The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Judge Finds That Trump's New Immigration / Travel EO Violates Zeroth Amendment

Screenshot 2017-03-15 16.43.53

Here’s the Washington Post’s headline above, complete with Shephard Fairey’s sexy Orientalist American flag hijab that fashionably covers up a few extra pound so that when Houellebecq’s Submission happens to America, a lot of feminists will be pleased, they presume, because all those slender bitches who diet won’t be able to flaunt it anymore.

And that’s what really matters: our culture must be completely reorganized so that each female activist’s or pundit’s personal hotness rating will be maximized. Sure, burkas might seem a little extreme, but …

I’m not making up just how crazy the Conventional Wisdom is getting …

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. I’m SO glad there’s at least one judge who respects the zeroth amendment. What would happen if President Trump ordered ICE employees to enforce it anyway? (Since he seems to be in an Andrew Jackson state of mind).

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    I've been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I've seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it's for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place - a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn't (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn't the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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 once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/judge-says-trumps-immigration-travel-eo-violates-zeroth-amendment/#comment-1801664
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anyone else assuming that a gigantic smack down by Trump of these moron judges is coming at some point soon? It’s completely insane that random federal judges can seize control of national border control issues and pretty sure it’s blatantly unlawful too (though IANAL). I’ve been figuring that Trump is biding his time and will unleash hell when he’s ready. Maybe after Gorsuch is in?

    Read More
    • Agree: Abe
    • Replies: @Tom-in-VA
    I think that you are right. It's important that Gorsuch be confirmed and then Trump can push his agenda harder.
    , @RadicalCenter
    People no longer need to make the disclaimer, "I'm not a lawyer", when discussing the fundamentals of the US constitution.

    Talk to lawyers -- here in LA and other alien leftist cities, but elsewhere too -- and it becomes readily apparent that most of them don't know a damn thing about the Constitution and don't care. Same with federal judges. They are indifferent or hostile to the constitution both on and off the bench.

    Not being a lawyer might make you better qualified to interpret the constitution, or at least more trustworthy.
  3. One way or another, the progressives in the judiciary and the civil service are going to do things as they see fit.

    Read More
  4. A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended.

    I realize it’s extremely unlikely that anything like this will happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    4 Frau Katze > A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended

    As I understand it - it's not statutory law at all.

    Stopping it will merely require the same actions as those required to decide, which is the "National Butterfly"
    , @Karl
    4 Frau Katze > A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended

    As I understand it - it's not statutory law at all.

    Stopping it will merely require the same actions as those required to decide, which is the "National Butterfly"
    , @NOTA
    Judicial review of laws is useful to congress--they know they can punt unpopular or politically difficult issues to the courts instead of having to take the heat for them.
    , @RadicalCenter
    At least a statute stripping the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over any immigration and border matters entirely.

    And an end to life tenure for fed judges.

    Those two measures would be a great start.
  5. It seems that Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings start in less than a week.

    He has impressive credentials, it seems.

    Read More
  6. Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies is taking a very dovish position on DACA. They propose trading full citizenship to DACA foreign nationals for E-Verify and Cotton’s bill.

    With a Republican Congress and Trump momentum, my sense is it would not be necessary to trade anything for E-Verify and Cotton’s bill, which is too permissive of legal immigration to start with.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Ed
    I've said they should do this all along, leverage DREAMers in exchange for lasting changes to legal immigration.

    I'd throw in birthright citizenship too. This is the Right's best change to reverse or halt Ted Kennedy's eternal gift to the USA.
    , @Lot
    You overstate how many Republicans in Congress we have on our side. More than a third of Senate GOPers are in the Rubio/McCain block.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.
  7. The Republican Party has it in its power to realign the Supreme Court. Let us hope that they do it.

    Read More
  8. This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn’t have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn’t have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It’s Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Amasius
    Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet. We're probably not even at the Julius Caesar/Augustus phase-- Trump is more like Marius or Sulla unless he winds up rising to the occasion. We only started bringing in the global external proletariat in large numbers starting in 1965 while Rome brought in foreign slaves for centuries (screwing their own people who actually built the empire like our oligarchs are doing now). There is a LOT of ruin in a nation.

    But yeah, White America is done barring a miracle.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Per Wikipedia, the judge was confirmed by a 94-0 vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Watson#Federal_judicial_service

    Problem seems to GOPs ceded control of the judiciary over the years, perhaps naively assuming that Dem judges would adhere to our overrated and vaguely worded Constitution. Surprise!
    , @Jonathan Mason

    it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.
     
    Alright, but if the President decides to exercise his right that he is not going to allow, for example, foreign born wives of US citizens who are mothers of US citizens to live in the US, then to be constitutional he needs to make the ban across the board of all countries, races, and religions and not discriminate randomly against, say, marriages where the US citizen is white and the incoming spouse black, otherwise he will be in contravention of numerous Supreme Court rulings on marriage, sanctity and importance thereof.

    The original list of Seven Naughty Nations included Iraq, which has now been removed from the list as it has come into compliance with US immigration requirements. So what exactly did Iraq do to come into compliance, and what are the other nations required to do to come into compliance that every other nation in the world is already doing, but they are not? Why is Mr. Trump not honest about this?

    What ARE the standards required?

    I know people are coming in from Haiti both as undocumented refugees who have thrown away their passports arriving at the southern border, usually traveling from Brazil, and directly from Haiti and the Dominican Republic as wives, husbands, and immigrant workers with visas. Yet I personally would not trust a birth certificate or police certificate of good conduct from Haiti at all, as these things can easily be obtained with a small bribe if they do not exist, and anyway the police have no computerized records, and many original birth certificates are hand written and were registered long after the birth.

    There are many other countries that are also not on the naughty step that are similarly unreliable. Why is Pakistan not on the list? Isn't that the nation that gave shelter to Osama bin Laden and provided the genetic material for the London Underground bombers?

    This is why the courts are interfering. If Trump wants to exercise his right to interdict travel to the US to keep us all safe from terrorists, he should ban entry for ALL citizens of all countries including airline pilots and crew, Canadian businessmen and computer programmers on H-1 visas and Mexican wives, who could easily be terrorists in disguise, then no one can say that he is discriminating against any US citizen's rights based on race, religion, or place of origin.

    , @The Anti-Gnostic

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.
     
    A process has been set in motion which will eventually lead to people asking why we ever let these black-robed bureaucrats tell us what we can and cannot do in the political realm. When it becomes clear that the managerial state won't let voters change the government, opportunistic demagogues will seize territories and write their own charters for governance. Then it will be about ownership, not democracy, and judges will only be consulted to construe land grants and other contracts instead of abstract concepts like "equal protection." The objects of future jurisprudence will be about owners, tenants, and trespassers, not citizens and not the global "persons" who enjoy the infinite protections of the omnipotent 14th Amendment.

