The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Federal Judge: the Huddled Masses Poem Isn't, Technically, the Law of the Land, But, Still, I'm Going to Rule as if It Were the Zeroth Amendment
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From today’s decision by federal judge Phyllis Hamilton in San Francisco delaying the Administration’s “public charge” regulation on who can legally show up in America to discourage foreigners likely to turn out to be public charges:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1883, Emma Lazarus penned the now-famous sonnet, The New Colossus. Later affixed to the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, the poem has been incorporated into the national consciousness as a representation of the country’s promise to would-be immigrants:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

But whether one would prefer to see America’s borders opened wide and welcoming, or closed because the nation is full, laws—not poetry—govern who may enter.

So, yada yada yada, Trump loses, wretched refuse wins!

 
Hide 129 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[747] • Disclaimer says:

    The second ‘genocide’ of the Indians.

    First by the white man, then by the world.

    As Chief Eagle Bear said, “Bad enough to lose to paleface, but now we lose to face of every color.”

    Given what whites did to Indians, you’d think the main priority of whites would be revive Indian communities. Instead, white sense of duty goes to the rest of world that wasn’t wronged by whites.

    But then, who governs over whites? Jews.

  2. has been incorporated into the national consciousness

    Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

    Inform the ADL watchlist overseers that an ethnic-Christian judge is spreading possibly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

  3. nasty nasty white man, you steve.

  4. Hahaha.
    What’s next on your list, Alt Right Losers.
    You guys have lost this war against the tide of color.
    Genetic Extinction from the planet earth is on the horizon for the White Trashionalists.
    I fear that more terrorists like NZ shooter and James Field will emerge who will trybto kill People of Color.
    Alt Right is done and dusted.
    Immigration will increase.
    Open borders will be a reality under any Democrat Presidency.
    Integration will increase.
    Your birth rates in crowded cities will continue to decrease due to a dearth of housing.
    Your women nowadays are more likely to have babies with Black men and Men of Indian descent(this one is empirical observation of mine) than ever before. Have lived in college towns and due to fact that Asian men and White women are overrepresented in their cohorts at colleges, these unions are much more prevelant than many others.
    I don’t think there would be any whites left in the near future.
    It’s payback time.
    Lol, Enjoy your time and I hope its as miserable as it gets for you and your bigoted descendants.

    • Replies: @Sol
    Yawn.
    , @Moses
    Tiny Duck does it better
    , @MEH 0910
    On the Unz Review website, commenter M Krauthammar once left a comment that was mostly identical to a comment previously left by commenter Saira Rao.

    Also, Saira Rao had in the past declared in a comment:

    Paul Kersey, you live in Colorado, that is my state and we shall never tolerate bigots like you in my state of Colorado. It is full of White bigots like you and I found it when they voted for a White woman over me during Democratic primaries.
     
    The thing is, there really is a Saira Rao who lost in a Democratic primary in Colorado and went on to denounce white people:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/03/democrat-congress-hates-white-people-america/

    One of M Krauthammar's previous incarnations, Michael Krauthammer, had claimed to be from Colorado, as had likewise Mike Krauthammer.

    https://twitter.com/sairasameerarao?lang=en
  5. Use a crowbar to remove.

    Toss into salty, corroding ocean.

  6. It’s always heads we lose, tails they win.

  7. It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    • Disagree: Bill
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Spangel, I'm a nitpicking bad man now, and I know it, so excuse me, if you can, but: The danger, that somebody would have expected The Donald himself to be something even near to perfect might not exist, nor have existed. Not below budget and ahead of schedule anyway, which is to say: Never ever.
    (Of course, you have a point. And that point is valid, I don't doubt that at all.)
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Enjoy your Red Flag laws!
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Trump is Team White. Period.
    , @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    , @Mr. Anon

    No, trump is not perfect.
     
    Far from merely being "not pefect", he is not even competent, coherent, or functional. A President who squanders his time and attention on twitter feuds is a ridiculous laughing stock. Can you name a single index of national decay which has not accelerated under Trump? I don't mean something along the lines of "well, under Hillary it would have been worse", I mean something that is better now than it was in 2016.
  8. In La Clinica De La Raza v. Trump…the Organizations filed a complaint…The complaint asserts four causes of action:…(3)Violation of the Fifth Amendment based on Equal Protection for discriminating against non-white immigrants…

    So a Hispanic organization is arguing that non-white immigrants are more likely to use welfare. In other contexts they would call such an allegation racist, but here they are in fact acknowledging that, yes, non-whites are more likely to be on welfare. Perhaps the lawyer for the federal government should tell the court that it’s racist for La Clinica De La Raza (“The Clinic of the Race”?) to suggest their people are deadbeats.

    Also, aren’t there other aspects of our immigration laws that discriminate against white people? Non-whites, particularly Asians and Hispanics, are more likely to have relatives they can sponsor for immigration. Why isn’t that considered racist? What is racist or unfair depends on your vantage point. Virtually all of my ancestors were here before the Revolution, but I can’t sponsor anyone to immigrate. People who just moved to this country a few years ago have more say over who gets to come here than Americans whose families have lived here for centuries (or millenia, in the case of Native Americans).

    • Replies: @istevefan

    So a Hispanic organization is arguing that non-white immigrants are more likely to use welfare.

     

    This goes against the narrative that immigrants are harder workers than the natives and are net tax contributors. If this were true, Trump's new rule would be irrelevant to them.

    Non-whites, particularly Asians and Hispanics, are more likely to have relatives they can sponsor for immigration. Why isn’t that considered racist?
     
    I think there is a term for a policy that has such an effect on a particular group. It's called disparate impact. If ever there were a case of it, this would be the one.
  9. After Earl Warren, this is nothing. Doesn’t the Supreme Court merely exist to shoot down the 9th circuit? I’ve been watching a old TV series on recommendation from another commenter called “LA Law” and it is a harbinger for many contemporary culture wars. It’s got the trannies, it’s got the nasty divorces, it’s filled to the gills with yuppies. (Millennial hipsters will never have it so good.) You have liberal judges torturing every law to fit their objectives. All codified statutes can be crushed (or bargained away) into submission.

  10. You White man will pay and pay and pay. Judges and Nice White ladies would not have it any other way.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    The umpteenth reminder you vehemently opposed Patrick Buchanan for years on this blog and sided with the neocon, invade-invite crowd.
    , @Alan Mercer
    If you cross your eyes a little, Whiskey and Tiny Duck merge.
  11. “public charge” regulation

    “Regulation”? I thought it was statute law, in the US Code.

    Like that 1995 FGM ban that Trump was the first president to enforce.

    • Agree: Nicholas Stix
  12. >since the very first immigration law in 1882,<

    "a Juris Doctor from Santa Clara University School of Law in 1976"

    Santa Clara is not sending their best history wise.

    • Replies: @Charon
    Santa Clara is notorious as a diploma mill which "teaches to the test" (the bar exam) and is full of the kinds of students who couldn't gain admission to any of California's several good law schools.

    We're supposed to be some sort of representative democracy, but we have ignorant, unelected judges like this one actually making our laws.

    The only, remote hope remaining for patriots in this country is that RBG dies before Trump is removed from office. Because otherwise and after that, le deluge.
  13. The critics rave!

    Remarkably incompetent.

    Attrocious at voir dire; astoundingly shallow command of evidence; vindictive; indifferent to litigants in civil cases.

    She is biased against civil plaintiffs, writes results-driven decisions that ignore the governing law, and has seemed grumpy and ill-tempered every time I’ve appeared in her court. In the Northern District of California, she’s not a good draw.

    I have tried cases for more than 50 years, all over the country including civil rights cases in the Deep South. She is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared before. Not only is she dumb as a post but that is equaled by her abject vindictiveness.

    She is devoid of humor, not very intelligent and has a nasty temperament. I would have given her a zero if I could.

    I have been before her in two cases (often with favorable rulings) but found her to be of substandard intelligence for a federal judge. She seems to have difficulty grasping new information, her decisions are confusing, often internally contradictory, and she is very slow. She really isn’t very bright and one gets the impression that her clerks do much of the heavy lifting — and these are not U.S. Supreme Court clerks, so they frequently missed key facts, disregarded evidence and mixed up concepts. And that was in decisions favorable to our client!

    Her temperament is also of concern. She can be petulant, occasionally nasty and very uneven in mood. I would avoid her when at all possible.

    If the government is a party to one’s case, forget about it – she is totally biased in favor of government whether it be at the municipal or federal level. I am equally appalled at her lack of scholarship.

    She is a judge of rather limnited intelligence, devoid of compassion,who seeks to make up for these inherent disadvantages by vindicitvely emphasizing form over substance.

    Her limited intelligence shows up most when she writes her own orders. Not only has she completely reversed herself in subsequent orders (making it difficult to litigate, since one has to continually re-litigate), she even contradicted herself within a single order! It was so bizarre that one of the only things opposing counsel and I could agree upon was that neither of knew what her ruling meant and that we *both* had error to show on appeal.

    doesn’t like lawyers much. Keeps her distance and depends on her law clerks (or, gives them a chance to play judge). Arbitrary. Want fees, don’t expect to get much that you didn’t negotiate with the other side. Throws out the baby with the bath.

    She is not very smart and easily irritated. Once she gets an idea in her head, usually put there by the AUSA she will not change it. Petty and vindictive. Generally a very unpleasant experience in trial. She is clearly the worst judge in the N.D.Ca.

    http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=154

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Isn't this a picture of day to day 95% of professional White ladies?

    Elizabeth Warren got in another dig at White men to the delight of every actress ever. Anti White is just another term for Upper class White women.

    , @Alden
    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.
    , @ben tillman
    I can't wait to read the reviews of Judge Harmon in TXSD. I had to wait 18 months for her to default a corporate defendant that wound up pro se and didn't respond to an MSJ.
    , @Counterinsurgency
    The widespread appointment of incompetents to decision making positions has drastically reduced the effectiveness of government gathered and distributed money in maintaining urban areas and in US foreign policy. It's one of the reasons that the money is running out -- the incompetents don't know when they are taking too much, and much more money has to be collected to maintain urban physical plant than is strictly needed.

    The USSR fell in part because actual administration devolved into a hierarchical system of regional/local/organizational bosses who would routinely falsify reports. The bosses would re-allocate money from the next higher level while reporting that it has been allocated as directed. This meant, in practice, that the Central Committee had no control over what money was spent for except in the military and high prestige sector. This system was well established when Khrushchev succeeded Stalin, and Khrushchev was known for highly colorful use of profanity when describing the system in his public speeches.
    Now we have the same system in the US, a system that Trump will have to dismantle at least partially if he wants to survive. One hopes that Trump is not a Khrushchev analog, as the leadership after Khrushchev was more tolerated than ruling and the country (judging from demography) became almost impossible to raise children in. Rather like the contemporary West, including the US.

    Counterinsurgency
  14. I never noticed that, but on the other hand I’ve always chuckled whenever there is a courtroom scene in a movie or television show: Always a black judge (and usually white underlings, like the court security officer).

    I guess filling up these bit parts with blacks allows you to cast the leads with boxoffice-draw white actors, while additionally not torpedoing your chances for distribution in China.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    Now you have black scientists on the Science Channel. Who's that guy with the unpronounceable name who talks like he has marbles in his mouth?
  15. @Wilkey

    In La Clinica De La Raza v. Trump...the Organizations filed a complaint...The complaint asserts four causes of action:...(3)Violation of the Fifth Amendment based on Equal Protection for discriminating against non-white immigrants...
     
    So a Hispanic organization is arguing that non-white immigrants are more likely to use welfare. In other contexts they would call such an allegation racist, but here they are in fact acknowledging that, yes, non-whites are more likely to be on welfare. Perhaps the lawyer for the federal government should tell the court that it's racist for La Clinica De La Raza ("The Clinic of the Race"?) to suggest their people are deadbeats.

    Also, aren't there other aspects of our immigration laws that discriminate against white people? Non-whites, particularly Asians and Hispanics, are more likely to have relatives they can sponsor for immigration. Why isn't that considered racist? What is racist or unfair depends on your vantage point. Virtually all of my ancestors were here before the Revolution, but I can't sponsor anyone to immigrate. People who just moved to this country a few years ago have more say over who gets to come here than Americans whose families have lived here for centuries (or millenia, in the case of Native Americans).

    So a Hispanic organization is arguing that non-white immigrants are more likely to use welfare.

    This goes against the narrative that immigrants are harder workers than the natives and are net tax contributors. If this were true, Trump’s new rule would be irrelevant to them.

    Non-whites, particularly Asians and Hispanics, are more likely to have relatives they can sponsor for immigration. Why isn’t that considered racist?

    I think there is a term for a policy that has such an effect on a particular group. It’s called disparate impact. If ever there were a case of it, this would be the one.

  16. @Whiskey
    You White man will pay and pay and pay. Judges and Nice White ladies would not have it any other way.

    The umpteenth reminder you vehemently opposed Patrick Buchanan for years on this blog and sided with the neocon, invade-invite crowd.

    • Replies: @Bill
    The Scots-Irish have never been Pat's biggest fans.
  17. @newrouter
    >since the very first immigration law in 1882,<

    "a Juris Doctor from Santa Clara University School of Law in 1976"

    Santa Clara is not sending their best history wise.

    Santa Clara is notorious as a diploma mill which “teaches to the test” (the bar exam) and is full of the kinds of students who couldn’t gain admission to any of California’s several good law schools.

    We’re supposed to be some sort of representative democracy, but we have ignorant, unelected judges like this one actually making our laws.

    The only, remote hope remaining for patriots in this country is that RBG dies before Trump is removed from office. Because otherwise and after that, le deluge.

  18. @Reg Cæsar
    The critics rave!

    Remarkably incompetent.
     

    Attrocious at voir dire; astoundingly shallow command of evidence; vindictive; indifferent to litigants in civil cases.
     

    She is biased against civil plaintiffs, writes results-driven decisions that ignore the governing law, and has seemed grumpy and ill-tempered every time I've appeared in her court. In the Northern District of California, she's not a good draw.
     

    I have tried cases for more than 50 years, all over the country including civil rights cases in the Deep South. She is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared before. Not only is she dumb as a post but that is equaled by her abject vindictiveness.
     

    She is devoid of humor, not very intelligent and has a nasty temperament. I would have given her a zero if I could.
     

    I have been before her in two cases (often with favorable rulings) but found her to be of substandard intelligence for a federal judge. She seems to have difficulty grasping new information, her decisions are confusing, often internally contradictory, and she is very slow. She really isn't very bright and one gets the impression that her clerks do much of the heavy lifting -- and these are not U.S. Supreme Court clerks, so they frequently missed key facts, disregarded evidence and mixed up concepts. And that was in decisions favorable to our client!

    Her temperament is also of concern. She can be petulant, occasionally nasty and very uneven in mood. I would avoid her when at all possible.
     

    If the government is a party to one's case, forget about it - she is totally biased in favor of government whether it be at the municipal or federal level. I am equally appalled at her lack of scholarship.
     

    She is a judge of rather limnited intelligence, devoid of compassion,who seeks to make up for these inherent disadvantages by vindicitvely emphasizing form over substance.
     

    Her limited intelligence shows up most when she writes her own orders. Not only has she completely reversed herself in subsequent orders (making it difficult to litigate, since one has to continually re-litigate), she even contradicted herself within a single order! It was so bizarre that one of the only things opposing counsel and I could agree upon was that neither of knew what her ruling meant and that we *both* had error to show on appeal.
     

    doesn't like lawyers much. Keeps her distance and depends on her law clerks (or, gives them a chance to play judge). Arbitrary. Want fees, don't expect to get much that you didn't negotiate with the other side. Throws out the baby with the bath.
     

    She is not very smart and easily irritated. Once she gets an idea in her head, usually put there by the AUSA she will not change it. Petty and vindictive. Generally a very unpleasant experience in trial. She is clearly the worst judge in the N.D.Ca.
     
    http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=154

    Isn’t this a picture of day to day 95% of professional White ladies?

    Elizabeth Warren got in another dig at White men to the delight of every actress ever. Anti White is just another term for Upper class White women.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    Phyllis Hamilton is black. (Like Captain Renault, I am shocked.) Look her up, along with anyone else who has been a federal judge, at fjc.gov.
    , @Alden
    The judge is black, not White.
  19. A member of the Clinton clown Antifa:

    >On February 9, 2000, Hamilton was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California created by 104 Stat. 5089. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 24, 2000, and received her commission on May 25, 2000. She has served as Chief Judge since December 16, 2014. <

    • Replies: @eah
    federal judge Phyllis Hamilton

    You left out the most interesting part of her Wikipedia bio:

    She became an administrative judge for the San Francisco Regional Office of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board from 1980 to 1985, ...

    It's not inappropriate to describe a public charge provision as enforcing a kind of merit system vis-à-vis immigration.

    She is 67 y/o -- I think including the Lazarus poem in her opinion/injunction counts as boomer cringe.

    This kind of thing definitely does not remind me of Arthur Schlesinger's book 'The Imperial Presidency'.

