges, the other 2 branches have no say).
As much as I have some issues with the English legal system I can only read this and be filled with anger and horror. America deserves so much better, England too (as soon as the rule of law is returned to us from Europe).
Umm – did you just become aware this was happening?
This is one of ZMan’s better columns IMHO. But it doesn’t change the fact that this subject has been broached multiple times in other venues…..
For the record – I see the corruption of the judicial system as one facet of the bureaucratic state – which itself was instituted to get around “the law” – and the way the law is made in this country.
The managerial system requires legitimacy and it achieves it through ideology. That soon turns to an opposition to the rule of law, as nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of ideology. We’re now ruled by the Cult of the Supreme Court. Everyone who goes down this road loses their head. This time will be no different.
As Glen Reynolds often says faster please
Or maybe well not too fast I’d like to be a better prepared and either ready to join in the fun or well hidden in a bunker somewhere
Or as Lenin used to say, “The worse the better.”
I suppose this is nitpicking – but I prefer to think of our current system as rule by bureaucracy. Which means the rulers are hidden by an impenetrable wall of weak minded affirmative action hires and arcane rules – only accessible thru phone systems that piss you off so badly selecting thru the different options – that you just give up.
By Gary North
I begin with North’s law of bureaucracy: “Some bureaucrat will inevitably enforce an official rule to the point of utter imbecility.” There are no known exceptions to this law. It is right up there with the second law of thermodynamics.
But you want evidence. I offer this: a recent article in The Scotsman, whose very name exudes both high culture and low, low prices.
Let me also invoke the words of Dave Barry: “I am not making this up.”
It gets worse – or better, if you are someone (as I am) who makes a living by spotting tidbits like this one.
First, ponder this: to take bagpipes across a U.S. border, you must have written permission from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The United States of America long ago began its journey down the rabbit hole made famous in Alice in Wonderland. To see just how far down the hole we have gone, consider this official elucidation of the law.
“A spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service said: “To take bagpipes with elephant ivory out of the United States and back, musicians need to obtain a CITES document from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and leave and return to the country via one of our 38 designated ports.”
The above is just one example – from the Far Side.
The courts either come up with new interpretations of the law – and the bureaucracy then enforces them to the point of insanity – or the bureaucracy makes up regulations – when the courts then put the stamp of approval on – which allows them to enforce to the point of insanity.
In either case – a court ruling without enforcement is useless. That is where the bureaucracy comes in.
Why else would the FDA need an armed SWAT team? Why would the Dept. of Education – need an armed SWAT team?
You can bitch about the courts – but in the end the truly onerous piece of the puzzle is the bureaucracy – because they’re the boots on the ground – and the ones who declare that your conservative organization is no longer a “non-profit” – and therefore the IRS can now ransack your finances.
Those of us who’ve been watching this for decades lost faith in the legal system a long time ago. We’ve been trying to stir the pot, but as long as the system appeared to achieve financial and material well-being for many it was pointless trying to tell people there is something wrong. I have often stated that the problem with Central Banking, for example, is that it appears to work for a while… I don’t think anybody understands what I meant. People who think they’re wealthy and successful don’t want to hear that they’re not.
Perhaps they’re about to find out otherwise? If so they will hate me for saying I told you so. I learned that lesson in the last crash.
And the Supreme Court’s “power” of “judicial review” is a usurped power anyway. When Ruth B Ginsburg kicks the bucket, we’ll have The Big Chance to strip SCOTUS of this pretended and usurped “power” because the Bolsheviks will be glad to return SCOTUS to their Constitutionally specified role. They will have to choose that or accept a strict constructionist Court for a generation. They’ll put SCOTUS back in the box. Betcha.
We’ve been down this road for so long, its impossible to come back. Nixon basically resigned rather then challenge the SCOTUS. The Last POTUS to take on the Supreme Court was FDR – and all he wanted was pack it with his own appointees, not reduce its power.
This process has been going on since at least the “famous” Roger Traynor, who made up his facts and overruled existing law based on those facts.e.g..Traynor and his acolytes came up with notions like “there is no insurance fraud”, and destroyed many of the guards against it.Anyone in business or law, of course, knows that insurance fraud is rampant in every area of life.
I discovered many years ago when pursuing a simple black letter matter in real estate where the law was absolutely precise and clear with no discretion for any contradiction, that I would not necessarily get a judge to enforce the legal rule if he didn’t feel like it.
I was astonished and asked for an explanation which was essentially, the law is what the judge says it is. If he doesn’t want to rule in your favor, nothing can compel him.
Sure, you can appeal but that’s if you like burning money and years of time, and on basic straightforward matters, it costs more than the issue is worth.
Other matters of law have convinced me that judges literally are a law unto themselves.