    Neo-feudalism, and it is coming whether the statists or even the anarcho-capitalists themselves like it or not.
    , @Bill
    It isn't any more insane than Wickard v. Filburn or Roe v. Wade or school busing. There is nothing new here. This is not a new low. Nobody is going to revolt over it. It makes a tiny little cadre of sperged-out policy wonks (me, for example, and, I guess, you) angry, but that's it.

    Nope, the ride goes all the way down, and we have to ride it all the way down.

    Did you know South Africa has concentration camps for whites? I guess if it was OK for the British to do it, it's OK for the ANC to do it.
  9. Ugh. the comments section on that Wapo story is unbearable. The way their comments section is designed makes it impossible to have an actual conversation, so it’s just a couple thousand posts by crowing leftists, congratulating themselves on their superiority.

    Read More
  10. @Tom-in-VA
    I'm SO glad there's at least one judge who respects the zeroth amendment. What would happen if President Trump ordered ICE employees to enforce it anyway? (Since he seems to be in an Andrew Jackson state of mind).

    I’ve been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I’ve seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it’s for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place – a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn’t (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    I’ve been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
     
    It's called "judicial activism." Judges -- well, they judge things. And while they're supposed to be bound by Federal Rules of Procedure and by precedent, they still have a lot of discretion.

    That being said, in all probability these District Court judges certainly know that their rulings are likely to get slapped down by an appellate court. They issue them anyway, because they're gaming the legal system to play politics against Trump.

    So, let's say a District Court judge issues a national injunction against the Executive Branch. Two things to remember -- they're not ruling on the law or the merits of the case, it's a discretionary, procedural ruling. The actual merits of the case will be litigated at a later date, maybe six months or more. In the meantime they score a political victory by shutting down the Executive Branch.

    Secondly, the procedural ruling itself will be appealed, and though an appellate court might strike it, it could play also politics and let the injunction stay in effect until the actual trial, which as mentioned above may be months if not more. That's exactly what happened with the first Trump Executive Order -- the Ninth Circuit declined to overturn it.

    Judges (and lawyers) of the political Left always game the rules of the system to screw their opponents. If conservatives pass a law restricting, say, abortion or immigration or gay marriage, they'll issue an injunction in about 10 seconds flat. But when the Left passes laws banning guns or requiring transgender rights, they simply allow it to stay in effect while it gets litigated and appealed for years on end and ultimately drowned in the swamp of legal procedure.

    , @(((Owen)))

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?
     
    No. Federal judges have plenary power over the United States. As Claude asks, yes, any federal judge in Arkansas or anywhere could just issue an order in any case prohibiting all immigration into the USA any time he feels the urge to do so.

    The restraint on the power of a judge is that any one judge that gets out of line would be reversed by a higher court. If he keeps issuing rulings that judges in general object to, the higher courts will start issuing quick emergency reversals all the time. Eventually they can illustrate to Congress that the out of line judge should be removed for bad behavior. Only by impeachment can a judge be removed.

    But there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent or the law. That is a social shaming convention among judges that any one judge can choose to ignore at the risk of unpopularity and reversals by the court of appeals above him.

    And all US federal judges have a court above them to reverse rulings, except the Supreme Court which has nine members on every case to dilute any one outlier.

    The problem here arises because there is a culture among intellectuals of finding Trump to be illigitimate. Once the judges agree not to shame each other for ruling contrary to the law, there is no restraint on what they can do. That's why judges generally obey the law even with congresses and presidents they hate. Judges finding themselves above the law are quickly knocked down by their colleagues because they are threatening the very integrity of the nation.

    The rapidity with which intellectual culture has turned so hard against the American nation and her people is stunning and the open contempt for us and courting of Constitutional crisis is amazing. But there they are. Under the system we have, we have little defense against them.

    It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Federal Circuit is considered the most corrupt court in the country and routinely reverses Supreme Court rulings. The chief judge had to resign under corruption investigation a couple years ago. The judges rule in their own personal professional interest regularly. It costs the tech industry tens of billions of dollars every year. And there just isn't much anyone can do about it. But CAFC rulings are limited to a few specific jurisdictions.

    It's unclear if the Supreme Court would even reverse this care with Gorsuch. Kennedy, Gorsuch, and Roberts have potential to help lead a Never Trump revolt of the judiciary against the Constitutional order. They seem to care a lot more about elite opinion than they do about America.

    There are a few wrinkles here. The judge's ruling suspending the order mainly affects visa issuance and that happens outside the USA. Judges don't have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, visa issuance is discretionary so the judge can't order that all visas be issued; Trump can just order that State employees issuing visas badly be disciplined and dismissed, implicitly enforcing the order with no reversible order issued.

    And let's not get too excited about the order in the first place. This is not the Moslem ban we were promised and that we need so badly. Syria and Libya and Somalia aren't getting many visas in the first place. Iranian Moslems are among the least troublesome in the world (They're much more like smarter Indonesians than they are like low-IQ and violent Saudis or Somalis). America shouldn't be taking in any Moslem immigrants at all. Zero is the goal. This is more like a five percent cut from absurdly high disaster levels. It's like hiring two guys with buckets and saying the Oroville Dam crisis is fixed.

    Trump isn't even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We'll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won't build us the new high speed rail line we need.
    , @Lot
    If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we'd one case per the 150 or so judicial districts. If it is a hot enough issue that the lower judges disagree, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

    This is how we stopped the massive DAPA amnesty. It is content, not procedure, that the judge got wrong. Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban.
    , @Eagle Eye
    (1) Allowing a single puisne (i.e. inferior, pronounced "puny") judge to hold the Executive Branch hostage on a fundamental matter of national security is simply insane. It does not matter whether the judge is debauched, bribed, or suffering from delusions of grandeur.

    At a minimum, injunctions against the Federal Government should require a 4:1 decision by five judges, each from a different federal circuit.

    (2) The problem of judicial overreach can be fixed WITHOUT amending the Constitution.

    The jurisdiction of inferior courts (other than the Supreme Court) is set by statute. The Republicans can simply pass a law with simply majorities to re-balance the court system and reduce the scope for grand-standing by activist judges.

  11. OT: Trump is speaking live at a rally in Nashville. Fox has it. At least three guys with fashy undercuts right behind him in the crowd. The Slate headlines are already being written.

    Read More
  12. @Opinionator
    Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies is taking a very dovish position on DACA. They propose trading full citizenship to DACA foreign nationals for E-Verify and Cotton's bill.

    With a Republican Congress and Trump momentum, my sense is it would not be necessary to trade anything for E-Verify and Cotton's bill, which is too permissive of legal immigration to start with.

    I’ve said they should do this all along, leverage DREAMers in exchange for lasting changes to legal immigration.

    I’d throw in birthright citizenship too. This is the Right’s best change to reverse or halt Ted Kennedy’s eternal gift to the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    If the trade included birthright citizenship, I'd be in favor. In fact, if it were for only birthright citizenship, it would be worth it.