  20. • Replies: @eah
    Read Homeless In Seattle, Part 2: Tech Sucks the Soul Out of the City -- it mentions "the ongoing and never-ending, annual importation of a sizable feudal elite from China and India", which in Seattle has effectively displaced/dispossessed lower SES Whites (as well as making housing far more expensive/less affordable for everyone).

    MAGA -- "LOL"
    , @216
    It would serve our interests to put a surcharge on foreign students, and use the revenue to subsidize domestic tuition.

    Would also be nice for an Executive Order barring in-state tuition for illegals.
    , @notsaying
    I wish Trump would forget about China and focus on our own students. I am sure he has no idea how they are doing.

    And most of the students we get aren't geniuses or anywhere near it. And yet many come to get jobs in the US and to compete with our own students and what's he doing about that?

    The kind of people who can get into top schools are generally the kind of people we shouldn't worry too much about. They will take care of themselves.
    , @Mr. Anon
    America China First
  21. Trump could answer in Haiku:

    This is kritarchy.
    Anti-American too.
    You are a fake judge!

  22. “Trump loses, wretched refuse wins!”

    Steve’s been a roll this week.

    At least one of the 5 GOP supreme court members is signaling he won’t quickly reverse these awful and 100% predictable nationwide injunctions. Only Alito and Thomas have been 100% rock solid over a long period, so I suspect one of the other three. Kav also seems unlikely, but who knows.

    There is a way you can go straight to the Supreme Court to stay an injunction or any decision. Remember how fast Bush v Gore got to the Supreme Court?

    It also wouldn’t be hard at all for the GOP justices to stop all these cases by limiting standing for these cases: 1. National security based travel bans are not subject to court review, just like you can’t sue Trump because you don’t like his Syria policy. 2. Definitely reject the idea that “das raciss” can ever be the basis of reversing a President’s immigration decisions.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court fails the nation deciding one stupid low-stakes case after another and letting these lawless national injunctions stand for months or longer, and only finally stopping them on a case by case basis.

    Failing to block these injunctions is a stain on the Supreme Court. Under Obama, it was the executive branch letting immigration crimes go unpunished. At least there is a tradition for prosecutorial discretion this followed. But to have single trial level judge dictate national immigration policy, in particular mass illegal migration at invasion/demographic levels, and which the President is putting in policies to stop—John Roberts is responsible for this travesty.

    As an example of John Roberts’s higher priorities than restraining these judges, here’s the most recently argued case:

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this, with the phrase getting one meaning in New York and another in Hawai’i.

    • Replies: @Hockamaw
    It really is absolutely astonishing that a single us district court judge can enter these nationwide injunctions now. How can it possibly be that this is the law? It’s utterly incredible that this could be allowed to happen. A serious country with a serious legal system could not allow such an absurdity.
    , @Cloudbuster
    This seems a situation ripe for a Jacksonesque "How many regiments does that trial judge command?" response from Trump. Just openly defy the injunction.
    , @(((Owen)))

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this,

     

    There can't be a circuit split on patent cases because all patent cases can be appealed only in the Federal Circuit, the most corrupt and self-dealing of all the federal courts. Therefore the Supremes have to monitor patent cases closely or else the entire economy collapses in a mess of monopolies and insider conspiracies against the public. It has been so since Reagan approved this system in 1982.
  23. Judge George Daniels Southern District NY State yesterday issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the public charge law and Trumps executive order about enforcement of a more than century old public charge law.

    But that’s our common law system. Judges just make up the laws they want. Judges overturn laws and regulations they don’t like. Judicial Supremacy since 1804 Marbury vs Madison

  24. @Lot
    “Trump loses, wretched refuse wins!”

    Steve’s been a roll this week.

    At least one of the 5 GOP supreme court members is signaling he won’t quickly reverse these awful and 100% predictable nationwide injunctions. Only Alito and Thomas have been 100% rock solid over a long period, so I suspect one of the other three. Kav also seems unlikely, but who knows.

    There is a way you can go straight to the Supreme Court to stay an injunction or any decision. Remember how fast Bush v Gore got to the Supreme Court?

    It also wouldn’t be hard at all for the GOP justices to stop all these cases by limiting standing for these cases: 1. National security based travel bans are not subject to court review, just like you can’t sue Trump because you don’t like his Syria policy. 2. Definitely reject the idea that “das raciss” can ever be the basis of reversing a President’s immigration decisions.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court fails the nation deciding one stupid low-stakes case after another and letting these lawless national injunctions stand for months or longer, and only finally stopping them on a case by case basis.

    Failing to block these injunctions is a stain on the Supreme Court. Under Obama, it was the executive branch letting immigration crimes go unpunished. At least there is a tradition for prosecutorial discretion this followed. But to have single trial level judge dictate national immigration policy, in particular mass illegal migration at invasion/demographic levels, and which the President is putting in policies to stop—John Roberts is responsible for this travesty.

    As an example of John Roberts’s higher priorities than restraining these judges, here’s the most recently argued case:

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this, with the phrase getting one meaning in New York and another in Hawai’i.

    It really is absolutely astonishing that a single us district court judge can enter these nationwide injunctions now. How can it possibly be that this is the law? It’s utterly incredible that this could be allowed to happen. A serious country with a serious legal system could not allow such an absurdity.

    • Replies: @Alden
    That’s English Common Law intended by the founders. First case was Marbury vs Madison 1804. It established the precedent of judicial supremacy. We really don’t need referendums and elected legislatures any more to make laws.

    Just plaintiffs and respondent/defendants in court. Let the judge make a new law or overturn an older law or regulation.
  25. @Reg Cæsar
    The critics rave!

    Remarkably incompetent.
     

    Attrocious at voir dire; astoundingly shallow command of evidence; vindictive; indifferent to litigants in civil cases.
     

    She is biased against civil plaintiffs, writes results-driven decisions that ignore the governing law, and has seemed grumpy and ill-tempered every time I've appeared in her court. In the Northern District of California, she's not a good draw.
     

    I have tried cases for more than 50 years, all over the country including civil rights cases in the Deep South. She is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared before. Not only is she dumb as a post but that is equaled by her abject vindictiveness.
     

    She is devoid of humor, not very intelligent and has a nasty temperament. I would have given her a zero if I could.
     

    I have been before her in two cases (often with favorable rulings) but found her to be of substandard intelligence for a federal judge. She seems to have difficulty grasping new information, her decisions are confusing, often internally contradictory, and she is very slow. She really isn't very bright and one gets the impression that her clerks do much of the heavy lifting -- and these are not U.S. Supreme Court clerks, so they frequently missed key facts, disregarded evidence and mixed up concepts. And that was in decisions favorable to our client!

    Her temperament is also of concern. She can be petulant, occasionally nasty and very uneven in mood. I would avoid her when at all possible.
     

    If the government is a party to one's case, forget about it - she is totally biased in favor of government whether it be at the municipal or federal level. I am equally appalled at her lack of scholarship.
     

    She is a judge of rather limnited intelligence, devoid of compassion,who seeks to make up for these inherent disadvantages by vindicitvely emphasizing form over substance.
     

    Her limited intelligence shows up most when she writes her own orders. Not only has she completely reversed herself in subsequent orders (making it difficult to litigate, since one has to continually re-litigate), she even contradicted herself within a single order! It was so bizarre that one of the only things opposing counsel and I could agree upon was that neither of knew what her ruling meant and that we *both* had error to show on appeal.
     

    doesn't like lawyers much. Keeps her distance and depends on her law clerks (or, gives them a chance to play judge). Arbitrary. Want fees, don't expect to get much that you didn't negotiate with the other side. Throws out the baby with the bath.
     

    She is not very smart and easily irritated. Once she gets an idea in her head, usually put there by the AUSA she will not change it. Petty and vindictive. Generally a very unpleasant experience in trial. She is clearly the worst judge in the N.D.Ca.
     
    http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=154

    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.
     
    Quadroon at most, if at all. Or Jewish. Or some mishmash. Hamilton is a common Scottish name, but it could be her married name.

    Wikipedia classifies her under "African-American judges", but dammit, she's paler than me! She does have slightly Carol Channing-like lips, though, and her hair may be treated.

    Evidently, she has a bit of the tar brush, and may be milking it for all that it's worth. It's all about "identity", remember.

    https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/12/29/judge-dismisses-facebook-request-to-drop-class-action-suit-over-scanning-private-messages/u-s-district-judge-phyllis-hamilton-2/

  26. @Reg Cæsar
    The critics rave!

    Remarkably incompetent.
     

    Attrocious at voir dire; astoundingly shallow command of evidence; vindictive; indifferent to litigants in civil cases.
     

    She is biased against civil plaintiffs, writes results-driven decisions that ignore the governing law, and has seemed grumpy and ill-tempered every time I've appeared in her court. In the Northern District of California, she's not a good draw.
     

    I have tried cases for more than 50 years, all over the country including civil rights cases in the Deep South. She is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared before. Not only is she dumb as a post but that is equaled by her abject vindictiveness.
     

    She is devoid of humor, not very intelligent and has a nasty temperament. I would have given her a zero if I could.
     

    I have been before her in two cases (often with favorable rulings) but found her to be of substandard intelligence for a federal judge. She seems to have difficulty grasping new information, her decisions are confusing, often internally contradictory, and she is very slow. She really isn't very bright and one gets the impression that her clerks do much of the heavy lifting -- and these are not U.S. Supreme Court clerks, so they frequently missed key facts, disregarded evidence and mixed up concepts. And that was in decisions favorable to our client!

    Her temperament is also of concern. She can be petulant, occasionally nasty and very uneven in mood. I would avoid her when at all possible.
     

    If the government is a party to one's case, forget about it - she is totally biased in favor of government whether it be at the municipal or federal level. I am equally appalled at her lack of scholarship.
     

    She is a judge of rather limnited intelligence, devoid of compassion,who seeks to make up for these inherent disadvantages by vindicitvely emphasizing form over substance.
     

    Her limited intelligence shows up most when she writes her own orders. Not only has she completely reversed herself in subsequent orders (making it difficult to litigate, since one has to continually re-litigate), she even contradicted herself within a single order! It was so bizarre that one of the only things opposing counsel and I could agree upon was that neither of knew what her ruling meant and that we *both* had error to show on appeal.
     

    doesn't like lawyers much. Keeps her distance and depends on her law clerks (or, gives them a chance to play judge). Arbitrary. Want fees, don't expect to get much that you didn't negotiate with the other side. Throws out the baby with the bath.
     

    She is not very smart and easily irritated. Once she gets an idea in her head, usually put there by the AUSA she will not change it. Petty and vindictive. Generally a very unpleasant experience in trial. She is clearly the worst judge in the N.D.Ca.
     
    http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=154

    I can’t wait to read the reviews of Judge Harmon in TXSD. I had to wait 18 months for her to default a corporate defendant that wound up pro se and didn’t respond to an MSJ.

  27. OT – This is in regards to last night’s Trump rally in Minneapolis. I haven’t caught up on all the comments on all the posts over the last couple days, so forgive me if someone already brought this up.

    I watched the rally online. Afterwards I saw several twitter reports of violence directed against rally attendees as they were leaving.

    What I want to know is how could this happen? According to Trump there were 20K people inside the arena and another 25K outside. How could 50 or even 100 antifa pummel Trump supporters with so many Trump supporters present?

    People on twitter were complaining that the cops did nothing. But my take is that this is an embarrassment to our side if circa 45K people can’t protect themselves from one hundred..

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Fortunately the Trump supporters didn't take the bait of the agent provocateurs!
    , @Alfa158
    The police are following their orders. Trump supporters have learned during the last three years that if they attempt to defend themselves they will be arrested, tried and convicted for doing so. Running for it is the best they can do for now. Trump will do nothing to help.
    , @J.Ross
    >how could this happen?
    Police did nothing and neither did Trump in four years so yeah not so impossible.
  28. @istevefan
    OT - This is in regards to last night's Trump rally in Minneapolis. I haven't caught up on all the comments on all the posts over the last couple days, so forgive me if someone already brought this up.

    I watched the rally online. Afterwards I saw several twitter reports of violence directed against rally attendees as they were leaving.

    https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1182500070220095488

    What I want to know is how could this happen? According to Trump there were 20K people inside the arena and another 25K outside. How could 50 or even 100 antifa pummel Trump supporters with so many Trump supporters present?

    People on twitter were complaining that the cops did nothing. But my take is that this is an embarrassment to our side if circa 45K people can't protect themselves from one hundred..

    Fortunately the Trump supporters didn’t take the bait of the agent provocateurs!

  29. @istevefan
    OT - This is in regards to last night's Trump rally in Minneapolis. I haven't caught up on all the comments on all the posts over the last couple days, so forgive me if someone already brought this up.

    I watched the rally online. Afterwards I saw several twitter reports of violence directed against rally attendees as they were leaving.

    https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1182500070220095488

    What I want to know is how could this happen? According to Trump there were 20K people inside the arena and another 25K outside. How could 50 or even 100 antifa pummel Trump supporters with so many Trump supporters present?

    People on twitter were complaining that the cops did nothing. But my take is that this is an embarrassment to our side if circa 45K people can't protect themselves from one hundred..

    The police are following their orders. Trump supporters have learned during the last three years that if they attempt to defend themselves they will be arrested, tried and convicted for doing so. Running for it is the best they can do for now. Trump will do nothing to help.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Mr McKenna
  30. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    That the Founding Fathers did not reasonably foresee that there would be especially incompetent or vicious judges would seem a major failing. Ending lifetime tenure for federal judges and providing for the removal of ones found to not have actually committed crimes but who are provably grossly incompetent or stupid or vicious would be a high priority for any political party interested in improved government.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Not a law student but I've heard from law students that actually the Founding Fathers had enormous problems with English judges and wanted American judges to pretty much just be referees and highly limited, but this has been rolled back. Cf that movie with Laurence Olivier as a highwayman and They Killed My Saintly Billy Boy.
    , @Bill
    It's not that judges are incompetent or vicious. The whole ruling class wants the MultiCult. No judge is going to stand in the way of that (successfully). We are getting that because that's what our rulers want. This or that judge doing this or that thing is just an epiphenomenon.
    , @Kointel Killah
    "We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

    "This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    "It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

    "I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

    "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341
  31. @Reg Cæsar
    The critics rave!

    Remarkably incompetent.
     

    Attrocious at voir dire; astoundingly shallow command of evidence; vindictive; indifferent to litigants in civil cases.
     

    She is biased against civil plaintiffs, writes results-driven decisions that ignore the governing law, and has seemed grumpy and ill-tempered every time I've appeared in her court. In the Northern District of California, she's not a good draw.
     

    I have tried cases for more than 50 years, all over the country including civil rights cases in the Deep South. She is by far the worst judge I have ever appeared before. Not only is she dumb as a post but that is equaled by her abject vindictiveness.
     

    She is devoid of humor, not very intelligent and has a nasty temperament. I would have given her a zero if I could.
     

    I have been before her in two cases (often with favorable rulings) but found her to be of substandard intelligence for a federal judge. She seems to have difficulty grasping new information, her decisions are confusing, often internally contradictory, and she is very slow. She really isn't very bright and one gets the impression that her clerks do much of the heavy lifting -- and these are not U.S. Supreme Court clerks, so they frequently missed key facts, disregarded evidence and mixed up concepts. And that was in decisions favorable to our client!

    Her temperament is also of concern. She can be petulant, occasionally nasty and very uneven in mood. I would avoid her when at all possible.
     

    If the government is a party to one's case, forget about it - she is totally biased in favor of government whether it be at the municipal or federal level. I am equally appalled at her lack of scholarship.
     

    She is a judge of rather limnited intelligence, devoid of compassion,who seeks to make up for these inherent disadvantages by vindicitvely emphasizing form over substance.
     

    Her limited intelligence shows up most when she writes her own orders. Not only has she completely reversed herself in subsequent orders (making it difficult to litigate, since one has to continually re-litigate), she even contradicted herself within a single order! It was so bizarre that one of the only things opposing counsel and I could agree upon was that neither of knew what her ruling meant and that we *both* had error to show on appeal.
     

    doesn't like lawyers much. Keeps her distance and depends on her law clerks (or, gives them a chance to play judge). Arbitrary. Want fees, don't expect to get much that you didn't negotiate with the other side. Throws out the baby with the bath.
     

    She is not very smart and easily irritated. Once she gets an idea in her head, usually put there by the AUSA she will not change it. Petty and vindictive. Generally a very unpleasant experience in trial. She is clearly the worst judge in the N.D.Ca.
     
    http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=154

    The widespread appointment of incompetents to decision making positions has drastically reduced the effectiveness of government gathered and distributed money in maintaining urban areas and in US foreign policy. It’s one of the reasons that the money is running out — the incompetents don’t know when they are taking too much, and much more money has to be collected to maintain urban physical plant than is strictly needed.