    E-Verify and an end to extended family and lottery immigration should not require concessions.

    , @Frau Katze
    Are the Dreamers the ones who have completed university? (I'm a Canadian and haven't followed it in detail).

    If so, they're cream of the crop.
  13. If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can’t a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Because judges, including those in Arkansas, are pro open borders, and love the idea of being absolute dictators.
    This is just the next incremental step in the Cold Civil War.
    , @Wally
    Why do these cases always end up in the hands of leftist judges?
    , @Tom-in-VA
    I like the cut of your jib!
    , @Lot
    He could do so as it is within his power. However in a matter of hours it would probably be reversed by an emergency appeal. In the meantime, yes, any one judge can force the government to stop immigration if someone with standing named the right agencies.
    , @res
    In a similar vein, why can't a Trump proxy challenge the action in a relatively immigration hostile jurisdiction? That way a more friendly judge would have the chance to affirm it.
  14. Simple, just stop all immigration.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.
  15. @Claude
    If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can't a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    Because judges, including those in Arkansas, are pro open borders, and love the idea of being absolute dictators.
    This is just the next incremental step in the Cold Civil War.

    Read More
  16. @Claude
    If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can't a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    Why do these cases always end up in the hands of leftist judges?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Long story short: leftists own law schools.
    , @Almost Missouri
    It's a good question. It is supposed to be illegal to assign cases to judges based on their known prejudices, but since case assignments are determined opaquely by faceless bureaucrats, and since so many important cases just happen to end up before extreme lefty judges at the most convenient time, it is hard not to conclude that the Leftocracy is fixing things behind the scenes.

    Another commenter said that the judge issued his 43-page ruling just two hours after the request. If true, this is highly suggestive that that the whole thing was a show-trial fixed in advance.
  17. @Claude
    If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can't a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    I like the cut of your jib!

    Read More
  18. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Using the word “leftist” like this strips it of all meaning. ZERO Republicans voted against this judge’s confirmation. Want to blame someone? Blame them.

    Read More
  19. @Ed
    I've said they should do this all along, leverage DREAMers in exchange for lasting changes to legal immigration.

    I'd throw in birthright citizenship too. This is the Right's best change to reverse or halt Ted Kennedy's eternal gift to the USA.

    If the trade included birthright citizenship, I’d be in favor. In fact, if it were for only birthright citizenship, it would be worth it.

    E-Verify and an end to extended family and lottery immigration should not require concessions.

    Read More
  20. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Simple, just stop all immigration.

    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    That's a good point. Everyone knows lettuce didn't even exist until Mexicans re-entered the US. In fact if we banned immigration we would go back to where we were a century ago when Americans had no food at all.
    , @sf
    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.
    , @donut
    I don't eat lettuce and don't care if it gets picked at all .
    , @Hunsdon
    The last time I checked, the cost of labor in a $1 ag purchase was about 6-8 cents. If we doubled ag wages, I'd probably be willing to pay $1.06----or even $1.08! for the same ag purchase.
    , @anon
    Oligarchs bribing the political class to open the borders is a perfect example of privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

    Cheap lettuce is paid for with
    - dangerous schools
    - crippling housing costs to avoid the dangerous schools
    - welfare
    - either crumbling infrastructure or more tax for infrastructure.

    Cheap lettuce is very expensive.
  21. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The huge gap between these judgements and how clear the law is, is showing how political the judge’s are.

    This is going to have an effect that is bad for judges.

    Read More
  22. @Cloudbuster
    I've been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I've seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it's for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place - a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn't (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn't the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    I’ve been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

    It’s called “judicial activism.” Judges — well, they judge things. And while they’re supposed to be bound by Federal Rules of Procedure and by precedent, they still have a lot of discretion.

    That being said, in all probability these District Court judges certainly know that their rulings are likely to get slapped down by an appellate court. They issue them anyway, because they’re gaming the legal system to play politics against Trump.

    So, let’s say a District Court judge issues a national injunction against the Executive Branch. Two things to remember — they’re not ruling on the law or the merits of the case, it’s a discretionary, procedural ruling. The actual merits of the case will be litigated at a later date, maybe six months or more. In the meantime they score a political victory by shutting down the Executive Branch.

    Secondly, the procedural ruling itself will be appealed, and though an appellate court might strike it, it could play also politics and let the injunction stay in effect until the actual trial, which as mentioned above may be months if not more. That’s exactly what happened with the first Trump Executive Order — the Ninth Circuit declined to overturn it.

    Judges (and lawyers) of the political Left always game the rules of the system to screw their opponents. If conservatives pass a law restricting, say, abortion or immigration or gay marriage, they’ll issue an injunction in about 10 seconds flat. But when the Left passes laws banning guns or requiring transgender rights, they simply allow it to stay in effect while it gets litigated and appealed for years on end and ultimately drowned in the swamp of legal procedure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Love your comment.

    Just one quibble: when a judge grants a preliminary injunction, he is necessarily determining that the party getting the injunction is likely to succeed on the merits ultimately. Usually the issuance of a prelim injunction turns on a showing that the movant is STRONGLY likely to succeed on the merits eventually.

    So they are judging the merits in that sense, though you're right that they're not bound by that initial assessment and can rule the other way later at trial.

    But it's not common for a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction and then rule against that party in the end.

  23. Seriously, Trump MUST order the executive branch agencies to ignore the judiciary and proceed as directed. And I don’t think he will have much resistance from the department of homeland security . The State Department is another matter, but he can progressively purge that institution.

    Trump ought to take his message to the people. Where is it written that we are all subordinate to the whims of these unelected political actors? The judiciary DOES NOT have primacy over the other branches. The others branches have traditionally deferred, but those were times when the Judiciary kept its overt political tendencies somewhat under control. Defiance is what is called for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    He can't just do it "because he can". He has to show he's playing by the rules. It's all he needs, to scare a small number of Republican congressmen into thinking he's going "autocratic", for them to join a solid front of Dems. And Trump's as good as impeached.

    Right now, Trump's biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that's loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.

  24. @Cloudbuster
    I've been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I've seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it's for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place - a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn't (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn't the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    No. Federal judges have plenary power over the United States. As Claude asks, yes, any federal judge in Arkansas or anywhere could just issue an order in any case prohibiting all immigration into the USA any time he feels the urge to do so.

    The restraint on the power of a judge is that any one judge that gets out of line would be reversed by a higher court. If he keeps issuing rulings that judges in general object to, the higher courts will start issuing quick emergency reversals all the time. Eventually they can illustrate to Congress that the out of line judge should be removed for bad behavior. Only by impeachment can a judge be removed.

    But there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent or the law. That is a social shaming convention among judges that any one judge can choose to ignore at the risk of unpopularity and reversals by the court of appeals above him.