    The USSR fell in part because actual administration devolved into a hierarchical system of regional/local/organizational bosses who would routinely falsify reports. The bosses would re-allocate money from the next higher level while reporting that it has been allocated as directed. This meant, in practice, that the Central Committee had no control over what money was spent for except in the military and high prestige sector. This system was well established when Khrushchev succeeded Stalin, and Khrushchev was known for highly colorful use of profanity when describing the system in his public speeches.
    Now we have the same system in the US, a system that Trump will have to dismantle at least partially if he wants to survive. One hopes that Trump is not a Khrushchev analog, as the leadership after Khrushchev was more tolerated than ruling and the country (judging from demography) became almost impossible to raise children in. Rather like the contemporary West, including the US.

    Counterinsurgency

  32. Another federal judge struck down Trump’s public charge rule. He too used similar language about the joys of immigration. He’s one of Clinton’s affirmative action appointments. I googled him about 15 years ago the NYT wrote in article about him about being the slowest federal judge in America. People had to wait years for decisions on bankruptcy and other civil cases.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/public-charge-rule-judge-blocks-attempt-to-deny-green-cards-and-visas-to-low-income-immigrants/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/nyregion/judges-decisions-are-conspicuously-late.html?

    smid=nytcore-ios-share

    But there is one unchallenged king of delayed decisions: Judge George B. Daniels of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who, the latest statistics show, had 289 motions in civil cases pending for more than six months, by far the highest total of any federal judge in the nation.

    For some plaintiffs, the waits have seemed like forever.

    There was the woman in Queens who had to fend off creditors while she waited more than three years for the judge to decide that she was entitled to her late ex-husband’s pension benefits. And there was the prisoner with H.I.V. who filed a petition challenging his state court conviction. By the time Judge Daniels got around to issuing an order — three years later — the prisoner had died.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Last week, 9, 10 October Judge Daniels ordered injunction against Trump’s public charge order. This time, Daniel’s acted as fast as possible.

    When your attorney advises you to stall, negotiate and settle rather than going before a judge listen to him or her. You don’t know how drunk high or stoned they’ll be after lunch.
  33. @istevefan
    OT - This is in regards to last night's Trump rally in Minneapolis. I haven't caught up on all the comments on all the posts over the last couple days, so forgive me if someone already brought this up.

    I watched the rally online. Afterwards I saw several twitter reports of violence directed against rally attendees as they were leaving.

    https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1182500070220095488

    What I want to know is how could this happen? According to Trump there were 20K people inside the arena and another 25K outside. How could 50 or even 100 antifa pummel Trump supporters with so many Trump supporters present?

    People on twitter were complaining that the cops did nothing. But my take is that this is an embarrassment to our side if circa 45K people can't protect themselves from one hundred..

    >how could this happen?
    Police did nothing and neither did Trump in four years so yeah not so impossible.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    It's bad optics. It's makes our side look like puss*es.
  34. Law and Order got around to doing Jussie Smollett.

  35. @Anonymous
    That the Founding Fathers did not reasonably foresee that there would be especially incompetent or vicious judges would seem a major failing. Ending lifetime tenure for federal judges and providing for the removal of ones found to not have actually committed crimes but who are provably grossly incompetent or stupid or vicious would be a high priority for any political party interested in improved government.

    Not a law student but I’ve heard from law students that actually the Founding Fathers had enormous problems with English judges and wanted American judges to pretty much just be referees and highly limited, but this has been rolled back. Cf that movie with Laurence Olivier as a highwayman and They Killed My Saintly Billy Boy.

    • Replies: @Lot
    I don’t agree. The Constitution made judges far more independent in the US than they were in England.

    And Marbury v. Madison was decided by judges appointed by Washington and Adams. Including GW’s nephew Bushrod Washington.
    , @Alden
    Our founders were great fans of Montesquieu. He was a French aristocrat lawyer law professor and judge who advocated judicial review of every law and judicial supremacy.

    They conned us deplorables into fighting the war for them with much talk of Liberty and no taxes.

    What the founders were very upset about was an English court case cerca 1770. Jamaican slave came to England with his owner. Jamaican contacted Wilberforce and the abolition movement. Wilberforce arranged for a barrister. Jamaican was the plaintiff, owner the respondent. Judge ruled there was no such thing as slavery in England.

    The founders realized that sooner or later there’d be be a court case in the colonies or the English court case would be applied to the colonies. So they instigated the revolution.

    Remember, slavery was created in America by just one judge in Virginia 1654. That turned black employees into valuable livestock that were assets that could be sold, rented or used as collateral for loans.

    Judges judges judges
  36. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    For those inclined to see the problem as bad Democratic judicial appointees to be solved with good Republican appointees, please consider that the SCOTUS seldom steps up to meaningfully enforce the Constitution against the government that it’s supposed to restrain. I’m recycling a comment posted during the last Most Important Confirmation Ever.

    Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was a Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

    Like the “federal” elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington.

    I’m still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other “foreign policy” waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment’s shepherding and fleecing of the people.

    Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice’s opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And on other websites there are pom pom shakers and color commentators for Team Blue.

    But keep voting GOP….

    • Agree: eah
    • Replies: @Precious
    But keep voting GOP

    I don't vote GOP, but I do vote Trump...

    Trump just quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%

    With one proclamation signed late Friday evening last week, President Donald Trump made his adviser Stephen Miller’s dreams of restricting legal immigration a reality.

    When it goes into effect November 3, the proclamation will make getting into the US much harder for immigrants sponsored by family members, the phenomenon Trump has excoriated as “chain migration.” It will throw up a barrier to those coming through the diversity visa lottery — the subject of Trump’s “shithole countries” rant — which allows the US to accept 55,000 immigrants annually from countries with historically low levels of immigration.

    Researchers estimate it could keep up to two-thirds of future immigrants out who would be admitted under current law.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/9/20903541/trump-proclamation-legal-immigration-health-insurance
    , @Alden
    Good for you. Too many conservatives just don’t understand that the judges aren’t rogues. The constitution was written for judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy was intended and the precedent was set in stone by Marbury vs Madison 1804. Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s was the absolute worse judicial decision ever. It set the precedent for one sissy city boy judge to forbid clearing brush and dead trees causing disasterous wild fires all over the west.

    Look what just 2 decisions, Brown vs Topeka and Griggs vs Duke Power did to every White person in America. Who cares about gay marriage? Idiot conservatives. I care about jobs loans contracts for Whites and civilized black free schools. I honestly won’t be surprised if some judge orders every White person in America slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves.
  37. @newrouter
    A member of the Clinton clown Antifa:

    >On February 9, 2000, Hamilton was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California created by 104 Stat. 5089. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on May 24, 2000, and received her commission on May 25, 2000. She has served as Chief Judge since December 16, 2014. <

    federal judge Phyllis Hamilton

    You left out the most interesting part of her Wikipedia bio:

    She became an administrative judge for the San Francisco Regional Office of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board from 1980 to 1985, …

    It’s not inappropriate to describe a public charge provision as enforcing a kind of merit system vis-à-vis immigration.

    She is 67 y/o — I think including the Lazarus poem in her opinion/injunction counts as boomer cringe.

    This kind of thing definitely does not remind me of Arthur Schlesinger’s book ‘The Imperial Presidency’.

  38. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1182760679465467905

    Read Homeless In Seattle, Part 2: Tech Sucks the Soul Out of the City — it mentions “the ongoing and never-ending, annual importation of a sizable feudal elite from China and India”, which in Seattle has effectively displaced/dispossessed lower SES Whites (as well as making housing far more expensive/less affordable for everyone).

    MAGA — “LOL”

  39. @Spangel
    It's done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    Spangel, I’m a nitpicking bad man now, and I know it, so excuse me, if you can, but: The danger, that somebody would have expected The Donald himself to be something even near to perfect might not exist, nor have existed. Not below budget and ahead of schedule anyway, which is to say: Never ever.
    (Of course, you have a point. And that point is valid, I don’t doubt that at all.)

  40. @Spangel
    It's done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    Enjoy your Red Flag laws!

  41. @Whiskey
    Isn't this a picture of day to day 95% of professional White ladies?

    Elizabeth Warren got in another dig at White men to the delight of every actress ever. Anti White is just another term for Upper class White women.

    Phyllis Hamilton is black. (Like Captain Renault, I am shocked.) Look her up, along with anyone else who has been a federal judge, at fjc.gov.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    I stand corrected. But how different is she from Warren?
  42. Ignore the stupid virtue signaling introduction, and just look at the legal reasoning, and you’ll see the Trump administration acted incompetently. They simply don’t have the congressional authority to make the regulatory change they proposed, as good as a policy it will be, and in the process missed an opportunity to do something within the scope of the statutory authority that would’ve improved things. What’s really needed is legislation, and that’s something this president is incapable of.

  43. For the umpteenth time, Trump has an opportunity to tell the judge to buzz off. The law is clear, he has 100% authority to do what he did, the judge is irrelevant. And then order his law enforced and any employee not enforcing it to be fired for insubordination.

    But the literally Hitler fascist Trump just goes along with the legal clown show. His biggest weakness is a Boomer deference to the legal process.

    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat

    For the umpteenth time, Trump has an opportunity to tell the judge to buzz off. The law is clear, he has 100% authority to do what he did, the judge is irrelevant. And then order his law enforced and any employee not enforcing it to be fired for insubordination.
     
    He will never do that. His older sister was a federal judge.
  44. My suggestion is to remove that plaque from the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty and put it on display in a back gallery of an obscure museum.

  45. How hard would it be to vandalize or steal the plaque with that stupid Jew poem? Is there a ton of security around it? What chemicals dissolve copper or bronze?

    A better question for 4chan I suppose…

  46. Off topic but have you heard about one of the latest race-based controversies? It’s decent material that proves the farce of the Hispanic racial category. A Cuban author and English professor had her book about white privilege assigned to all freshmen at Georgia Southern Univ. She hosted a talk about the book which devolved into a shouting match as some students denied they had privilege, questioned her work etc. Then, before her next talk some students burned her book on a dorm grill. She claimed she was “scared” and moved hotel rooms to another city. A Mexican (actually mestizo) journalist from the Chicago Tribune then writes an article recommending all whites read this woman’s book “Among the Whites.”

    The ridiculous thing about the whole story? Professor Jennine Capo Crucet is WHITE. If she has Indian or SSA blood it’s less than 10 percent, probably less than 5 percent. She looks less exotic than Penelope Cruz and Ted Cruz facially. She has a (likely chemically induced)perm and a tan, but otherwise she is a pretty attractive woman with reddish-brown hair who would be seen as native anywhere in Europe outside of Scandinavia and the Baltic region.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Good for the students
  47. @istevefan
    The umpteenth reminder you vehemently opposed Patrick Buchanan for years on this blog and sided with the neocon, invade-invite crowd.

    The Scots-Irish have never been Pat’s biggest fans.

  48. @Spangel
    It's done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    Trump is Team White. Period.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Trump is Team White. Period
     
    .

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.
    , @Corvinus
    "Trump is Team White. Period."

    Patently false. Trump is about his team and how much he can grift. Start paying closer attention, son.
  49. @Lot
    “Trump loses, wretched refuse wins!”

    Steve’s been a roll this week.

    At least one of the 5 GOP supreme court members is signaling he won’t quickly reverse these awful and 100% predictable nationwide injunctions. Only Alito and Thomas have been 100% rock solid over a long period, so I suspect one of the other three. Kav also seems unlikely, but who knows.

    There is a way you can go straight to the Supreme Court to stay an injunction or any decision. Remember how fast Bush v Gore got to the Supreme Court?

    It also wouldn’t be hard at all for the GOP justices to stop all these cases by limiting standing for these cases: 1. National security based travel bans are not subject to court review, just like you can’t sue Trump because you don’t like his Syria policy. 2. Definitely reject the idea that “das raciss” can ever be the basis of reversing a President’s immigration decisions.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court fails the nation deciding one stupid low-stakes case after another and letting these lawless national injunctions stand for months or longer, and only finally stopping them on a case by case basis.

    Failing to block these injunctions is a stain on the Supreme Court. Under Obama, it was the executive branch letting immigration crimes go unpunished. At least there is a tradition for prosecutorial discretion this followed. But to have single trial level judge dictate national immigration policy, in particular mass illegal migration at invasion/demographic levels, and which the President is putting in policies to stop—John Roberts is responsible for this travesty.

    As an example of John Roberts’s higher priorities than restraining these judges, here’s the most recently argued case:

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this, with the phrase getting one meaning in New York and another in Hawai’i.

    This seems a situation ripe for a Jacksonesque “How many regiments does that trial judge command?” response from Trump. Just openly defy the injunction.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    That would be great to see but...the problem with that is there are so many weenies, bought-and-paid-for hacks, and cowards among Republicans in the Senate. There is a decent chance he'd be removed (assuming the House votes to impeach).
  50. @Gary in Gramercy
    Phyllis Hamilton is black. (Like Captain Renault, I am shocked.) Look her up, along with anyone else who has been a federal judge, at fjc.gov.

    I stand corrected. But how different is she from Warren?

  51. @J.Ross
    >how could this happen?
    Police did nothing and neither did Trump in four years so yeah not so impossible.

    It’s bad optics. It’s makes our side look like puss*es.

  52. @Anonymous
    That the Founding Fathers did not reasonably foresee that there would be especially incompetent or vicious judges would seem a major failing. Ending lifetime tenure for federal judges and providing for the removal of ones found to not have actually committed crimes but who are provably grossly incompetent or stupid or vicious would be a high priority for any political party interested in improved government.

    It’s not that judges are incompetent or vicious. The whole ruling class wants the MultiCult. No judge is going to stand in the way of that (successfully). We are getting that because that’s what our rulers want. This or that judge doing this or that thing is just an epiphenomenon.

  53. Anonymous[190] • Disclaimer says:

    I seem to remember a certain federal judge in Texas who loved to gloat as he sentenced hapless doofuses to maximum terms.

    I think somebody did something. They weren’t very smart about it, but none the less, he was not gloating any more.

    Not that I advocate anything like that, but it does seem like karma can be a nasty old bitch.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Woody Harrelson's dad.
  54. Still another Resistance Judge who finds nothing in the Constitution but a penumbra of wokeness.

  55. @Spangel
    It's done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat’s list, it’s our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it’s either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It’s like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won’t live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don’t vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    • Agree: Dtbb, jim jones
    • Disagree: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @216
    A third party would be easier to start if it primarily concentrated on local politics, and ignored federal and state politics until it acquired a base of support in an area.

    Two parties will predominate unless the electoral system is changed to a proportional system.
    , @notsaying
    For now the GOP is still hanging in there but where is the GOP going to be once the US voting pool is less than half white?

    I think there's definitely room for a third party to start -- but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    There will probably be a party that will continue to want more immigration and one that wants less. But the party who wants less immigration will have to appeal to at least some immigrants or families with recent immigration in their history to win. I don't see how that party can for small government conservative or libertarian economics because immigrants aren't interested in that.

    There is a lot of possibility for change that we haven't experienced before because of the radical shifting in our own racial and ethnic makeup and the continuous challenges that our rapidly growing population numbers will present.
    , @Prester John
    "There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party."

    And that's the problem. Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum, GOP or Democrat, same s**t, different day. Since Reagan, the GOP gave us both Old Man Bush and Cheney (the REAL president, not Little George). That really worked out, right? In between we had Mr. and Mrs. Slick and Obongo. Now we've got Trump who, for all his bluster, hasn't made good on The Wall and is like a walking waffle iron on the subject of troop withdrawal (which should have been the first thing on the agenda). In fairness to Trump it has to be said that he is probably fighting a rear guard action against a system in which both parties have thrived and will never change so long as the Bushes, the Romneys, the Obamas, the Clintons etc. can wring every penny out of it.

    Time to re-think things. This system ain't working!!

    , @William Badwhite

    Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.
     
    I've read of a number of people in the trades where I live that research political donations, social media, bumper stickers, etc of potential clients and either deny service to leftists or significantly mark up prices. Its a small thing I know, but hopefully the start of some sort of separation. One huge weak link most of today's leftists have is that few of them know how do anything useful. They can write poorly reasoned word pasta, but don't know which end of a screwdriver to hold.
    , @TomSchmidt
    "But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature."

    The reason the market matured is that we now have one Federal Representative for over 700,000 people. That is FAR fewer reps than any other "democracy." If we had more reps, then you'd have diversity in Congress.

    The Dems won't do it because they like having entirely safe districts, with EVERY representative from NYC being a Democrat and only one district possibly Republican in 2020. The Reps won't do it because the constriction on Representatives favors the small states in the middle, so a vote in Wyoming is much more powerful in the Electoral College than a vote in Kollivornia. It's been 100 years since Congress expanded last.
  56. @J.Ross
    Not a law student but I've heard from law students that actually the Founding Fathers had enormous problems with English judges and wanted American judges to pretty much just be referees and highly limited, but this has been rolled back. Cf that movie with Laurence Olivier as a highwayman and They Killed My Saintly Billy Boy.

    I don’t agree. The Constitution made judges far more independent in the US than they were in England.

    And Marbury v. Madison was decided by judges appointed by Washington and Adams. Including GW’s nephew Bushrod Washington.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I'm not sure that's the issue, the problem is what their role is. Also, this may have been a failure.
  57. This federal judge Baby Boomer boob Phyllis Hamilton who presumes to push her own immigration policy for the United States of America must be immediately IMPEACHED.

    Phyllis Hamilton must be IMPEACHED and that cruddy poem from Emma Lazarus must be removed from the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence and also to remember the war support provided by France to assist in the English colonies winning the American Colonial Secessionary War from the English Empire.

    I had my own unpleasant interaction with some dolt named John McCain where he started reciting that crappy poem from that little rich girl Jew Emma Lazarus.

    Emma Lazarus’s father was a Jew sugar merchant and we know how frigging shady the sugar shyster business is. Florida knows about shady shyster sugar dealings and that former Mexican president Fox was a sugar water shyster boy for a cola corporation.

    I Said This To John McCain At A Town Hall Event In 2007

    Rough Transcript:

    “Hello Senator McCain, I’d like to talk about the issue that’s going to destroy the Republican Party, and unfortunately it may destroy the United States of America as we all know it. And that issue is immigration…”

    THERE ARE TWO CAMPS THAT ARE FORMING WITHIN AMERICAN POLITICS, THE OPEN BORDERS CAMP, WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF, ALONG WITH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, AND THE RESTRICTIONIST CAMP, WHICH WOULD LIKE A MORATORIUM ON ALL IMMIGRATION.

    DO THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON, THE POLITICIANS, THE LOBBYISTS, THE RICH PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CHECKS, DO THEY UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF ANGER THE AVERAGE EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN AMERICAN FEELS WHEN THEY SEE THEIR COUNTRY TURNING INTO A MULTICULTURAL CHAOS TOWER OF BABBLE?

    YOU LOST, THE OPEN BORDERS CAMP LOST WITH THE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, BUT THAT IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN. THE BIGGER QUESTION IS THE MASS IMMIGRATION INTO AMERICA, THE LEGAL IMMIGRATION, THE REFUGEES, THE ASYLUM-SEEKERS.

    DO YOU PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FIVE, TEN OR 15 YEARS? I AM TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE CIVIL WAR IF YOU DO NOT CLOSE THE BORDERS TO IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES.

    US Senator John McCain Goes Ellis Island Emma Lazarus Emo On Immigration Question:

    I BELIEVE THE GREATEST STRENGTH OF AMERICA IS THE LADY THAT HOLDS HER LAMP BESIDE THE GOLDEN DOOR THAT SAYS, SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES.

    Tweet from 2015:

    Pewitt Confronts McCain On Open Borders Mass Immigration(58:00 min):

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?201489-1/mccain-campaign-event

    • Replies: @ziggurat
    Good job, Charles, at the town hall.

    However, it's sad that people clapped when McCain said:

    I believe the greatest strength of America is the lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door that says, send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. And I am grateful to live in a nation that has been enriched by people coming to our nation from around the world.
     
    How does that even happen? Is there some sort of clap-leader or something? Was that really completely spontaneous?

    I dream of the day when a politician gets roundly booed for saying such drivel, from the whole crowd, from the very young to the elderly, with no safe face for the politician to rest his eyes.

    How come no one ever mentions the part of the poem that refers to immigrants as "wretched refuse"? That's my favorite part.

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips.
    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    adj. wretched - of very poor quality or condition;
    n. refuse - something that is discarded as worthless or useless; rubbish; trash; garbage.

    adj. storied - Celebrated or famous in history or story
    n. pomp - Dignified or magnificent display; splendor:

    Yes, please send us your worthless trash. And please don't send us your best.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I_u5fvB15Q
  58. @Whiskey
    You White man will pay and pay and pay. Judges and Nice White ladies would not have it any other way.

    If you cross your eyes a little, Whiskey and Tiny Duck merge.

    • Agree: Rosie
  59. @Lot
    I don’t agree. The Constitution made judges far more independent in the US than they were in England.

    And Marbury v. Madison was decided by judges appointed by Washington and Adams. Including GW’s nephew Bushrod Washington.

    I’m not sure that’s the issue, the problem is what their role is. Also, this may have been a failure.

  60. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1182760679465467905

    It would serve our interests to put a surcharge on foreign students, and use the revenue to subsidize domestic tuition.

    Would also be nice for an Executive Order barring in-state tuition for illegals.

  61. @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    A third party would be easier to start if it primarily concentrated on local politics, and ignored federal and state politics until it acquired a base of support in an area.

    Two parties will predominate unless the electoral system is changed to a proportional system.

  62. Ann Coulter must have been hiking up some mountains recently because she has fire in her heart and vim and vigor and she is smashing all kinds of Hell out of treasonous Mammonite Ralph Reed and the GOP globalizers who are pushing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Ralph Reed is not a Christian, he is a demonic MAMMONITE, but there are plenty of Crybaby Christians who want to kill the USA by flooding the country with mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY!

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!

    • Replies: @Hail
    A truly great Ann Coulter interview.

    This is the kind of pressure from the right on Mr. All-Tweet-No-Action that is all too lacking. There remains a weird, religion-like aura around the Tweetman (much faded by 2019, but still there) om which people belive he can do no wrong. The 4-D Chess idea.

    If The Tweetman flips and flops, fumbles, flails, and fails, he needs to go. We don't need a personality cult around Donald "Talk Much, Do Little, Israel First, Highest-Ever Leeeeeegal Immigration" Trump.

    ____________

    Full video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkacnR5YoCs

    Interview starts at 2:15

    Excerpts:

    Interviewer: Let's just get it out of the way: The Wall. Go!

    Ann Coulter: [Laughs] Well, since the Democrats started their latest impeachment, you may have noticed...I have briefly suspended my daily pointing out that he is not building the Wall.

    This really is madness.

    But two things can be true at the same time. The media must be destroyed, it's unreformable, they're lying swine...That can be true, but it can also be true that he has not done one thing for his supporters.
     

    Interviwer: Let's talk about the Wall.

    Ann Coulter: I thought I would start slowly...In every rally he sad he would build the Wall. I mean, there were signs, that was the chant; this isn't some odd little issue Ann came up with...No, that was the theme of his campaign. And what did he do? He got into office and said 'Oh, no, Mitch McConnell doesn't want the wall, and I'm not going to hire anyone that would help me build it.' He's always had the power to build the Wall.
     

    Ann Coulter: What separates the "mice from the men" now is figuring out that our entire country is about to be over if we don't stop immigration. Absolute stop. Deport illegals, build the Wall, go after the 'refugee' frauds -- Otherwise all of your Congressmen are going to be Ilhan Omar. What are people thinking?!

    And this nonsense that the commander-in-chief comes up with: "Leegal! Lee--gal!" If I hear that one more time... Okay, the lee--gal immigrants he loves so much staged 9-11. They did the Boston Marathon. Ilhan Omar. Lee--gal! Well except her immigration fraud.

    Interviewer: What do you mean? You're making it sound --

    Ann Coulter: What I mean is the country is ruined one way or another. Just calling them "legal" does not fix the problem. We need a total moratorium.
     
    Hail to you, Ann Coulter.
  63. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1182760679465467905

    I wish Trump would forget about China and focus on our own students. I am sure he has no idea how they are doing.

    And most of the students we get aren’t geniuses or anywhere near it. And yet many come to get jobs in the US and to compete with our own students and what’s he doing about that?

    The kind of people who can get into top schools are generally the kind of people we shouldn’t worry too much about. They will take care of themselves.

  64. Un-f***ing-believable.

    A Goddamned Federal judge actually includes that stupid poem as PART OF HER RULING?

    • Replies: @Alden
    A black federal judge. Clinton appointee. What can one expect?
  65. @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    For now the GOP is still hanging in there but where is the GOP going to be once the US voting pool is less than half white?

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    There will probably be a party that will continue to want more immigration and one that wants less. But the party who wants less immigration will have to appeal to at least some immigrants or families with recent immigration in their history to win. I don’t see how that party can for small government conservative or libertarian economics because immigrants aren’t interested in that.

    There is a lot of possibility for change that we haven’t experienced before because of the radical shifting in our own racial and ethnic makeup and the continuous challenges that our rapidly growing population numbers will present.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.
     
    No third party can get a toe-hold at the ballot-box - not without the advantages of name-recognition and incumbency. The impediments placed in their way by the two major parties are too great. The only way I see for a third party to form (and I agree with you - it will be formed from out of the Republican Party) is for a group of sitting GOP Congressman and other office-holders to simply declare themselves a new party: Hold a press conference, state why they are breaking away from the GOP, roll out thier platform, and tell voters "If you agree with us, ratify this move at the next election."

    Just introduce a third party into Congress, and therefore coalition politics, and our system would overnight go a long way toward being a more parliamentary system. If it were successful, a fourth party might form too, as either the socialist or "moderate" camps of the Jackass Party went their own way.

    Not that any of this would make the country better or rescue it from it's fate. But at least some of us here might start to have some real political representation. Maybe.
    , @istevefan

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.
     
    If people with our views won't join the GOP to try to influence its platform, what makes you think they will participate in a third party?

    Oh, they might vote for that party like they currently vote GOP, but as we have seen over and over, voting alone does not ensure the party follows the agenda. If people don't actively join your hypothetical third party and advocate from the inside, there is no way your agenda is carried out.

    And if people are willing to join your party, then why the won't they join the GOP and take advantage of existing infrastructure? Far easier to do that than recreate the wheel.
  66. In 1883, Emma Lazarus penned the now-famous sonnet, The New Colossus. Later affixed to the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, the poem has been incorporated into the national consciousness as a representation of the country’s promise to would-be immigrants:

    The incorporating was done by the same people who did the promising, none of whom were my people. My ancestors didn’t promise would-be immigrants a goddamned thing. The store was given away by some of the patrons.

  67. @notsaying
    For now the GOP is still hanging in there but where is the GOP going to be once the US voting pool is less than half white?

    I think there's definitely room for a third party to start -- but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    There will probably be a party that will continue to want more immigration and one that wants less. But the party who wants less immigration will have to appeal to at least some immigrants or families with recent immigration in their history to win. I don't see how that party can for small government conservative or libertarian economics because immigrants aren't interested in that.

    There is a lot of possibility for change that we haven't experienced before because of the radical shifting in our own racial and ethnic makeup and the continuous challenges that our rapidly growing population numbers will present.

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    No third party can get a toe-hold at the ballot-box – not without the advantages of name-recognition and incumbency. The impediments placed in their way by the two major parties are too great. The only way I see for a third party to form (and I agree with you – it will be formed from out of the Republican Party) is for a group of sitting GOP Congressman and other office-holders to simply declare themselves a new party: Hold a press conference, state why they are breaking away from the GOP, roll out thier platform, and tell voters “If you agree with us, ratify this move at the next election.”

    Just introduce a third party into Congress, and therefore coalition politics, and our system would overnight go a long way toward being a more parliamentary system. If it were successful, a fourth party might form too, as either the socialist or “moderate” camps of the Jackass Party went their own way.

    Not that any of this would make the country better or rescue it from it’s fate. But at least some of us here might start to have some real political representation. Maybe.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In a first past the post winner take all system there will always be a strong gravitation towards two party politics, but that does not mean voting third party is never best game play.

    In our system, most elections are not really contested, usually the winner of the general is a foregone conclusion. In the Presidential elections where we vote for electors for a candidate, all but two or three states are winner take all, and so in any presidential election only a few states matter. If you are a Democrat in Kansas or a Republican in California, you do not have a vote in that race anyway.

    In the House, you have gerrymandering, and in the Senate you have seniority, which means pork minded voters will support the shittiest incumbent once he has two or three terms in.

    My rule is to generally vote third party in any race unless 1) one major party candidate is clearly better than another and 2) he can actually possibly win. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in the primary.
  68. @Spangel
    It's done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.

    No, trump is not perfect.

    Far from merely being “not pefect”, he is not even competent, coherent, or functional. A President who squanders his time and attention on twitter feuds is a ridiculous laughing stock. Can you name a single index of national decay which has not accelerated under Trump? I don’t mean something along the lines of “well, under Hillary it would have been worse”, I mean something that is better now than it was in 2016.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Polynikes
    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.

    Oh yea... The presidency itself. The murder rate, ...sorry....I'm just babbling now...
  69. @Anonymous
    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1182760679465467905

    America China First

  70. @anonymous
    For those inclined to see the problem as bad Democratic judicial appointees to be solved with good Republican appointees, please consider that the SCOTUS seldom steps up to meaningfully enforce the Constitution against the government that it's supposed to restrain. I'm recycling a comment posted during the last Most Important Confirmation Ever.

    Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was a Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

    Like the “federal” elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington.

    I’m still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other “foreign policy” waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment’s shepherding and fleecing of the people.

    Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice’s opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And on other websites there are pom pom shakers and color commentators for Team Blue.

    But keep voting GOP….

    But keep voting GOP

    I don’t vote GOP, but I do vote Trump…

    Trump just quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%

    With one proclamation signed late Friday evening last week, President Donald Trump made his adviser Stephen Miller’s dreams of restricting legal immigration a reality.

    When it goes into effect November 3, the proclamation will make getting into the US much harder for immigrants sponsored by family members, the phenomenon Trump has excoriated as “chain migration.” It will throw up a barrier to those coming through the diversity visa lottery — the subject of Trump’s “shithole countries” rant — which allows the US to accept 55,000 immigrants annually from countries with historically low levels of immigration.

    Researchers estimate it could keep up to two-thirds of future immigrants out who would be admitted under current law.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/9/20903541/trump-proclamation-legal-immigration-health-insurance

    • Replies: @notsaying
    Just like his other immigration executive orders, this one is sure to be challenged in court. Just this week there were several challenges to the "public charge" executive order that was due to go into effect this week.

    I hope to God one or both of these executive orders can get past the Supreme Court but the case will probably be heard and decided after next year's election.

    Governing by executive order because you can't get anything through Congress is very frustrating and undesirable. Obama did it, Trump does it and whoever wins the 2020 election will end up doing it too.

    I am mostly an immigration voter when it comes to the presidential election. I am not sure Trump will end up having any real accomplishments on immigration by next November. I just hope none of those temporary work visa bills pass. There is a lot of pressure from people in both parties to increase the number of foreign workers coming in.
  71. @Hockamaw
    It really is absolutely astonishing that a single us district court judge can enter these nationwide injunctions now. How can it possibly be that this is the law? It’s utterly incredible that this could be allowed to happen. A serious country with a serious legal system could not allow such an absurdity.

    That’s English Common Law intended by the founders. First case was Marbury vs Madison 1804. It established the precedent of judicial supremacy. We really don’t need referendums and elected legislatures any more to make laws.

    Just plaintiffs and respondent/defendants in court. Let the judge make a new law or overturn an older law or regulation.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    That’s English Common Law intended by the founders. First case was Marbury vs Madison 1804. It established the precedent of judicial supremacy.
     
    It established Constitutional supremacy, not judicial supremacy.
  72. A lot of words to say “keep playing in an unfixable situation and maybe A Miracle Occurs”.

    The situation can’t be fixed, folks. Trump has been a let down, sure, and some of his wounds are self inflicted, yes. However, very very few people believed that the Deep State would pile all their credibility together and light it on fire to stop him. The FBI and the intelligence apparatus, as well as the judiciary, are all revealed to be taken over by the unaccountable deep staters.

    We’ve all seen the same the news and still you have people insisting, in full Boomer Cringe that the voting box is the real weapon the government fears. The same people will insist that they have to follow a law that says they can be herded onto a train and shot since it’s all very legal.

    You can’t fix this system. We are well into Late Stage Imperial Decline.All we are doing now is waiting for entropy to break it down and see what rises in its place.

  73. @J.Ross
    Not a law student but I've heard from law students that actually the Founding Fathers had enormous problems with English judges and wanted American judges to pretty much just be referees and highly limited, but this has been rolled back. Cf that movie with Laurence Olivier as a highwayman and They Killed My Saintly Billy Boy.

    Our founders were great fans of Montesquieu. He was a French aristocrat lawyer law professor and judge who advocated judicial review of every law and judicial supremacy.

    They conned us deplorables into fighting the war for them with much talk of Liberty and no taxes.

    What the founders were very upset about was an English court case cerca 1770. Jamaican slave came to England with his owner. Jamaican contacted Wilberforce and the abolition movement. Wilberforce arranged for a barrister. Jamaican was the plaintiff, owner the respondent. Judge ruled there was no such thing as slavery in England.

    The founders realized that sooner or later there’d be be a court case in the colonies or the English court case would be applied to the colonies. So they instigated the revolution.

    Remember, slavery was created in America by just one judge in Virginia 1654. That turned black employees into valuable livestock that were assets that could be sold, rented or used as collateral for loans.

    Judges judges judges

  74. @Anon
    https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/1182858639914127360

    I never noticed that, but on the other hand I've always chuckled whenever there is a courtroom scene in a movie or television show: Always a black judge (and usually white underlings, like the court security officer).

    I guess filling up these bit parts with blacks allows you to cast the leads with boxoffice-draw white actors, while additionally not torpedoing your chances for distribution in China.

    Now you have black scientists on the Science Channel. Who’s that guy with the unpronounceable name who talks like he has marbles in his mouth?