    And all US federal judges have a court above them to reverse rulings, except the Supreme Court which has nine members on every case to dilute any one outlier.

    The problem here arises because there is a culture among intellectuals of finding Trump to be illigitimate. Once the judges agree not to shame each other for ruling contrary to the law, there is no restraint on what they can do. That’s why judges generally obey the law even with congresses and presidents they hate. Judges finding themselves above the law are quickly knocked down by their colleagues because they are threatening the very integrity of the nation.

    The rapidity with which intellectual culture has turned so hard against the American nation and her people is stunning and the open contempt for us and courting of Constitutional crisis is amazing. But there they are. Under the system we have, we have little defense against them.

    It’s not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Federal Circuit is considered the most corrupt court in the country and routinely reverses Supreme Court rulings. The chief judge had to resign under corruption investigation a couple years ago. The judges rule in their own personal professional interest regularly. It costs the tech industry tens of billions of dollars every year. And there just isn’t much anyone can do about it. But CAFC rulings are limited to a few specific jurisdictions.

    It’s unclear if the Supreme Court would even reverse this care with Gorsuch. Kennedy, Gorsuch, and Roberts have potential to help lead a Never Trump revolt of the judiciary against the Constitutional order. They seem to care a lot more about elite opinion than they do about America.

    There are a few wrinkles here. The judge’s ruling suspending the order mainly affects visa issuance and that happens outside the USA. Judges don’t have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, visa issuance is discretionary so the judge can’t order that all visas be issued; Trump can just order that State employees issuing visas badly be disciplined and dismissed, implicitly enforcing the order with no reversible order issued.

    And let’s not get too excited about the order in the first place. This is not the Moslem ban we were promised and that we need so badly. Syria and Libya and Somalia aren’t getting many visas in the first place. Iranian Moslems are among the least troublesome in the world (They’re much more like smarter Indonesians than they are like low-IQ and violent Saudis or Somalis). America shouldn’t be taking in any Moslem immigrants at all. Zero is the goal. This is more like a five percent cut from absurdly high disaster levels. It’s like hiring two guys with buckets and saying the Oroville Dam crisis is fixed.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    (My usual account seems to be flagged as spam by unz.com, so I’ll post anonymously.)

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    No. Federal judges have plenary power over the United States. As Claude asks, yes, any federal judge in Arkansas or anywhere could just issue an order in any case prohibiting all immigration into the USA any time he feels the urge to do so.

    The restraint on the power of a judge is that any one judge that gets out of line would be reversed by a higher court. If he keeps issuing rulings that judges in general object to, the higher courts will start issuing quick emergency reversals all the time. Eventually they can illustrate to Congress that the out of line judge should be removed for bad behavior. Only by impeachment can a judge be removed.

    But there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent or the law. That is a social shaming convention among judges that any one judge can choose to ignore at the risk of unpopularity and reversals by the court of appeals above him.

    And all US federal judges have a court above them to reverse rulings, except the Supreme Court which has nine members on every case to dilute any one outlier.

    The problem here arises because there is a culture among intellectuals of finding Trump to be illigitimate. Once the judges agree not to shame each other for ruling contrary to the law, there is no restraint on what they can do. That’s why judges generally obey the law even with congresses and presidents they hate. Judges finding themselves above the law are quickly knocked down by their colleagues because they are threatening the very integrity of the nation.

    The rapidity with which intellectual culture has turned so hard against the American nation and her people is stunning and the open contempt for us and courting of Constitutional crisis is amazing. But there they are. Under the system we have, we have little defense against them.

    It’s not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Federal Circuit is considered the most corrupt court in the country and routinely reverses Supreme Court rulings. The chief judge had to resign under corruption investigation a couple years ago. The judges rule in their own personal professional interest regularly. It costs the tech industry tens of billions of dollars every year. And there just isn’t much anyone can do about it. But CAFC rulings are limited to a few specific jurisdictions.

    It’s unclear if the Supreme Court would even reverse this care with Gorsuch. Kennedy, Gorsuch, and Roberts have potential to help lead a Never Trump revolt of the judiciary against the Constitutional order. They seem to care a lot more about elite opinion than they do about America.

    There are a few wrinkles here. The judge’s ruling suspending the order mainly affects visa issuance and that happens outside the USA. Judges don’t have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, visa issuance is discretionary so the judge can’t order that all visas be issued; Trump can just order that State employees issuing visas badly be disciplined and dismissed, implicitly enforcing the order with no reversible order issued.

    And let’s not get too excited about the order in the first place. This is not the Moslem ban we were promised and that we need so badly. Syria and Libya and Somalia aren’t getting many visas in the first place. Iranian Moslems are among the least troublesome in the world (They’re much more like smarter Indonesians than they are like low-IQ and violent Saudis or Somalis). America shouldn’t be taking in any Moslem immigrants at all. Zero is the goal. This is more like a five percent cut from absurdly high disaster levels. It’s like hiring two guys with buckets and saying the Oroville Dam crisis is fixed.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    IOW short of a armed rebellion against the intellectuals and the political-legal establishment there is no other way to fix it, We may get it if they impeach Trump. The lower classes are already quite cognizant of the fact that the white elite is virulently anti-American and hates their guts and wants them eradicated. The lower classes just need a trigger to push back hard and final.

    Always figured it would come down to a class conflict.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.

     

    Trump can't do anymore than what he's already done. He can't touch DACA because of the courts, H1-B's and associated work visas probably need congress to fix and they won't do it, etc.

    Trump really needs to get rid of Congress and the judiciary since both are at the center of the cancer that is killing the country.
    , @Bill
    Great comment.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.
     
    This raises the question of why Trump is bothering with this nonsense. If you are suspicious of Trump, you have to think that this *is* the Muslim ban he promised. This is what he is going to point to as "I delivered." I.e. he never really planned to deliver or, more likely, once he figured out how hard it would be to deliver, he decided not to.

    But what's the benign interpretation of this whole fiasco? That he really believes, for some reason, that a travel ban on these countries is a pressing national security concern? Or that the whole thing is a kind of test case or public demonstration of the constraints he is operating under?
  26. To get a stay like this the judge has to determine that the person’s case has “high likelihood of success” when eventually decided and that any delay would cause “irreparable harm.”

    In this particular case we have an Egyptian-American over in Hawaii trying to bring his mother-in-law over from Syria. The judge said it violates the establishment clause … to not give this guy’s mother-in-law a visa. Wut??? That’s a first amendment claim, but as Steve notes it really only makes sense if you presuppose a right for foreigners to settle in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    It's a ruse, she's been trying to come supposedly for 12 years now, so a 3 month delay is going to harm her?
    , @BB753
    What's wrong with this guy? Most men would be ecstatic to have their mother-in-law thousands of miles away.
    , @jill
    Has to be the only guy in America that wants to be with his mother-in-law. The Judge states that he has suffered irreparable harm including the whole state of Hawaii.
  27. Big & Privileged Kenyan to Harvard Kahuna puts Little & Privileged Kamehameha to Harvard Affirmative Action Hero in a Spotlight:

    Judge Derrick Kahala Watson :

    Derrick Kahala Watson was nominated by President Obama in November 2012 to serve as
    a United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, the position to which he was confirmed by the United States Senate in April 2013.