  75. @anonymous
    For those inclined to see the problem as bad Democratic judicial appointees to be solved with good Republican appointees, please consider that the SCOTUS seldom steps up to meaningfully enforce the Constitution against the government that it's supposed to restrain. I'm recycling a comment posted during the last Most Important Confirmation Ever.

    Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was a Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

    Like the “federal” elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington.

    I’m still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other “foreign policy” waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment’s shepherding and fleecing of the people.

    Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice’s opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And on other websites there are pom pom shakers and color commentators for Team Blue.

    But keep voting GOP….

    Good for you. Too many conservatives just don’t understand that the judges aren’t rogues. The constitution was written for judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy was intended and the precedent was set in stone by Marbury vs Madison 1804. Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s was the absolute worse judicial decision ever. It set the precedent for one sissy city boy judge to forbid clearing brush and dead trees causing disasterous wild fires all over the west.

    Look what just 2 decisions, Brown vs Topeka and Griggs vs Duke Power did to every White person in America. Who cares about gay marriage? Idiot conservatives. I care about jobs loans contracts for Whites and civilized black free schools. I honestly won’t be surprised if some judge orders every White person in America slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    The constitution was written for judicial supremacy.
     
    I disagree. I think the founders intended Congress to be first among equals. But Congress has delegated much of its authority to the administrative state and is happy to let SCOTUS decide thorny social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. So much easier than actually, you know, having to vote on anything.
  76. @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    “There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party.”

    And that’s the problem. Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum, GOP or Democrat, same s**t, different day. Since Reagan, the GOP gave us both Old Man Bush and Cheney (the REAL president, not Little George). That really worked out, right? In between we had Mr. and Mrs. Slick and Obongo. Now we’ve got Trump who, for all his bluster, hasn’t made good on The Wall and is like a walking waffle iron on the subject of troop withdrawal (which should have been the first thing on the agenda). In fairness to Trump it has to be said that he is probably fighting a rear guard action against a system in which both parties have thrived and will never change so long as the Bushes, the Romneys, the Obamas, the Clintons etc. can wring every penny out of it.

    Time to re-think things. This system ain’t working!!

    • Replies: @istevefan

    Time to re-think things. This system ain’t working
     
    Can you tell me what your local GOP meetings are like? How long have you been a member of the party?
    , @BB753
    You could create a third party out of the GOP by destroying it from within. A controlled demolition if you will with a ruthless purge of the neocons and rinos, turning it slowly into the MAGA Party. But I fear Trump is too old for the task and Ivanka and Jared are neocons. Miller could be the man to do it though I never trust Jews to do the right thing, even renegade Jews. Trump's older sons seem to be idiots and Barron is too young.
    Maybe America is finished, like most of Europe and you can't reverse the decline.
  77. @Ed
    Another federal judge struck down Trump’s public charge rule. He too used similar language about the joys of immigration. He’s one of Clinton’s affirmative action appointments. I googled him about 15 years ago the NYT wrote in article about him about being the slowest federal judge in America. People had to wait years for decisions on bankruptcy and other civil cases.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/public-charge-rule-judge-blocks-attempt-to-deny-green-cards-and-visas-to-low-income-immigrants/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/nyregion/judges-decisions-are-conspicuously-late.html?

    smid=nytcore-ios-share

    But there is one unchallenged king of delayed decisions: Judge George B. Daniels of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who, the latest statistics show, had 289 motions in civil cases pending for more than six months, by far the highest total of any federal judge in the nation.

    For some plaintiffs, the waits have seemed like forever.

    There was the woman in Queens who had to fend off creditors while she waited more than three years for the judge to decide that she was entitled to her late ex-husband's pension benefits. And there was the prisoner with H.I.V. who filed a petition challenging his state court conviction. By the time Judge Daniels got around to issuing an order -- three years later -- the prisoner had died.
     

    Last week, 9, 10 October Judge Daniels ordered injunction against Trump’s public charge order. This time, Daniel’s acted as fast as possible.

    When your attorney advises you to stall, negotiate and settle rather than going before a judge listen to him or her. You don’t know how drunk high or stoned they’ll be after lunch.

  78. @Fred C Dobbs
    Un-f***ing-believable.

    A Goddamned Federal judge actually includes that stupid poem as PART OF HER RULING?

    A black federal judge. Clinton appointee. What can one expect?

  79. @peterike
    For the umpteenth time, Trump has an opportunity to tell the judge to buzz off. The law is clear, he has 100% authority to do what he did, the judge is irrelevant. And then order his law enforced and any employee not enforcing it to be fired for insubordination.

    But the literally Hitler fascist Trump just goes along with the legal clown show. His biggest weakness is a Boomer deference to the legal process.

    For the umpteenth time, Trump has an opportunity to tell the judge to buzz off. The law is clear, he has 100% authority to do what he did, the judge is irrelevant. And then order his law enforced and any employee not enforcing it to be fired for insubordination.

    He will never do that. His older sister was a federal judge.

  80. @notsaying
    For now the GOP is still hanging in there but where is the GOP going to be once the US voting pool is less than half white?

    I think there's definitely room for a third party to start -- but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    There will probably be a party that will continue to want more immigration and one that wants less. But the party who wants less immigration will have to appeal to at least some immigrants or families with recent immigration in their history to win. I don't see how that party can for small government conservative or libertarian economics because immigrants aren't interested in that.

    There is a lot of possibility for change that we haven't experienced before because of the radical shifting in our own racial and ethnic makeup and the continuous challenges that our rapidly growing population numbers will present.

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.

    If people with our views won’t join the GOP to try to influence its platform, what makes you think they will participate in a third party?

    Oh, they might vote for that party like they currently vote GOP, but as we have seen over and over, voting alone does not ensure the party follows the agenda. If people don’t actively join your hypothetical third party and advocate from the inside, there is no way your agenda is carried out.

    And if people are willing to join your party, then why the won’t they join the GOP and take advantage of existing infrastructure? Far easier to do that than recreate the wheel.

    • Replies: @ziggurat
    I agree that we should work within the GOP. If just 1% of people became strongly involved in the party, then that could push its platform over into an immigration restrictive stance. Indeed, it's already halfway there, thanks to Trump.

    It has been said that "one man with courage makes a majority." I think that's an exaggeration, but 1% of people? Yes, I think that could be a majority, if you add equal measures of hard work, wisdom, and persuasiveness.

    One challenge is that 1% of citizens will not want to dedicate themselves to such a group effort for the necessarily sustained length of time, unless they are convinced that there is a decisively large number that will simultaneously join them in such a group effort.

    And yet as Vince Lombardi said: "Individual commitment to a group effort is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."

    Somehow we need to find a way to get many more of us to line up to the rope in this tug of war, grab it with both hands, bellow "pull!", and then pull together. I know there are a decisive number people who would be willing to do it, if they just believed it would make a decisive difference. ... When you think about it, it's really just a mental problem.
    , @notsaying
    I think the GOP isn't going to change enough to appeal to younger voters who aren't as conservative and who aren't white.

    The third party I envision won't be small government conservative or libertarian when it comes to economic issues and while it will want less immigration, it will be more open to nonwhites.

    I think a lot of nonwhites just won't join the Republican Party. Once whites are less than 50% of the population, a major party that can't attract nonwhites won't be a major party anymore.

    There will have to be a place for the die-hard Republicans who don't want to spend money on things every other rich nation does and is almost all white. The people who want a more conservative party than the Democrats are going to have to create a new party on their own.
  81. @Prester John
    "There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party."

    And that's the problem. Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum, GOP or Democrat, same s**t, different day. Since Reagan, the GOP gave us both Old Man Bush and Cheney (the REAL president, not Little George). That really worked out, right? In between we had Mr. and Mrs. Slick and Obongo. Now we've got Trump who, for all his bluster, hasn't made good on The Wall and is like a walking waffle iron on the subject of troop withdrawal (which should have been the first thing on the agenda). In fairness to Trump it has to be said that he is probably fighting a rear guard action against a system in which both parties have thrived and will never change so long as the Bushes, the Romneys, the Obamas, the Clintons etc. can wring every penny out of it.

    Time to re-think things. This system ain't working!!

    Time to re-think things. This system ain’t working

    Can you tell me what your local GOP meetings are like? How long have you been a member of the party?

  82. That is nothing. Lincoln made havoc when he made the Constitution merely an appendage of one phrase in the Declaration

  83. @Prester John
    "There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party."

    And that's the problem. Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum, GOP or Democrat, same s**t, different day. Since Reagan, the GOP gave us both Old Man Bush and Cheney (the REAL president, not Little George). That really worked out, right? In between we had Mr. and Mrs. Slick and Obongo. Now we've got Trump who, for all his bluster, hasn't made good on The Wall and is like a walking waffle iron on the subject of troop withdrawal (which should have been the first thing on the agenda). In fairness to Trump it has to be said that he is probably fighting a rear guard action against a system in which both parties have thrived and will never change so long as the Bushes, the Romneys, the Obamas, the Clintons etc. can wring every penny out of it.

    Time to re-think things. This system ain't working!!

    You could create a third party out of the GOP by destroying it from within. A controlled demolition if you will with a ruthless purge of the neocons and rinos, turning it slowly into the MAGA Party. But I fear Trump is too old for the task and Ivanka and Jared are neocons. Miller could be the man to do it though I never trust Jews to do the right thing, even renegade Jews. Trump’s older sons seem to be idiots and Barron is too young.
    Maybe America is finished, like most of Europe and you can’t reverse the decline.

  84. “What, Lady Liberty? Aw, she left to get a job when feminism started. I think they used her picture on the Supertramp album, “Breakfast in America.” They replaced her with Lady Equality. A totally different piece o’ work.”

    Can anyone show us a picture of the new statue, Lady Equality?

  85. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.
     
    No third party can get a toe-hold at the ballot-box - not without the advantages of name-recognition and incumbency. The impediments placed in their way by the two major parties are too great. The only way I see for a third party to form (and I agree with you - it will be formed from out of the Republican Party) is for a group of sitting GOP Congressman and other office-holders to simply declare themselves a new party: Hold a press conference, state why they are breaking away from the GOP, roll out thier platform, and tell voters "If you agree with us, ratify this move at the next election."

    Just introduce a third party into Congress, and therefore coalition politics, and our system would overnight go a long way toward being a more parliamentary system. If it were successful, a fourth party might form too, as either the socialist or "moderate" camps of the Jackass Party went their own way.

    Not that any of this would make the country better or rescue it from it's fate. But at least some of us here might start to have some real political representation. Maybe.

    In a first past the post winner take all system there will always be a strong gravitation towards two party politics, but that does not mean voting third party is never best game play.

    In our system, most elections are not really contested, usually the winner of the general is a foregone conclusion. In the Presidential elections where we vote for electors for a candidate, all but two or three states are winner take all, and so in any presidential election only a few states matter. If you are a Democrat in Kansas or a Republican in California, you do not have a vote in that race anyway.

    In the House, you have gerrymandering, and in the Senate you have seniority, which means pork minded voters will support the shittiest incumbent once he has two or three terms in.

    My rule is to generally vote third party in any race unless 1) one major party candidate is clearly better than another and 2) he can actually possibly win. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in the primary.

  86. @M Krauthammar
    Hahaha.
    What's next on your list, Alt Right Losers.
    You guys have lost this war against the tide of color.
    Genetic Extinction from the planet earth is on the horizon for the White Trashionalists.
    I fear that more terrorists like NZ shooter and James Field will emerge who will trybto kill People of Color.
    Alt Right is done and dusted.
    Immigration will increase.
    Open borders will be a reality under any Democrat Presidency.
    Integration will increase.
    Your birth rates in crowded cities will continue to decrease due to a dearth of housing.
    Your women nowadays are more likely to have babies with Black men and Men of Indian descent(this one is empirical observation of mine) than ever before. Have lived in college towns and due to fact that Asian men and White women are overrepresented in their cohorts at colleges, these unions are much more prevelant than many others.
    I don't think there would be any whites left in the near future.
    It's payback time.
    Lol, Enjoy your time and I hope its as miserable as it gets for you and your bigoted descendants.

    Yawn.

  87. @istevefan

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.
     
    If people with our views won't join the GOP to try to influence its platform, what makes you think they will participate in a third party?

    Oh, they might vote for that party like they currently vote GOP, but as we have seen over and over, voting alone does not ensure the party follows the agenda. If people don't actively join your hypothetical third party and advocate from the inside, there is no way your agenda is carried out.

    And if people are willing to join your party, then why the won't they join the GOP and take advantage of existing infrastructure? Far easier to do that than recreate the wheel.

    I agree that we should work within the GOP. If just 1% of people became strongly involved in the party, then that could push its platform over into an immigration restrictive stance. Indeed, it’s already halfway there, thanks to Trump.

    It has been said that “one man with courage makes a majority.” I think that’s an exaggeration, but 1% of people? Yes, I think that could be a majority, if you add equal measures of hard work, wisdom, and persuasiveness.

    One challenge is that 1% of citizens will not want to dedicate themselves to such a group effort for the necessarily sustained length of time, unless they are convinced that there is a decisively large number that will simultaneously join them in such a group effort.

    And yet as Vince Lombardi said: “Individual commitment to a group effort is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”

    Somehow we need to find a way to get many more of us to line up to the rope in this tug of war, grab it with both hands, bellow “pull!”, and then pull together. I know there are a decisive number people who would be willing to do it, if they just believed it would make a decisive difference. … When you think about it, it’s really just a mental problem.

  88. Always delightful to see lady judges siding with the poems of sugar slavery and swill milk trust funders over the standards of US law.

  89. @Mr. Anon

    No, trump is not perfect.
     
    Far from merely being "not pefect", he is not even competent, coherent, or functional. A President who squanders his time and attention on twitter feuds is a ridiculous laughing stock. Can you name a single index of national decay which has not accelerated under Trump? I don't mean something along the lines of "well, under Hillary it would have been worse", I mean something that is better now than it was in 2016.

    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.

    Oh yea… The presidency itself. The murder rate, …sorry….I’m just babbling now…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.
     
    The Supreme Court? Kavanaugh (a Bush administration creature), the big cuck, chose exclusively female clerks. I'm sure he'll be a great conservative jurist in the mold of John Roberts,.......er,......um,........uh................

    The federal judiciary? Well, we'll see.

    Tax Policy? He implemented the policies of Paul Ryan, not what he himself (Trump, that is) ran on.

    Immigration policy? How about immigration fact. Has there been the slightest decline in immigration since 2016? Legal or illegal?

    I could go on, but I only asked for one..............and you couldn't even give me that.

    Trump has been a disaster. He has squandered every opportunity he had.
  90. Emma Lazarus is a great example of Jewish subversion at work. Her little poem has nothing to do with the original intent of the statue whatsoever. As a committed ethno-nationalist for the Jewish people, and hailing from a Sephardic family that was likely neck deep in slavery, she’s a good example of Jewish hypocrisy.

    • Replies: @Olorin

    Emma Lazarus grew up a non-observant Jew and sugar refinery heiress in an elite New York family. There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World, and in fact they came to North America not from Europe but from Brazil. Her father, who traced his Colonial pedigree to New Amsterdam in 1654, was a man of extravagant wealth who hobnobbed with the likes of Vanderbilts and Astors. He was a member of the exclusive Union Club and a founder of the prestigious Knickerbocker Club.

    The source of the family's hereditary wealth is not entirely clear, but it is known that Moses Lazarus held a partnership in a Louisiana plantation and was thus an absentee slaveholder. It is recorded that "Magnolia Plantation" had a reputation for extreme cruelty – so much so that in 1863 many of its slaves begged to enlist in the Confederate Army. And yet Moses Lazarus remained connected to the plantation throughout the Civil War years. His related processing operation on 16th Street in New York City included a "distillery of spirits." The swill that was a byproduct of this venture was fed to cattle at his adjoining dairy, an enterprise so unsanitary, according to an 1853 New York Times article entitled "Death in a Jug," as to cause the deaths of eight thousand of the city's children every year.

    Young Ms Lazarus, a denizen of uptown Manhattan, was well connected, both politically and socially. Her first cousin, Benjamin Cardozo, was a Supreme Court Justice. Her maternal uncle was the president of the New York Stock Exchange, and an uncle on her father's side a renowned portrait artist. The beneficiary of an elite private education, Emma was lettered in music, arts, literature and languages. Her father paid for the publication of her early poetry, through which she met, at the tender age of nineteen, such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson. Among her other intimate correspondents were Turgenev, Henry James, Robert Browning and James Russell Lowell, all among the most prestigious writers of her age.

    Emma's life was one of ease. She enjoyed a summer cottage (that is, a mansion) in Newport Rhode Island with the rest of fashionable society, and though ethnically Jewish, moved in the highest circles of Christian blue blood. She never spent an instant of her life in poverty, or for that matter as one of the "teeming masses yearning to breathe free," and her only connection to the working class was her oft repeated complaint over "the wretched quality of work performed by the vast majority of American mechanics and domestic servants." Notwithstanding Obama's wistful hagiography, Emma Lazarus certainly never championed "health care" or public housing. She enjoyed critical acclaim as a poet and author from her earliest years, and circulated among the great literary lights of her generation. And yet in spite of the fact that there was in the mid 19th century America no stigma attached to being Jewish, she harbored an abiding resentment based on her expressed conviction that personal slights she endured, real or imagined, were related to her ethnicity.
     