    Prior to taking the bench, Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Hawaii, serving as Chief of the Civil Division beginning in January 2009.

    Previously, he worked at the San Francisco law firm of Farella Braun + MartelLLP, where his practice focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery litigation. He joined the firm in December 2000 and was named partner in January 2003.

    Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of California from 1995 to 2000, including serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000.
    He began his legal career at the law firm of Landels, Ripley & Diamond in San Francisco, where he was an associate from 1991 to 1995.

    Judge Watson received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, his A.B. in 1988 from Harvard College, and is a 1984 graduate of The Kamehameha Schools* whose founder Wuz Honoluluan Queen born in local grass hut compound.

    *By the terms of its founding, the schools’ admissions policy prefers applicants with Native Hawaiian ancestry. Since 1965 it has excluded all but two non-Hawaiians from being admitted. A lawsuit challenging the school’s admission policy resulted in a narrow victory for Kamehameha in the Ninth Circuit Court; however, Kamehameha ultimately settled, paying the plaintiff $7 million.

    Now that Somalis from Mogadishusota got mastered ice-fishing, it’s time for Trump administration to drop few contingents of them on Maui beaches to practice blast fishing skills on local ahi tuna population;

    http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syria-i-dont-have-the-authority-to-say-yes-or-no/

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    As I said - Kahuna Matata:


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7Ae-KEU0AIvbgA.jpg
    , @Yak-15
    That has always been my solution. Trump needs to take liberals at their words and direct all visa applicants to liberal strongholds. Child soldiers should be brought in from Congo and Liberia to be resettled in SF.
  28. @Dr. X
    This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn't have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn't have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It's Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    Baby, you ain’t seen nothing yet. We’re probably not even at the Julius Caesar/Augustus phase– Trump is more like Marius or Sulla unless he winds up rising to the occasion. We only started bringing in the global external proletariat in large numbers starting in 1965 while Rome brought in foreign slaves for centuries (screwing their own people who actually built the empire like our oligarchs are doing now). There is a LOT of ruin in a nation.

    But yeah, White America is done barring a miracle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Yep, it's 105 BC with better plumbing, and Afghanistan and Iraq have been our American Arausio:

    "The oligarchy that Sulla restored had shown itself to be irresponsible, corrupt, self-seeking and indifferent, and no longer commanded the respect or loyalty of any significant group in society. The propertied classes of Italy had no confidence in a regime that excluded their leading men from senior positions and was unable to guarantee order and stability; the poor happily surrendered their spurious freedoms and ineffectual political rights in favor of individual leaders who depended on them for support and who consequently took care to supply their material needs."
  29. @Cloudbuster
    I've been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I've seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it's for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place - a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn't (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn't the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we’d one case per the 150 or so judicial districts. If it is a hot enough issue that the lower judges disagree, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

    This is how we stopped the massive DAPA amnesty. It is content, not procedure, that the judge got wrong. Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we’d one case per the 150 or so judicial districts."
     
    Okay, but isn't a district judge stealing the plenary power of the executive over immigration itself an illegal act? So why can't Judge Watson be enjoined completely? Because his name begins with "Judge"?

    "Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban."
     
    Hmm, so at the moment, the Constitution hangs on our expectation that swingy-vote Kennedy might make the right decision at a certain point months or years away?

    Somehow, this is not reassuring.
    , @Bill
    That's how it works, but it's obviously stupid, just as Cloudbuster says. There are a lot of federal districts, and you only have to find one. Things like this---challenges to executive orders affecting national policy---should obviously go to a single special-purpose place. The DC Circuit Court would be the most sensible.
  30. @Claude
    If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can't a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    He could do so as it is within his power. However in a matter of hours it would probably be reversed by an emergency appeal. In the meantime, yes, any one judge can force the government to stop immigration if someone with standing named the right agencies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    In the meantime, yes, any one judge can force the government to stop immigration if someone with standing named the right agencies.
     
    What constitutes standing is in and of itself a judgment call. In the case of the first Trump travel ban, the District Court judge ruled (absurdly... insanely?) that the State of Washington had standing to litigate on behalf of foreigners, and issued an injunction.
  31. @Opinionator
    Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies is taking a very dovish position on DACA. They propose trading full citizenship to DACA foreign nationals for E-Verify and Cotton's bill.

    With a Republican Congress and Trump momentum, my sense is it would not be necessary to trade anything for E-Verify and Cotton's bill, which is too permissive of legal immigration to start with.

    You overstate how many Republicans in Congress we have on our side. More than a third of Senate GOPers are in the Rubio/McCain block.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That just means they'll be in jeopardy the next time they go before the voters.

    We're overdue for an immigration pause. The longer we go without one, the more overdue we'll be and the more intense the pressure will become.
    , @Opinionator
    And I think you underestimate the ability of Trump and the new media and a reinvigorated constituency to apply pressure to them on something as obvious as immigration reduction.
    , @Mr. Anon

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.
     
    I have not forgotten. Nor will I ever forgive.
  32. @Lot
    He could do so as it is within his power. However in a matter of hours it would probably be reversed by an emergency appeal. In the meantime, yes, any one judge can force the government to stop immigration if someone with standing named the right agencies.

    In the meantime, yes, any one judge can force the government to stop immigration if someone with standing named the right agencies.

    What constitutes standing is in and of itself a judgment call. In the case of the first Trump travel ban, the District Court judge ruled (absurdly… insanely?) that the State of Washington had standing to litigate on behalf of foreigners, and issued an injunction.

    Read More
  33. @Lot
    You overstate how many Republicans in Congress we have on our side. More than a third of Senate GOPers are in the Rubio/McCain block.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.

    That just means they’ll be in jeopardy the next time they go before the voters.

    We’re overdue for an immigration pause. The longer we go without one, the more overdue we’ll be and the more intense the pressure will become.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    The 2018 senate election could be important with so many Democratic seats up. The wikipedia projections seem tilted towards the Democrats (e.g. Montana and North Dakota, Twinkie any thoughts on WV?) given that they won't have Obama's coattails in 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018
  34. I’m beginning to understand why societies turn to dictators. When a society becomes so dysfunctional that the rule of law itself is wielded as a weapon against the very people who created it, it is the desperation to get something done that calls out for someone to cut through the Gordian Knots and finally, simply use naked force to achieve a goal.

    But dictators with benevolence are so few and far between.