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jwagner/180117

    Bradish Johnson:

    https://bradishjohnson.com/biography/

    Miss Huddled Masses and her lit'ry effusions were steeped in Tammany Hall, baby.

    http://stevelindsay.net/DickeyLindsay/BRADISH_JOHNSON_AND_ME.pdf

    You can find plenty more on these guys and their 45-year business and family partnership by searching on terms as above.
    , @Alden
    She was descended from the first ship of Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam. 250 years and she wasn’t assimilated but a Zionist.
  91. @Cloudbuster
    This seems a situation ripe for a Jacksonesque "How many regiments does that trial judge command?" response from Trump. Just openly defy the injunction.

    That would be great to see but…the problem with that is there are so many weenies, bought-and-paid-for hacks, and cowards among Republicans in the Senate. There is a decent chance he’d be removed (assuming the House votes to impeach).

  92. I have it on good authority the honorable judge actually likes this poem best:

    “Texas is red,
    it will soon turn blue.

    Legal immigration
    will destroy you.”

  93. @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    I’ve read of a number of people in the trades where I live that research political donations, social media, bumper stickers, etc of potential clients and either deny service to leftists or significantly mark up prices. Its a small thing I know, but hopefully the start of some sort of separation. One huge weak link most of today’s leftists have is that few of them know how do anything useful. They can write poorly reasoned word pasta, but don’t know which end of a screwdriver to hold.

  94. @Charles Pewitt
    This federal judge Baby Boomer boob Phyllis Hamilton who presumes to push her own immigration policy for the United States of America must be immediately IMPEACHED.

    Phyllis Hamilton must be IMPEACHED and that cruddy poem from Emma Lazarus must be removed from the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the 1776 signing of the Declaration of Independence and also to remember the war support provided by France to assist in the English colonies winning the American Colonial Secessionary War from the English Empire.

    I had my own unpleasant interaction with some dolt named John McCain where he started reciting that crappy poem from that little rich girl Jew Emma Lazarus.

    Emma Lazarus's father was a Jew sugar merchant and we know how frigging shady the sugar shyster business is. Florida knows about shady shyster sugar dealings and that former Mexican president Fox was a sugar water shyster boy for a cola corporation.

    I Said This To John McCain At A Town Hall Event In 2007

    Rough Transcript:

    “Hello Senator McCain, I’d like to talk about the issue that’s going to destroy the Republican Party, and unfortunately it may destroy the United States of America as we all know it. And that issue is immigration…”

     


    THERE ARE TWO CAMPS THAT ARE FORMING WITHIN AMERICAN POLITICS, THE OPEN BORDERS CAMP, WHICH YOU ARE A MEMBER OF, ALONG WITH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, AND THE RESTRICTIONIST CAMP, WHICH WOULD LIKE A MORATORIUM ON ALL IMMIGRATION.

     


    DO THE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON, THE POLITICIANS, THE LOBBYISTS, THE RICH PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE CHECKS, DO THEY UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF ANGER THE AVERAGE EUROPEAN CHRISTIAN AMERICAN FEELS WHEN THEY SEE THEIR COUNTRY TURNING INTO A MULTICULTURAL CHAOS TOWER OF BABBLE?

     


    YOU LOST, THE OPEN BORDERS CAMP LOST WITH THE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, BUT THAT IS JUST A SMOKESCREEN. THE BIGGER QUESTION IS THE MASS IMMIGRATION INTO AMERICA, THE LEGAL IMMIGRATION, THE REFUGEES, THE ASYLUM-SEEKERS.

     


    DO YOU PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE NEXT FIVE, TEN OR 15 YEARS? I AM TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE CIVIL WAR IF YOU DO NOT CLOSE THE BORDERS TO IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES.

     

    US Senator John McCain Goes Ellis Island Emma Lazarus Emo On Immigration Question:

    I BELIEVE THE GREATEST STRENGTH OF AMERICA IS THE LADY THAT HOLDS HER LAMP BESIDE THE GOLDEN DOOR THAT SAYS, SEND ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/570317999833526272?s=20

    Pewitt Confronts McCain On Open Borders Mass Immigration(58:00 min):

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?201489-1/mccain-campaign-event

    Good job, Charles, at the town hall.

    However, it’s sad that people clapped when McCain said:

    I believe the greatest strength of America is the lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door that says, send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. And I am grateful to live in a nation that has been enriched by people coming to our nation from around the world.

    How does that even happen? Is there some sort of clap-leader or something? Was that really completely spontaneous?

    I dream of the day when a politician gets roundly booed for saying such drivel, from the whole crowd, from the very young to the elderly, with no safe face for the politician to rest his eyes.

    How come no one ever mentions the part of the poem that refers to immigrants as “wretched refuse”? That’s my favorite part.

    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she With silent lips.
    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    adj. wretched – of very poor quality or condition;
    n. refuse – something that is discarded as worthless or useless; rubbish; trash; garbage.

    adj. storied – Celebrated or famous in history or story
    n. pomp – Dignified or magnificent display; splendor:

    Yes, please send us your worthless trash. And please don’t send us your best.

  95. @jbwilson24
    Emma Lazarus is a great example of Jewish subversion at work. Her little poem has nothing to do with the original intent of the statue whatsoever. As a committed ethno-nationalist for the Jewish people, and hailing from a Sephardic family that was likely neck deep in slavery, she's a good example of Jewish hypocrisy.

    Emma Lazarus grew up a non-observant Jew and sugar refinery heiress in an elite New York family. There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World, and in fact they came to North America not from Europe but from Brazil. Her father, who traced his Colonial pedigree to New Amsterdam in 1654, was a man of extravagant wealth who hobnobbed with the likes of Vanderbilts and Astors. He was a member of the exclusive Union Club and a founder of the prestigious Knickerbocker Club.

    The source of the family’s hereditary wealth is not entirely clear, but it is known that Moses Lazarus held a partnership in a Louisiana plantation and was thus an absentee slaveholder. It is recorded that “Magnolia Plantation” had a reputation for extreme cruelty – so much so that in 1863 many of its slaves begged to enlist in the Confederate Army. And yet Moses Lazarus remained connected to the plantation throughout the Civil War years. His related processing operation on 16th Street in New York City included a “distillery of spirits.” The swill that was a byproduct of this venture was fed to cattle at his adjoining dairy, an enterprise so unsanitary, according to an 1853 New York Times article entitled “Death in a Jug,” as to cause the deaths of eight thousand of the city’s children every year.

    Young Ms Lazarus, a denizen of uptown Manhattan, was well connected, both politically and socially. Her first cousin, Benjamin Cardozo, was a Supreme Court Justice. Her maternal uncle was the president of the New York Stock Exchange, and an uncle on her father’s side a renowned portrait artist. The beneficiary of an elite private education, Emma was lettered in music, arts, literature and languages. Her father paid for the publication of her early poetry, through which she met, at the tender age of nineteen, such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson. Among her other intimate correspondents were Turgenev, Henry James, Robert Browning and James Russell Lowell, all among the most prestigious writers of her age.

    Emma’s life was one of ease. She enjoyed a summer cottage (that is, a mansion) in Newport Rhode Island with the rest of fashionable society, and though ethnically Jewish, moved in the highest circles of Christian blue blood. She never spent an instant of her life in poverty, or for that matter as one of the “teeming masses yearning to breathe free,” and her only connection to the working class was her oft repeated complaint over “the wretched quality of work performed by the vast majority of American mechanics and domestic servants.” Notwithstanding Obama’s wistful hagiography, Emma Lazarus certainly never championed “health care” or public housing. She enjoyed critical acclaim as a poet and author from her earliest years, and circulated among the great literary lights of her generation. And yet in spite of the fact that there was in the mid 19th century America no stigma attached to being Jewish, she harbored an abiding resentment based on her expressed conviction that personal slights she endured, real or imagined, were related to her ethnicity.

    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jwagner/180117

    Bradish Johnson:

    https://bradishjohnson.com/biography/

    Miss Huddled Masses and her lit’ry effusions were steeped in Tammany Hall, baby.

    http://stevelindsay.net/DickeyLindsay/BRADISH_JOHNSON_AND_ME.pdf

    You can find plenty more on these guys and their 45-year business and family partnership by searching on terms as above.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I really don't understand the animus toward Lazarus. All the stuff that she and her family and her father's WASP partner Johnson did was completely in accord with the business ethics and laws of the time and it is dumb to retcon them to 21st century standards. Emma herself was not involved with the business and can't be blamed for what went on with it even if it was bad.

    Imagine a wealthy young white woman today who gradually becomes aware of the plight of white working class Americans and writes a moving poem or a song about them. Although she grew up in a bubble of privilege distant from their suffering, at some point she recognizes that they are her people and she is moved by their plight and volunteers to teach in Appalachia. Wouldn't you say that's a good thing?

    She is asked to write a poem for free as part of a fund-raiser for the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty. The French donate the statue but leave the erection of the pedestal up to the Americans and the pedestal costs more than the statue to build. She writes the poem and it is quickly forgotten. Soon after that, Lazarus dies at 38 of Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Almost 20 years later, Lazarus's friend Georgina Schuyler, a descendant of the super aristocratic New Amsterdam Dutch Schuyler family (one of the few families in America who could claim to have arrived BEFORE the Lazarus's) began an effort to memorialize her late friend Lazarus and her poem, which succeeded in 1903 when a plaque bearing the text of the poem was put on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. Lazarus was almost 20 years dead at that point and can't be blamed for the placement of the plaque.

    Nor can Schuyler - conditions in America (and in Czarist Russia) in 1903 are very different than they are in 2019. The economy is rapidly industrializing and growing and there is lots of open space and demand for labor. Immigrants are needed to build the railroads and sew the ready made clothing that is being sold at affordable prices in the new department stores. Having more people is considered good by most at the time.

    The problem with Lazarus and her poem is not what she did back then but the spin that is being put on it NOW.
    , @Jack D

    There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World,
     
    Really, no hint? Is this a hint?

    PETER STUYVESANT, MANHATTAN, TO THE AMSTERDAM CHAMBER OF DIRECTORS, SEPTEMBER 22, 1654

    The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry [which takes care of the poor] also fearing that owing to their present indigence [due to the fact that they had been captured and robbed by privateers or pirates] they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and the land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race-such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ-be not allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony, to the detraction of your worships and the dissatisfaction of your worships' most affectionate subjects.
     
    https://www.historycentral.com/TheColonies/Stuyvesatto.html

    (The Directors wrote back that while they would love to accomodate his request, the Company had a lot of Jewish shareholders and no can do. ) However, the Jews were not given permission to build a synagogue for another 75 years .
  96. @M Krauthammar
    Hahaha.
    What's next on your list, Alt Right Losers.
    You guys have lost this war against the tide of color.
    Genetic Extinction from the planet earth is on the horizon for the White Trashionalists.
    I fear that more terrorists like NZ shooter and James Field will emerge who will trybto kill People of Color.
    Alt Right is done and dusted.
    Immigration will increase.
    Open borders will be a reality under any Democrat Presidency.
    Integration will increase.
    Your birth rates in crowded cities will continue to decrease due to a dearth of housing.
    Your women nowadays are more likely to have babies with Black men and Men of Indian descent(this one is empirical observation of mine) than ever before. Have lived in college towns and due to fact that Asian men and White women are overrepresented in their cohorts at colleges, these unions are much more prevelant than many others.
    I don't think there would be any whites left in the near future.
    It's payback time.
    Lol, Enjoy your time and I hope its as miserable as it gets for you and your bigoted descendants.

    Tiny Duck does it better

  97. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Trump is Team White. Period.

    Trump is Team White. Period

    .

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Nothing terrifies the Left more than whites voting like they're an ethnic group.
  98. @Whiskey
    Isn't this a picture of day to day 95% of professional White ladies?

    Elizabeth Warren got in another dig at White men to the delight of every actress ever. Anti White is just another term for Upper class White women.

    The judge is black, not White.

  99. @Alden
    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.

    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.

    Quadroon at most, if at all. Or Jewish. Or some mishmash. Hamilton is a common Scottish name, but it could be her married name.

    Wikipedia classifies her under “African-American judges”, but dammit, she’s paler than me! She does have slightly Carol Channing-like lips, though, and her hair may be treated.

    Evidently, she has a bit of the tar brush, and may be milking it for all that it’s worth. It’s all about “identity”, remember.

    https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/12/29/judge-dismisses-facebook-request-to-drop-class-action-suit-over-scanning-private-messages/u-s-district-judge-phyllis-hamilton-2/

    • Replies: @Alden
    White skin, black brain? Reading those comments about her I realized she was a typical incompetent black.
  100. @S. Anonyia
    Off topic but have you heard about one of the latest race-based controversies? It’s decent material that proves the farce of the Hispanic racial category. A Cuban author and English professor had her book about white privilege assigned to all freshmen at Georgia Southern Univ. She hosted a talk about the book which devolved into a shouting match as some students denied they had privilege, questioned her work etc. Then, before her next talk some students burned her book on a dorm grill. She claimed she was “scared” and moved hotel rooms to another city. A Mexican (actually mestizo) journalist from the Chicago Tribune then writes an article recommending all whites read this woman’s book “Among the Whites.”

    The ridiculous thing about the whole story? Professor Jennine Capo Crucet is WHITE. If she has Indian or SSA blood it’s less than 10 percent, probably less than 5 percent. She looks less exotic than Penelope Cruz and Ted Cruz facially. She has a (likely chemically induced)perm and a tan, but otherwise she is a pretty attractive woman with reddish-brown hair who would be seen as native anywhere in Europe outside of Scandinavia and the Baltic region.

    Good for the students

  101. @jbwilson24
    Emma Lazarus is a great example of Jewish subversion at work. Her little poem has nothing to do with the original intent of the statue whatsoever. As a committed ethno-nationalist for the Jewish people, and hailing from a Sephardic family that was likely neck deep in slavery, she's a good example of Jewish hypocrisy.

    She was descended from the first ship of Jews who arrived in New Amsterdam. 250 years and she wasn’t assimilated but a Zionist.

  102. @Reg Cæsar

    Is she black? Sounds like every black woman government worker in the country.
     
    Quadroon at most, if at all. Or Jewish. Or some mishmash. Hamilton is a common Scottish name, but it could be her married name.

    Wikipedia classifies her under "African-American judges", but dammit, she's paler than me! She does have slightly Carol Channing-like lips, though, and her hair may be treated.

    Evidently, she has a bit of the tar brush, and may be milking it for all that it's worth. It's all about "identity", remember.

    https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2014/12/29/judge-dismisses-facebook-request-to-drop-class-action-suit-over-scanning-private-messages/u-s-district-judge-phyllis-hamilton-2/

    White skin, black brain? Reading those comments about her I realized she was a typical incompetent black.

  103. @Polynikes
    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.

    Oh yea... The presidency itself. The murder rate, ...sorry....I'm just babbling now...

    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.

    The Supreme Court? Kavanaugh (a Bush administration creature), the big cuck, chose exclusively female clerks. I’m sure he’ll be a great conservative jurist in the mold of John Roberts,…….er,……um,……..uh…………….

    The federal judiciary? Well, we’ll see.

    Tax Policy? He implemented the policies of Paul Ryan, not what he himself (Trump, that is) ran on.

    Immigration policy? How about immigration fact. Has there been the slightest decline in immigration since 2016? Legal or illegal?

    I could go on, but I only asked for one…………..and you couldn’t even give me that.

    Trump has been a disaster. He has squandered every opportunity he had.

    • Replies: @Kointel Killah
    Trump is a disaster but you're a little late for the resistance. WaPo stated, "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun", on inauguration day.

    Unfortunately for WaPo, he's filling stadiums, so it doesn't matter what the facts are.

    Final FY 2019 CBP Numbers
    Improvement with no help from a do-nothing Congress and obstreperous courts
    https://cis.org/Arthur/Final-FY-2019-CBP-Numbers

    Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, will face a Republican candidate in a runoff after he failed to get more than 50% in Saturday's "jungle primary;" President Trump had rallied in the state Friday to support the Republican candidates.
    https://nalert.blogspot.com/2019/10/louisiana-gov-john-bel-edwards-democrat.html
  104. @Anonymous
    That the Founding Fathers did not reasonably foresee that there would be especially incompetent or vicious judges would seem a major failing. Ending lifetime tenure for federal judges and providing for the removal of ones found to not have actually committed crimes but who are provably grossly incompetent or stupid or vicious would be a high priority for any political party interested in improved government.

    “We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.” –Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

    “This member of the government… has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    “It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary–an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

    “I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law.” –Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

    “Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments.” –Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341

    • Replies: @Alden
    Wasn’t Jefferson one of the writers of the constitution that gave the judiciary supremacy over the executive and legislative branches?