    Oh well. At least it’s somewhat interesting living in the period where a society is dying, instead of just reading about them in history books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    I’m beginning to understand why societies turn to dictators. When a society becomes so dysfunctional that the rule of law itself is wielded as a weapon against the very people who created it, it is the desperation to get something done that calls out for someone to cut through the Gordian Knots and finally, simply use naked force to achieve a goal.
     
    Bingo.

    But dictators with benevolence are so few and far between.
     
    Gen. Franco comes to mind...
  35. Liberals should have been outraged when the Washington judge ruled that the people’s right to control their borders was subordinate to Microsoft and other multinational corporations’ right to move employees freely without borders. I thought the Left valued people over corporations.

    Now a judge in Hawaii also rules against the President’s authority and decides immigration policy for the entire nation. Judges take an oath that includes, “I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” That duty doesn’t include usurping the president’s legal authority to control the border.

    I don’t suppose it would happen, but I wish we could see judges like this impeached.

    Read More
  36. @Claude
    If one judge in Hawaii can stop an executive order affecting nationwide immigration policy, why can't a judge from say Arkansas issue a ruling to halt all immigration indefinitely?

    In a similar vein, why can’t a Trump proxy challenge the action in a relatively immigration hostile jurisdiction? That way a more friendly judge would have the chance to affirm it.

    Read More
  37. @Desiderius
    That just means they'll be in jeopardy the next time they go before the voters.

    We're overdue for an immigration pause. The longer we go without one, the more overdue we'll be and the more intense the pressure will become.

    The 2018 senate election could be important with so many Democratic seats up. The wikipedia projections seem tilted towards the Democrats (e.g. Montana and North Dakota, Twinkie any thoughts on WV?) given that they won’t have Obama’s coattails in 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    Read More
  38. @Lot
    You overstate how many Republicans in Congress we have on our side. More than a third of Senate GOPers are in the Rubio/McCain block.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.

    And I think you underestimate the ability of Trump and the new media and a reinvigorated constituency to apply pressure to them on something as obvious as immigration reduction.

    Read More
  39. Don’t forget, Barack Obama was spotted yesterday in Hawaii. Judge Watson was put on the bench in Hawaii by Obama in 2013.

    If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment. The last federal judge was impeached in 2010, so it’s not impossible.

    Federal judges are Civil Officers under the Constitution:

    “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    The US Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants. One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress’ place in upholding the “good behavior” of judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    I think the Obama/Watson proximity coincidence is worth a POTUS tweet. Just saying.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment."
     
    What's impeachable about that?
  40. @Polynices
    Anyone else assuming that a gigantic smack down by Trump of these moron judges is coming at some point soon? It's completely insane that random federal judges can seize control of national border control issues and pretty sure it's blatantly unlawful too (though IANAL). I've been figuring that Trump is biding his time and will unleash hell when he's ready. Maybe after Gorsuch is in?

    I think that you are right. It’s important that Gorsuch be confirmed and then Trump can push his agenda harder.

    Read More
  41. I’m not really up on legal theory.

    But if a court on the West Coast can do this, why can’t another court strike down some key feature of something these guys are in favor of (whether they know it or not).

    One thing I’d like to see (though no idea how Trump views it) is to force a la carte pricing for cable.

    I think the fallout sees ESPN, CNN and others go under. I mean these guys can just pull things out of their ass, so why can’t others do it as well?

    Or it may have been an idea in another thread, but a lawsuit challenging whether blacks are disproportionately represented in public employment as opposed to hispanics?

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    One thing I’d like to see (though no idea how Trump views it) is to force a la carte pricing for cable.
     
    What? Is Trump some kind of a populist then?

    Actually when I lived in the Dominican Republic we had cable TV for $15 per month with 200 channels and a much better selection than what is available from Comcast including local channels, channels in several languages, Al Jazeera News, and all the usual English language US networks and movie channels. The favorite channel in our house was CBeebies, a British Broadcasting Corporation network for children age 6 and under. Very addictive.

    Here in the US we just have over-the-air TV as the cable is not worth having, but we do have unlimited Internet with Netflix, Youtube, and so on.

    The free market solution is just to let cable TV die in the US.
  42. Meanwhile, Trump has outsourced the agenda and momentum of his Presidency to Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican incompetents in Congress, who apparently haven’t given a thought as to how they were going to replace Obamacare in the last six years they’ve been trying to repeal it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    They never really wanted to repeal it, that's why they look so lost now. Their corporate paymasters loved it, they had a ready-made issue for their campaigns, and they never had to actually do anything or create any viable alternative. It was a political godsend for them.
  43. I think a benefit of this is that the public gets a civics lesson to see how unelected mandarins get to decide the fate of the country instead of the voters. More and more of the rotten and corrupted system gets put on display for the people to see every day. Then Democrats will scratch their heads after the 2018 midterms and wonder why they lost yet another round of elections they assumed would be a lock for them.

    I definitely see this culminating in a showdown because if the ninth circuit assumes they can just slap down every Trump initiative, they’re doing so at their own peril.

    Read More
  44. “slender bitches”???

    Steve Sailer using potty mouth? Oh, it must be on like Donkey Kong!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    To keep things in perspective, that's what he has lesser females think of their more attractive competitors.

    (Not at all like when my alter-ego, Adolf Altwhite, uses the n-word.)

  45. @Wally
    Why do these cases always end up in the hands of leftist judges?

    Long story short: leftists own law schools.

    Read More
  46. U.S. Federal Judge Dick K. Head in Hawaii today ruled I Can’t Even against the Trump administration’s travel ban, issuing an order of Wow Just Wow.

    Read More
  47. @JeremiahJohnbalaya
    "slender bitches"???

    Steve Sailer using potty mouth? Oh, it must be on like Donkey Kong!!

    To keep things in perspective, that’s what he has lesser females think of their more attractive competitors.

    (Not at all like when my alter-ego, Adolf Altwhite, uses the n-word.)

    Read More
  48. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I can’t believe deplorables have faith in Gorsuch.

    1) Gorsuch started mewling like a real cuck the last time Trump went after the black robe tyrants with some strong rhetoric.

    2) Gorsuch has been a long time member in good standing of a left wing church. There are two local churches of his denomination in his town one leans left and the other right and he chose the left version. His church is the usual pc politically active leftwing goo.

    Prediction: Gorsuch becomes another Kennedy on the court with a career that arcs toward the leftwing nonsense of his church.

    Thanks, Trump!

    Read More
  49. @random-anon
    I'm beginning to understand why societies turn to dictators. When a society becomes so dysfunctional that the rule of law itself is wielded as a weapon against the very people who created it, it is the desperation to get something done that calls out for someone to cut through the Gordian Knots and finally, simply use naked force to achieve a goal.

    But dictators with benevolence are so few and far between.

    Oh well. At least it's somewhat interesting living in the period where a society is dying, instead of just reading about them in history books.

    I’m beginning to understand why societies turn to dictators. When a society becomes so dysfunctional that the rule of law itself is wielded as a weapon against the very people who created it, it is the desperation to get something done that calls out for someone to cut through the Gordian Knots and finally, simply use naked force to achieve a goal.

    Bingo.

    But dictators with benevolence are so few and far between.

    Gen. Franco comes to mind…

    Read More
  50. @bored identity
    Big & Privileged Kenyan to Harvard Kahuna puts Little & Privileged Kamehameha to Harvard Affirmative Action Hero in a Spotlight:



    Judge Derrick Kahala Watson :

    Derrick Kahala Watson was nominated by President Obama in November 2012 to serve as
    a United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, the position to which he was confirmed by the United States Senate in April 2013.

    Prior to taking the bench, Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Hawaii, serving as Chief of the Civil Division beginning in January 2009.

    Previously, he worked at the San Francisco law firm of Farella Braun + MartelLLP, where his practice focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery litigation. He joined the firm in December 2000 and was named partner in January 2003.

    Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of California from 1995 to 2000, including serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000.
    He began his legal career at the law firm of Landels, Ripley & Diamond in San Francisco, where he was an associate from 1991 to 1995.

    Judge Watson received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, his A.B. in 1988 from Harvard College, and is a 1984 graduate of The Kamehameha Schools* whose founder Wuz Honoluluan Queen born in local grass hut compound.

    *By the terms of its founding, the schools' admissions policy prefers applicants with Native Hawaiian ancestry. Since 1965 it has excluded all but two non-Hawaiians from being admitted. A lawsuit challenging the school's admission policy resulted in a narrow victory for Kamehameha in the Ninth Circuit Court; however, Kamehameha ultimately settled, paying the plaintiff $7 million.

     

    Now that Somalis from Mogadishusota got mastered ice-fishing, it's time for Trump administration to drop few contingents of them on Maui beaches to practice blast fishing skills on local ahi tuna population;

    http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syria-i-dont-have-the-authority-to-say-yes-or-no/
    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    Would quitting on smart phone usage for the next four eight years lead Obama to go back to his other vices - such as smoking in a bathhouse?



    "... The paper reported that Obama spent March 14th playing golf in at the Midway Golf Club in Kailua before joining "friends" in a private room at Noi Thai Cuisine at Royal Hawaiian Center for dinner.

    There was no information on the identity of the individuals Obama dined with.

    Online users have noted that the most direct path from Kailua to Noi Thai would have taken Obama within five minutes of Judge Watson's residence."

    http://disobedientmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-17-at-2.38.35-PM-1024x745.png

     

    Barack is a real fool, if he thinks that his alternative communication methods will work in a long term.
    Interception of carrier pigeons and smoke signals are both young Lord Barron's specialties!
  51. @Anon7
    Don't forget, Barack Obama was spotted yesterday in Hawaii. Judge Watson was put on the bench in Hawaii by Obama in 2013.

    If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment. The last federal judge was impeached in 2010, so it's not impossible.

    Federal judges are Civil Officers under the Constitution:

    "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    The US Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants. One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress' place in upholding the "good behavior" of judges.

    I think the Obama/Watson proximity coincidence is worth a POTUS tweet. Just saying.

    Read More
  52. @Dr. X
    This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn't have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn't have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It's Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    Per Wikipedia, the judge was confirmed by a 94-0 vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Watson#Federal_judicial_service

    Problem seems to GOPs ceded control of the judiciary over the years, perhaps naively assuming that Dem judges would adhere to our overrated and vaguely worded Constitution. Surprise!

    Read More
  53. @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    That’s a good point. Everyone knows lettuce didn’t even exist until Mexicans re-entered the US. In fact if we banned immigration we would go back to where we were a century ago when Americans had no food at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You should research what happened to Georgia agriculture when they passed stricter laws on undocumented workers.
  54. Trump needs to crush the judiciary on this issue or he will surrender control of all visa and immigration issues to federal judges and justices. He has to instruct ICE, or whatever agency is getting these orders, to disregard them unless the Attorney General authorizes compliance. Federal marshalls sent to enforce the orders (I predict that there won’t be any) should be disregarded and restrained if necessary. It would be nice if Congress would act to remove immigration and visa issuance from the jurisdiction of federal courts and have expedited impeachment proceedings for judges and justices issuing them.

    This is not rule of law–it is the rule of highly politicized, unaccountable judges. It is a defining moment in the Trump Administration.

    Read More
  55. @Ed
    I've said they should do this all along, leverage DREAMers in exchange for lasting changes to legal immigration.

    I'd throw in birthright citizenship too. This is the Right's best change to reverse or halt Ted Kennedy's eternal gift to the USA.

    Are the Dreamers the ones who have completed university? (I’m a Canadian and haven’t followed it in detail).

    If so, they’re cream of the crop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    If so, they’re cream of the crop.

    If so, that is one reason they need to go back. Their own countries need them in order to develop.
  56. @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy

    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.
     
    There are jobs rotting in the fields waiting for you to start your farming career.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    $20 to bend over and pick things ain't gonna happen. Farm work should be automated, and mostly is at this point. There are automated harvesters for just about every crop.

    Most trades will wreck you by age 50. You either go into management or project/site supervision or you become a contractor and employ tradesmen. Or you go on disability.

    The market for people whose primary capital is a strong back is getting smaller and smaller.
  57. @Thomas
    Meanwhile, Trump has outsourced the agenda and momentum of his Presidency to Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican incompetents in Congress, who apparently haven't given a thought as to how they were going to replace Obamacare in the last six years they've been trying to repeal it.

    They never really wanted to repeal it, that’s why they look so lost now. Their corporate paymasters loved it, they had a ready-made issue for their campaigns, and they never had to actually do anything or create any viable alternative. It was a political godsend for them.

    Read More
  58. @Amasius
    Baby, you ain't seen nothing yet. We're probably not even at the Julius Caesar/Augustus phase-- Trump is more like Marius or Sulla unless he winds up rising to the occasion. We only started bringing in the global external proletariat in large numbers starting in 1965 while Rome brought in foreign slaves for centuries (screwing their own people who actually built the empire like our oligarchs are doing now). There is a LOT of ruin in a nation.

    But yeah, White America is done barring a miracle.

    Yep, it’s 105 BC with better plumbing, and Afghanistan and Iraq have been our American Arausio:

    “The oligarchy that Sulla restored had shown itself to be irresponsible, corrupt, self-seeking and indifferent, and no longer commanded the respect or loyalty of any significant group in society. The propertied classes of Italy had no confidence in a regime that excluded their leading men from senior positions and was unable to guarantee order and stability; the poor happily surrendered their spurious freedoms and ineffectual political rights in favor of individual leaders who depended on them for support and who consequently took care to supply their material needs.”

    Read More
  59. @Frau Katze
    Are the Dreamers the ones who have completed university? (I'm a Canadian and haven't followed it in detail).

    If so, they're cream of the crop.

    If so, they’re cream of the crop.

    If so, that is one reason they need to go back. Their own countries need them in order to develop.

    Read More
  60. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Reporter for Guardian US:

    Julia Carrie Wong‏ @juliacarriew

    Pretty cool that Muslim ban blocked by Chinese-American AG arguing on behalf of Syrian-American plaintiff before a Native Hawaiian judge.
    8,615 Likes

    Deepa Iyer‏ @dviyer 3h3 hours ago

    and represented by an Indian American lawyer (Neal Katyal)!

    A reply: “And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this country. You just can’t have anything more American than that.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    These are the Western civilization undermining effects that a concentration of non-whites, frankly non-NW Europeans bring, rulings by feelings not the law. People just don't understand how rare cool, dispassionate thought is among the peoples of the world. Whatever I feel is right that day or who ever can pay my bribe is what many judges in the 3rd world go by.

    Most normal people don't see anything wrong with it though or don't notice. So it makes speaking out against it difficult especially in a society where people are now taught that diversity is the number one goal of America. Also this crosses ideological lines on my Twitter TL the most rabid pro-immigrant users are often the #neverTrump conservatives.
    , @Opinionator
    Two subcons, two Chinese, an Arab, and a Polynesian team up and overpower the NW European guy.

    Interesting.

    , @Eagle Eye
    America has countless judges and lawyers from unlikely ethnic background who became prominent as defenders of and builders on ancient English concepts of civil liberties.

    Sadly, the assortment of third-rate place-men listed by the self-absorbed Guardian writer-ess prostituted themselves to become mere place-men and place-women for the Democrat machine, rather than rise to the occasion to defend fundamental principles of a mature democracy.

    Despite its long history, democracy and civil liberties in an advanced society are much more fragile than is commonly supposed. We are skating on thin ice, and these impostors are intentionally hacking wholes into the ice.

    The Democrats are not as stupid and forgiving as Republicans and will never trust their own sell-outs. When Democrats come back into power, these spineless legal puppets will be given sinecures FAR AWAY from any real power.

  61. In Holland the right sort of populism won.

    Gay sex, mass drug abuse and grooming gangs followed by sharia and the hanging of gays.

    Curious.

    Read More
  62. Trump’s main enemy is … Paul Ryan and the rest of the Cuckservatives, Lindsay Grahamnesty and John McLettuce McCain who are already calling for Trump to resign over “falsely accusing” Obama of wiretapping him and his campaign. (Which seems to have been done through using the British and the Five Eyes system).

    Someone might argue that Trump is letting Ryan and the rest hang themselves with enough rope, and he can come in and offer single payer “free” healthcare with the proviso that it be paid for by … kicking out the illegals and preventing mass Third World Immigration. But I don’t think Trump is that skilled — more like merely clever against Hillary! who had to be the world’s worst screw-up. Meanwhile Kirsten Sobbing Harpy Gillibrand is upbraiding Marine brass and servicemen for looking at nudie photos — the same dudes likely to be blown up by an IED in Syria or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan. Why should anyone care about naked photos of military sluts? If they did not want the photos to get out they should not have taken them in the first place.

    But lets face it, America is over because White America is over. Its over because of the Hot Civil War between GoodWhites and BadWhites, led by a coastal elite and most White professional women for sure and arguably most White women* against White men particularly those in uncool and unhip places. Uncool Whites have nothing, the Cool Kids have all the judiciary, media, government bureaucrats, Hollywood, corporations, corporate leaders, the managerial class, and universities. We’ve got Breitbart, Drudge, and Pepe the Frog. Today some guy blamed LA Mayor Garcetti for his fiance’s death due to a drunk driver illegal let go by LA’s Sanctuary City law — amazingly White citizens get jailed and fined and illegals get let go. So what? Nothing will change unless and until pols start fearing for their lives by screwing over Joe Average White guy; and Joe Average White guy is habituated to pacifism and non-violence**

    *Arguably Hillary’s negative charisma and repellent personality made her campaign underperform among White women; vs. say Barack Obama who seemed to make them swoon, on account of Black y’all.

    **The violence during Weimar by all sides, socialists and NSDAP and Communists and so on was an outgrowth of dutiful German men being habituated to a daily brutal hand to hand combat of kill vs. be killed, for four years, in the most miserable conditions, with poison gas, machine guns, and battle rifles, turning dutiful pacifists and rule followers into anarchic brawlers. They got used to killing and fighting, like people in the Pacific Northwest get used to the gloom and plaid and nose rings. Men are creatures of habit and White men being rule following pacifists in daily life are no match for Muslim or Africans who spend every waking moment scheming on how to kill rivals. [In actual mechanized combat rule-followers are able to withstand horrific shock battle conditions that lead warrior types to flee like typical Big Men -- but Whites are evolved for beta male rule followers in shock battle and absent that fight we lose big time to constant drip-drip-drip hyper aggressive goat herders who are good at ambush but can't screw in a light bulb or even figure out how to use a flush toilet.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I am so glad you responded. Stay loyal to the friends and people who care about you
  63. @Daniel H
    Seriously, Trump MUST order the executive branch agencies to ignore the judiciary and proceed as directed. And I don't think he will have much resistance from the department of homeland security . The State Department is another matter, but he can progressively purge that institution.

    Trump ought to take his message to the people. Where is it written that we are all subordinate to the whims of these unelected political actors? The judiciary DOES NOT have primacy over the other branches. The others branches have traditionally deferred, but those were times when the Judiciary kept its overt political tendencies somewhat under control. Defiance is what is called for.

    He can’t just do it “because he can”. He has to show he’s playing by the rules. It’s all he needs, to scare a small number of Republican congressmen into thinking he’s going “autocratic”, for them to join a solid front of Dems. And Trump’s as good as impeached.

    Right now, Trump’s biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that’s loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    Trump will eventually get impeached no matter what he does. He's not part of the establishment and they will do anything to get rid of him. The hatred he's already getting is beyond belief. Both Ryan and McConnell want Trump gone.

    They want to make a example out of him to the people.

    This isn't politics, it's a declaration of war by establishment against the American people.

    Right now I'm just getting the impression Trump's supporters and others are waiting to see what the establishment does before making their move.
    , @flyover hick

    Right now, Trump’s biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that’s loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.
     
    Even if Trump had "top-notch" legal talent, do you really think the ruling would have been different?
  64. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Trump needs to simply suspend the refugee program in its entirety. That gets religion out of it.

    The attorney generals will always include enough to challenge everything. Not that hard to find a single federal judge either to go along with it.

    A rather liberal judge ruled against the indians in the Dakota Access Pipeline case before Obama jumped back in and made the Corps of Engineers reverse the permits to ‘allow for additional study.’

    Its ready to go, also.

    The company says crews expect to finish construction and conduct final testing this week, and that oil