    I know he was a great admirer of Montesquieu who write a great deal that judicial supremacy was the best system of government.
  105. @Charles Pewitt
    Ann Coulter must have been hiking up some mountains recently because she has fire in her heart and vim and vigor and she is smashing all kinds of Hell out of treasonous Mammonite Ralph Reed and the GOP globalizers who are pushing mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    Ralph Reed is not a Christian, he is a demonic MAMMONITE, but there are plenty of Crybaby Christians who want to kill the USA by flooding the country with mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration.

    DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY!

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!

    https://twitter.com/ColumbiaBugle/status/1182860336434561025?s=20

    A truly great Ann Coulter interview.

    This is the kind of pressure from the right on Mr. All-Tweet-No-Action that is all too lacking. There remains a weird, religion-like aura around the Tweetman (much faded by 2019, but still there) om which people belive he can do no wrong. The 4-D Chess idea.

    If The Tweetman flips and flops, fumbles, flails, and fails, he needs to go. We don’t need a personality cult around Donald “Talk Much, Do Little, Israel First, Highest-Ever Leeeeeegal Immigration” Trump.

    ____________

    Full video:

    Interview starts at 2:15

    Excerpts:

    Interviewer: Let’s just get it out of the way: The Wall. Go!

    Ann Coulter: [Laughs] Well, since the Democrats started their latest impeachment, you may have noticed…I have briefly suspended my daily pointing out that he is not building the Wall.

    This really is madness.

    But two things can be true at the same time. The media must be destroyed, it’s unreformable, they’re lying swine…That can be true, but it can also be true that he has not done one thing for his supporters.

    Interviwer: Let’s talk about the Wall.

    Ann Coulter: I thought I would start slowly…In every rally he sad he would build the Wall. I mean, there were signs, that was the chant; this isn’t some odd little issue Ann came up with…No, that was the theme of his campaign. And what did he do? He got into office and said ‘Oh, no, Mitch McConnell doesn’t want the wall, and I’m not going to hire anyone that would help me build it.’ He’s always had the power to build the Wall.

    Ann Coulter: What separates the “mice from the men” now is figuring out that our entire country is about to be over if we don’t stop immigration. Absolute stop. Deport illegals, build the Wall, go after the ‘refugee’ frauds — Otherwise all of your Congressmen are going to be Ilhan Omar. What are people thinking?!

    And this nonsense that the commander-in-chief comes up with: “Leegal! Lee–gal!” If I hear that one more time… Okay, the lee–gal immigrants he loves so much staged 9-11. They did the Boston Marathon. Ilhan Omar. Lee–gal! Well except her immigration fraud.

    Interviewer: What do you mean? You’re making it sound —

    Ann Coulter: What I mean is the country is ruined one way or another. Just calling them “legal” does not fix the problem. We need a total moratorium.

    Hail to you, Ann Coulter.

    • Agree: Counterinsurgency
  106. @Mr. Anon

    the supreme court, the federal judiciary, tax policy (fucking over the high tax coastal states is awesome), and immigration pokicy. I could go on, but you asked for one.
     
    The Supreme Court? Kavanaugh (a Bush administration creature), the big cuck, chose exclusively female clerks. I'm sure he'll be a great conservative jurist in the mold of John Roberts,.......er,......um,........uh................

    The federal judiciary? Well, we'll see.

    Tax Policy? He implemented the policies of Paul Ryan, not what he himself (Trump, that is) ran on.

    Immigration policy? How about immigration fact. Has there been the slightest decline in immigration since 2016? Legal or illegal?

    I could go on, but I only asked for one..............and you couldn't even give me that.

    Trump has been a disaster. He has squandered every opportunity he had.

    Trump is a disaster but you’re a little late for the resistance. WaPo stated, “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun”, on inauguration day.

    Unfortunately for WaPo, he’s filling stadiums, so it doesn’t matter what the facts are.

    Final FY 2019 CBP Numbers
    Improvement with no help from a do-nothing Congress and obstreperous courts
    https://cis.org/Arthur/Final-FY-2019-CBP-Numbers

    Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, will face a Republican candidate in a runoff after he failed to get more than 50% in Saturday’s “jungle primary;” President Trump had rallied in the state Friday to support the Republican candidates.
    https://nalert.blogspot.com/2019/10/louisiana-gov-john-bel-edwards-democrat.html

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Trump is a disaster but you’re a little late for the resistance. WaPo stated, “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun”, on inauguration day.
     
    I'm not interested in joining "The Resistance" (wasn't that a Star Wars trope?). I voted for him; I just want him to do some of the things he ran on. He hasn't. He isn't. He won't. He is a moron and a blowhard - so he fits in perfectly with the GOP.
  107. It will be overturned on appeal to the “Supremes”…

  108. @istevefan

    It’s done. Trump has my vote. For all those who were considering not voting or voting for some other candidate: the perfect is the enemy of the good. No, trump is not perfect. But he is better than the alternative. He does what he can. They try to thwart everything, no matter how obviously reasonable.
     
    That is basically the logical conclusion to come to.

    There is going to be no new, successful 3rd party. You either have to influence the democrats or the GOP. By quick process of elimination the GOP is the one that is up for grabs. Though the laundry list of things the GOP has done wrong is about the size of the democrat's list, it's our only choice.

    Some will say we can create a third party. But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature. Sort of like how Google was not anywhere near the first search engine, but they still came in relatively early. Now it is nearly impossible for a new search engine to displace them. I know small ones exist, and just like the Libertarians in politics, they pose no threat to the big guys.

    So it's either GOP or democrat. Our gut feeling tells us to stick it to the GOP by not voting and making them suffer loss after loss.

    Wrong answer. That is exactly what the nation wreckers want. Buchanan once used a term called the theory of inevitability in which the Left tries to make you believe that the future is preordained and you should just give up and quit. That would be the worst thing you could do.

    The nation wreckers have spent their lives continually tearing down what we held dear. The last thing you should do is lay down and let them enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just the election of Trump and his choice of Supreme Court justices was enough to interrupt their plans for a while.

    And that is what we have to do. It's like a fighting withdrawal. You have to buy time so that future people will have a better chance. We won't live to see things reversed, but we can greatly help those in the future by just not quitting.

    If you quit and don't vote, you ensure the nation wreckers can have a free hand to do anything they want. Make them work for it. Keep voting. If you think the GOP is failing you, then join their party at the ground level. Most of us just vote and forget about it. How many of us would it take to flood the ranks of the GOP to make real change? At the county and state level it just takes a few diehards to push through their agenda. Look at all the fuss we had during the 2016 GOP primary because of the chance Ted Cruz-type delegates could screw over Trump, especially in the caucus states.

    At times like this I think of the Soviet use of scorched-earth warfare. When they knew they had to retreat and were about to give up a village to the Germans, the Soviets burned it down and destroyed anything of use to deny the Germans the spoils. You have to have that same attitude towards the nation wreckers. The worst thing you can do is just quit and let those who have destroyed our civ enjoy themselves.

    PS. Everything I wrote about voting applies to your discretionary purchases too. Use your economic power as well as the vote to punish your enemies.

    “But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature.”

    The reason the market matured is that we now have one Federal Representative for over 700,000 people. That is FAR fewer reps than any other “democracy.” If we had more reps, then you’d have diversity in Congress.

    The Dems won’t do it because they like having entirely safe districts, with EVERY representative from NYC being a Democrat and only one district possibly Republican in 2020. The Reps won’t do it because the constriction on Representatives favors the small states in the middle, so a vote in Wyoming is much more powerful in the Electoral College than a vote in Kollivornia. It’s been 100 years since Congress expanded last.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    The reason the market matured is that we now have one Federal Representative for over 700,000 people. That is FAR fewer reps than any other “democracy.” If we had more reps, then you’d have diversity in Congress.
     
    The biggest reason we have over 700k people per district is because of the population explosion due to immigration. In 1967 we hit 200 million people. Today we are at 330 with no end in sight. Almost all of this is due to the 60 million post 1965 immigrants and their descendants.
  109. Regarding Ann Coulter’s constant attacks on the President. It’s easy to take pot shots from outside. This woman has never run for any elective office, never mind being an American President and does not seem to understand that you cannot just go in and change everything overnight. We have a system of checks and balances (which the Democrats have been distorting in their favor for years now) and time is needed to make the changes necessary to turn things around….

    Judges at every level have been placed in power by Democrats and Rinos who continuously ignore the law and just rule based on their own politically correct opinion. Every decision, attempt to enforce laws, etc., has been met with a court challenge delaying every single thing the President wants to do by forcing him to take everything to the Supreme Court to get anything done…

    The House of Representatives have had their numbers inflated in Democrat strongholds by including illegals in the census count which allots the numbers of Representatives each state has. Similar to what the South tried to do with counting their slaves in the census in order to place more Southerners in the House. They were limited by the 3/4 rule lessening the impact of counting slaves, who weren’t allowed to vote, but could, by their numbers alone, inflate the Southern wing of the House of Representatives.

    Loony leftist control of all media outlets with few exceptions…

    Additional loony control of just about every educational institution in the country from nursery through college level…

    The President has done a number of things; but, I would challenge anyone else to be able to do anything facing the opposition…even the Republicans have been very wishy washy at times, not to be counted on in a crisis…

    His tweeting, I wish he didn’t have to do it so much since clearly he is not a word smith…but it is necessary for us to know anything that is going on in this country…not the best method of communication or the best communicator but it’s the best we have for now.

    l

  110. @Moses

    Trump is Team White. Period
     
    .

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    Nothing terrifies the Left more than whites voting like they’re an ethnic group.

  111. @Olorin

    Emma Lazarus grew up a non-observant Jew and sugar refinery heiress in an elite New York family. There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World, and in fact they came to North America not from Europe but from Brazil. Her father, who traced his Colonial pedigree to New Amsterdam in 1654, was a man of extravagant wealth who hobnobbed with the likes of Vanderbilts and Astors. He was a member of the exclusive Union Club and a founder of the prestigious Knickerbocker Club.

    The source of the family's hereditary wealth is not entirely clear, but it is known that Moses Lazarus held a partnership in a Louisiana plantation and was thus an absentee slaveholder. It is recorded that "Magnolia Plantation" had a reputation for extreme cruelty – so much so that in 1863 many of its slaves begged to enlist in the Confederate Army. And yet Moses Lazarus remained connected to the plantation throughout the Civil War years. His related processing operation on 16th Street in New York City included a "distillery of spirits." The swill that was a byproduct of this venture was fed to cattle at his adjoining dairy, an enterprise so unsanitary, according to an 1853 New York Times article entitled "Death in a Jug," as to cause the deaths of eight thousand of the city's children every year.

    Young Ms Lazarus, a denizen of uptown Manhattan, was well connected, both politically and socially. Her first cousin, Benjamin Cardozo, was a Supreme Court Justice. Her maternal uncle was the president of the New York Stock Exchange, and an uncle on her father's side a renowned portrait artist. The beneficiary of an elite private education, Emma was lettered in music, arts, literature and languages. Her father paid for the publication of her early poetry, through which she met, at the tender age of nineteen, such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson. Among her other intimate correspondents were Turgenev, Henry James, Robert Browning and James Russell Lowell, all among the most prestigious writers of her age.

    Emma's life was one of ease. She enjoyed a summer cottage (that is, a mansion) in Newport Rhode Island with the rest of fashionable society, and though ethnically Jewish, moved in the highest circles of Christian blue blood. She never spent an instant of her life in poverty, or for that matter as one of the "teeming masses yearning to breathe free," and her only connection to the working class was her oft repeated complaint over "the wretched quality of work performed by the vast majority of American mechanics and domestic servants." Notwithstanding Obama's wistful hagiography, Emma Lazarus certainly never championed "health care" or public housing. She enjoyed critical acclaim as a poet and author from her earliest years, and circulated among the great literary lights of her generation. And yet in spite of the fact that there was in the mid 19th century America no stigma attached to being Jewish, she harbored an abiding resentment based on her expressed conviction that personal slights she endured, real or imagined, were related to her ethnicity.
     
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jwagner/180117

    Bradish Johnson:

    https://bradishjohnson.com/biography/

    Miss Huddled Masses and her lit'ry effusions were steeped in Tammany Hall, baby.

    http://stevelindsay.net/DickeyLindsay/BRADISH_JOHNSON_AND_ME.pdf

    You can find plenty more on these guys and their 45-year business and family partnership by searching on terms as above.

    I really don’t understand the animus toward Lazarus. All the stuff that she and her family and her father’s WASP partner Johnson did was completely in accord with the business ethics and laws of the time and it is dumb to retcon them to 21st century standards. Emma herself was not involved with the business and can’t be blamed for what went on with it even if it was bad.

    Imagine a wealthy young white woman today who gradually becomes aware of the plight of white working class Americans and writes a moving poem or a song about them. Although she grew up in a bubble of privilege distant from their suffering, at some point she recognizes that they are her people and she is moved by their plight and volunteers to teach in Appalachia. Wouldn’t you say that’s a good thing?

    She is asked to write a poem for free as part of a fund-raiser for the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty. The French donate the statue but leave the erection of the pedestal up to the Americans and the pedestal costs more than the statue to build. She writes the poem and it is quickly forgotten. Soon after that, Lazarus dies at 38 of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Almost 20 years later, Lazarus’s friend Georgina Schuyler, a descendant of the super aristocratic New Amsterdam Dutch Schuyler family (one of the few families in America who could claim to have arrived BEFORE the Lazarus’s) began an effort to memorialize her late friend Lazarus and her poem, which succeeded in 1903 when a plaque bearing the text of the poem was put on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. Lazarus was almost 20 years dead at that point and can’t be blamed for the placement of the plaque.

    Nor can Schuyler – conditions in America (and in Czarist Russia) in 1903 are very different than they are in 2019. The economy is rapidly industrializing and growing and there is lots of open space and demand for labor. Immigrants are needed to build the railroads and sew the ready made clothing that is being sold at affordable prices in the new department stores. Having more people is considered good by most at the time.

    The problem with Lazarus and her poem is not what she did back then but the spin that is being put on it NOW.

  112. @Olorin

    Emma Lazarus grew up a non-observant Jew and sugar refinery heiress in an elite New York family. There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World, and in fact they came to North America not from Europe but from Brazil. Her father, who traced his Colonial pedigree to New Amsterdam in 1654, was a man of extravagant wealth who hobnobbed with the likes of Vanderbilts and Astors. He was a member of the exclusive Union Club and a founder of the prestigious Knickerbocker Club.

    The source of the family's hereditary wealth is not entirely clear, but it is known that Moses Lazarus held a partnership in a Louisiana plantation and was thus an absentee slaveholder. It is recorded that "Magnolia Plantation" had a reputation for extreme cruelty – so much so that in 1863 many of its slaves begged to enlist in the Confederate Army. And yet Moses Lazarus remained connected to the plantation throughout the Civil War years. His related processing operation on 16th Street in New York City included a "distillery of spirits." The swill that was a byproduct of this venture was fed to cattle at his adjoining dairy, an enterprise so unsanitary, according to an 1853 New York Times article entitled "Death in a Jug," as to cause the deaths of eight thousand of the city's children every year.

    Young Ms Lazarus, a denizen of uptown Manhattan, was well connected, both politically and socially. Her first cousin, Benjamin Cardozo, was a Supreme Court Justice. Her maternal uncle was the president of the New York Stock Exchange, and an uncle on her father's side a renowned portrait artist. The beneficiary of an elite private education, Emma was lettered in music, arts, literature and languages. Her father paid for the publication of her early poetry, through which she met, at the tender age of nineteen, such luminaries as Ralph Waldo Emerson. Among her other intimate correspondents were Turgenev, Henry James, Robert Browning and James Russell Lowell, all among the most prestigious writers of her age.

    Emma's life was one of ease. She enjoyed a summer cottage (that is, a mansion) in Newport Rhode Island with the rest of fashionable society, and though ethnically Jewish, moved in the highest circles of Christian blue blood. She never spent an instant of her life in poverty, or for that matter as one of the "teeming masses yearning to breathe free," and her only connection to the working class was her oft repeated complaint over "the wretched quality of work performed by the vast majority of American mechanics and domestic servants." Notwithstanding Obama's wistful hagiography, Emma Lazarus certainly never championed "health care" or public housing. She enjoyed critical acclaim as a poet and author from her earliest years, and circulated among the great literary lights of her generation. And yet in spite of the fact that there was in the mid 19th century America no stigma attached to being Jewish, she harbored an abiding resentment based on her expressed conviction that personal slights she endured, real or imagined, were related to her ethnicity.
     
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/jwagner/180117

    Bradish Johnson:

    https://bradishjohnson.com/biography/

    Miss Huddled Masses and her lit'ry effusions were steeped in Tammany Hall, baby.

    http://stevelindsay.net/DickeyLindsay/BRADISH_JOHNSON_AND_ME.pdf

    You can find plenty more on these guys and their 45-year business and family partnership by searching on terms as above.

    There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World,

    Really, no hint? Is this a hint?

    PETER STUYVESANT, MANHATTAN, TO THE AMSTERDAM CHAMBER OF DIRECTORS, SEPTEMBER 22, 1654

    The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry [which takes care of the poor] also fearing that owing to their present indigence [due to the fact that they had been captured and robbed by privateers or pirates] they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and the land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race-such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ-be not allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony, to the detraction of your worships and the dissatisfaction of your worships’ most affectionate subjects.

    https://www.historycentral.com/TheColonies/Stuyvesatto.html

    (The Directors wrote back that while they would love to accomodate his request, the Company had a lot of Jewish shareholders and no can do. ) However, the Jews were not given permission to build a synagogue for another 75 years .

    • Replies: @Alden
    It’s just the truth about Jewish behavior. And 250 years later Emma wasn’t an American she was an ardent Zionist. Wretched refuse what an accurate description.
  113. @Precious
    But keep voting GOP

    I don't vote GOP, but I do vote Trump...

    Trump just quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%

    With one proclamation signed late Friday evening last week, President Donald Trump made his adviser Stephen Miller’s dreams of restricting legal immigration a reality.

    When it goes into effect November 3, the proclamation will make getting into the US much harder for immigrants sponsored by family members, the phenomenon Trump has excoriated as “chain migration.” It will throw up a barrier to those coming through the diversity visa lottery — the subject of Trump’s “shithole countries” rant — which allows the US to accept 55,000 immigrants annually from countries with historically low levels of immigration.

    Researchers estimate it could keep up to two-thirds of future immigrants out who would be admitted under current law.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/10/9/20903541/trump-proclamation-legal-immigration-health-insurance

    Just like his other immigration executive orders, this one is sure to be challenged in court. Just this week there were several challenges to the “public charge” executive order that was due to go into effect this week.

    I hope to God one or both of these executive orders can get past the Supreme Court but the case will probably be heard and decided after next year’s election.

    Governing by executive order because you can’t get anything through Congress is very frustrating and undesirable. Obama did it, Trump does it and whoever wins the 2020 election will end up doing it too.

    I am mostly an immigration voter when it comes to the presidential election. I am not sure Trump will end up having any real accomplishments on immigration by next November. I just hope none of those temporary work visa bills pass. There is a lot of pressure from people in both parties to increase the number of foreign workers coming in.

  114. @istevefan

    I think there’s definitely room for a third party to start — but it will be one that probably replaces the GOP.
     
    If people with our views won't join the GOP to try to influence its platform, what makes you think they will participate in a third party?

    Oh, they might vote for that party like they currently vote GOP, but as we have seen over and over, voting alone does not ensure the party follows the agenda. If people don't actively join your hypothetical third party and advocate from the inside, there is no way your agenda is carried out.

    And if people are willing to join your party, then why the won't they join the GOP and take advantage of existing infrastructure? Far easier to do that than recreate the wheel.

    I think the GOP isn’t going to change enough to appeal to younger voters who aren’t as conservative and who aren’t white.

    The third party I envision won’t be small government conservative or libertarian when it comes to economic issues and while it will want less immigration, it will be more open to nonwhites.

    I think a lot of nonwhites just won’t join the Republican Party. Once whites are less than 50% of the population, a major party that can’t attract nonwhites won’t be a major party anymore.

    There will have to be a place for the die-hard Republicans who don’t want to spend money on things every other rich nation does and is almost all white. The people who want a more conservative party than the Democrats are going to have to create a new party on their own.

    • Replies: @istevefan

    The third party I envision won’t be small government conservative or libertarian when it comes to economic issues and while it will want less immigration, it will be more open to nonwhites.
     
    So long as people only vote for such a party, and not actively join, they will suffer the same fate. They will vote for X and get Y. If more people joined GOP, they could force their will upon it. If your new party has the same low active member rate as the GOP, it will not do as its voters want, but rather what the few diehards and donors want.
  115. @TomSchmidt
    "But that window has closed because the US political market is fully developed into a duopoly for better or worse. And just as business markets can accommodate newcomers for a while, the time comes when newcomers will have almost insurmountable hurdles to join the market.

    People will point out the GOP was a third party. This is true. But they came in near the ground floor before the market was mature."

    The reason the market matured is that we now have one Federal Representative for over 700,000 people. That is FAR fewer reps than any other "democracy." If we had more reps, then you'd have diversity in Congress.

    The Dems won't do it because they like having entirely safe districts, with EVERY representative from NYC being a Democrat and only one district possibly Republican in 2020. The Reps won't do it because the constriction on Representatives favors the small states in the middle, so a vote in Wyoming is much more powerful in the Electoral College than a vote in Kollivornia. It's been 100 years since Congress expanded last.

    The reason the market matured is that we now have one Federal Representative for over 700,000 people. That is FAR fewer reps than any other “democracy.” If we had more reps, then you’d have diversity in Congress.

    The biggest reason we have over 700k people per district is because of the population explosion due to immigration. In 1967 we hit 200 million people. Today we are at 330 with no end in sight. Almost all of this is due to the 60 million post 1965 immigrants and their descendants.

  116. @notsaying
    I think the GOP isn't going to change enough to appeal to younger voters who aren't as conservative and who aren't white.

    The third party I envision won't be small government conservative or libertarian when it comes to economic issues and while it will want less immigration, it will be more open to nonwhites.

    I think a lot of nonwhites just won't join the Republican Party. Once whites are less than 50% of the population, a major party that can't attract nonwhites won't be a major party anymore.

    There will have to be a place for the die-hard Republicans who don't want to spend money on things every other rich nation does and is almost all white. The people who want a more conservative party than the Democrats are going to have to create a new party on their own.

    The third party I envision won’t be small government conservative or libertarian when it comes to economic issues and while it will want less immigration, it will be more open to nonwhites.

    So long as people only vote for such a party, and not actively join, they will suffer the same fate. They will vote for X and get Y. If more people joined GOP, they could force their will upon it. If your new party has the same low active member rate as the GOP, it will not do as its voters want, but rather what the few diehards and donors want.

  117. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    So long as people only vote for such a party, and not actively join, they will suffer the same fate. They will vote for X and get Y. If more people joined GOP, they could force their will upon it. If your new party has the same low active member rate as the GOP, it will not do as its voters want, but rather what the few diehards and donors want.

    One generally does not “join the GOP”, one registers as a Republican, or as a member of another party or as an independent. i am registered as a Republican, but that doesn’t mean I’ve “joined the GOP”.

    I could also contribute to or volunteer to work for the RNC, but I don’t see where one can “join” them, unlike say the Libertarian Party which solicits people to formally join at a national party level.

  118. @Kointel Killah
    "We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

    "This member of the government... has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining, slyly, and without alarm, the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

    "It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,... that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary--an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:331

    "I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

    "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341

    Wasn’t Jefferson one of the writers of the constitution that gave the judiciary supremacy over the executive and legislative branches?

    I know he was a great admirer of Montesquieu who write a great deal that judicial supremacy was the best system of government.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Dear God know! You impugn the man twice: although he had some say in its final form (though not particularly more than others), the federal constitution was a creature primarily of Madison's (Jefferson's quite different approach can be seen in his contributions to arrangements in Virginia's government). What's more, the federal constitution by no means grants the judiciary "supremacy" over the executive and legislature. Quite the opposite: the legislature has enormous power, the executive significantly less except in foreign affairs (though even then checked in matters of war, treaties, and budgets by the legislature). The judiciary of the original constitution was little more than a supreme court to umpire the expected discord here and there among states and such. Only after abrogating to itself sua sponte and ad libitum (as Jefferson rightly observed) in its opinions upon Marbury and later unconscionably tyrannical mischaracterisations of the so-called "commerce clause" and "Fourteenth Amendment" did the kind of unchecked "supremacy" now seen become ensconced – just as the great man predicted it would do....
  119. @Jack D

    There is no hint that her ancestors were persecuted at any time in the New World,
     
    Really, no hint? Is this a hint?

    PETER STUYVESANT, MANHATTAN, TO THE AMSTERDAM CHAMBER OF DIRECTORS, SEPTEMBER 22, 1654

    The Jews who have arrived would nearly all like to remain here, but learning that they (with their customary usury and deceitful trading with the Christians) were very repugnant to the inferior magistrates, as also to the people having the most affection for you; the Deaconry [which takes care of the poor] also fearing that owing to their present indigence [due to the fact that they had been captured and robbed by privateers or pirates] they might become a charge in the coming winter, we have, for the benefit of this weak and newly developing place and the land in general, deemed it useful to require them in a friendly way to depart; praying also most seriously in this connection, for ourselves as also for the general community of your worships, that the deceitful race-such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ-be not allowed further to infect and trouble this new colony, to the detraction of your worships and the dissatisfaction of your worships' most affectionate subjects.
     
    https://www.historycentral.com/TheColonies/Stuyvesatto.html

    (The Directors wrote back that while they would love to accomodate his request, the Company had a lot of Jewish shareholders and no can do. ) However, the Jews were not given permission to build a synagogue for another 75 years .

    It’s just the truth about Jewish behavior. And 250 years later Emma wasn’t an American she was an ardent Zionist. Wretched refuse what an accurate description.

    • Agree: BB753
  120. @M Krauthammar
    Hahaha.
    What's next on your list, Alt Right Losers.
    You guys have lost this war against the tide of color.
    Genetic Extinction from the planet earth is on the horizon for the White Trashionalists.
    I fear that more terrorists like NZ shooter and James Field will emerge who will trybto kill People of Color.
    Alt Right is done and dusted.
    Immigration will increase.
    Open borders will be a reality under any Democrat Presidency.
    Integration will increase.
    Your birth rates in crowded cities will continue to decrease due to a dearth of housing.
    Your women nowadays are more likely to have babies with Black men and Men of Indian descent(this one is empirical observation of mine) than ever before. Have lived in college towns and due to fact that Asian men and White women are overrepresented in their cohorts at colleges, these unions are much more prevelant than many others.
    I don't think there would be any whites left in the near future.
    It's payback time.
    Lol, Enjoy your time and I hope its as miserable as it gets for you and your bigoted descendants.

    On the Unz Review website, commenter M Krauthammar once left a comment that was mostly identical to a comment previously left by commenter Saira Rao.

    Also, Saira Rao had in the past declared in a comment:

    Paul Kersey, you live in Colorado, that is my state and we shall never tolerate bigots like you in my state of Colorado. It is full of White bigots like you and I found it when they voted for a White woman over me during Democratic primaries.

    The thing is, there really is a Saira Rao who lost in a Democratic primary in Colorado and went on to denounce white people:

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/03/democrat-congress-hates-white-people-america/

    One of M Krauthammar’s previous incarnations, Michael Krauthammer, had claimed to be from Colorado, as had likewise Mike Krauthammer.

    https://twitter.com/sairasameerarao?lang=en

  121. @Kointel Killah
    Trump is a disaster but you're a little late for the resistance. WaPo stated, "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun", on inauguration day.

    Unfortunately for WaPo, he's filling stadiums, so it doesn't matter what the facts are.

    Final FY 2019 CBP Numbers
    Improvement with no help from a do-nothing Congress and obstreperous courts
    https://cis.org/Arthur/Final-FY-2019-CBP-Numbers

    Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, will face a Republican candidate in a runoff after he failed to get more than 50% in Saturday's "jungle primary;" President Trump had rallied in the state Friday to support the Republican candidates.
    https://nalert.blogspot.com/2019/10/louisiana-gov-john-bel-edwards-democrat.html

    Trump is a disaster but you’re a little late for the resistance. WaPo stated, “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun”, on inauguration day.

    I’m not interested in joining “The Resistance” (wasn’t that a Star Wars trope?). I voted for him; I just want him to do some of the things he ran on. He hasn’t. He isn’t. He won’t. He is a moron and a blowhard – so he fits in perfectly with the GOP.

  122. @Alden
    That’s English Common Law intended by the founders. First case was Marbury vs Madison 1804. It established the precedent of judicial supremacy. We really don’t need referendums and elected legislatures any more to make laws.

    Just plaintiffs and respondent/defendants in court. Let the judge make a new law or overturn an older law or regulation.

    That’s English Common Law intended by the founders. First case was Marbury vs Madison 1804. It established the precedent of judicial supremacy.

    It established Constitutional supremacy, not judicial supremacy.

  123. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Trump is Team White. Period.

    “Trump is Team White. Period.”

    Patently false. Trump is about his team and how much he can grift. Start paying closer attention, son.

  124. @Alden
    Wasn’t Jefferson one of the writers of the constitution that gave the judiciary supremacy over the executive and legislative branches?

    I know he was a great admirer of Montesquieu who write a great deal that judicial supremacy was the best system of government.

    Dear God know! You impugn the man twice: although he had some say in its final form (though not particularly more than others), the federal constitution was a creature primarily of Madison’s (Jefferson’s quite different approach can be seen in his contributions to arrangements in Virginia’s government). What’s more, the federal constitution by no means grants the judiciary “supremacy” over the executive and legislature. Quite the opposite: the legislature has enormous power, the executive significantly less except in foreign affairs (though even then checked in matters of war, treaties, and budgets by the legislature). The judiciary of the original constitution was little more than a supreme court to umpire the expected discord here and there among states and such. Only after abrogating to itself sua sponte and ad libitum (as Jefferson rightly observed) in its opinions upon Marbury and later unconscionably tyrannical mischaracterisations of the so-called “commerce clause” and “Fourteenth Amendment” did the kind of unchecked “supremacy” now seen become ensconced – just as the great man predicted it would do….

  125. @Anonymous
    I seem to remember a certain federal judge in Texas who loved to gloat as he sentenced hapless doofuses to maximum terms.

    I think somebody did something. They weren’t very smart about it, but none the less, he was not gloating any more.

    Not that I advocate anything like that, but it does seem like karma can be a nasty old bitch.

    Woody Harrelson’s dad.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He wasn't very smart about it, indeed. He kept the rifle. How stupid do you have to be?

    If they hadn't found the rifle and he'd lawyered up and kept his mouth shut, he would have probably walked.
  126. @Alden
    Good for you. Too many conservatives just don’t understand that the judges aren’t rogues. The constitution was written for judicial supremacy. Judicial supremacy was intended and the precedent was set in stone by Marbury vs Madison 1804. Louisiana Slaughterhouses 1870s was the absolute worse judicial decision ever. It set the precedent for one sissy city boy judge to forbid clearing brush and dead trees causing disasterous wild fires all over the west.

    Look what just 2 decisions, Brown vs Topeka and Griggs vs Duke Power did to every White person in America. Who cares about gay marriage? Idiot conservatives. I care about jobs loans contracts for Whites and civilized black free schools. I honestly won’t be surprised if some judge orders every White person in America slaughtered and bulldozed into mass graves.

    The constitution was written for judicial supremacy.

    I disagree. I think the founders intended Congress to be first among equals. But Congress has delegated much of its authority to the administrative state and is happy to let SCOTUS decide thorny social issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. So much easier than actually, you know, having to vote on anything.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  127. @Jim Don Bob
    Woody Harrelson's dad.

    He wasn’t very smart about it, indeed. He kept the rifle. How stupid do you have to be?

    If they hadn’t found the rifle and he’d lawyered up and kept his mouth shut, he would have probably walked.

  128. @Lot
    “Trump loses, wretched refuse wins!”

    Steve’s been a roll this week.

    At least one of the 5 GOP supreme court members is signaling he won’t quickly reverse these awful and 100% predictable nationwide injunctions. Only Alito and Thomas have been 100% rock solid over a long period, so I suspect one of the other three. Kav also seems unlikely, but who knows.

    There is a way you can go straight to the Supreme Court to stay an injunction or any decision. Remember how fast Bush v Gore got to the Supreme Court?

    It also wouldn’t be hard at all for the GOP justices to stop all these cases by limiting standing for these cases: 1. National security based travel bans are not subject to court review, just like you can’t sue Trump because you don’t like his Syria policy. 2. Definitely reject the idea that “das raciss” can ever be the basis of reversing a President’s immigration decisions.

    Meanwhile, the Supreme Court fails the nation deciding one stupid low-stakes case after another and letting these lawless national injunctions stand for months or longer, and only finally stopping them on a case by case basis.

    Failing to block these injunctions is a stain on the Supreme Court. Under Obama, it was the executive branch letting immigration crimes go unpunished. At least there is a tradition for prosecutorial discretion this followed. But to have single trial level judge dictate national immigration policy, in particular mass illegal migration at invasion/demographic levels, and which the President is putting in policies to stop—John Roberts is responsible for this travesty.

    As an example of John Roberts’s higher priorities than restraining these judges, here’s the most recently argued case:

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this, with the phrase getting one meaning in New York and another in Hawai’i.

    “Issue: Whether the phrase “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.“

    Ohhh, sounds important! Think of how horrible it would be if there were a Circuit split on this,

    There can’t be a circuit split on patent cases because all patent cases can be appealed only in the Federal Circuit, the most corrupt and self-dealing of all the federal courts. Therefore the Supremes have to monitor patent cases closely or else the entire economy collapses in a mess of monopolies and insider conspiracies against the public. It has been so since Reagan approved this system in 1982.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS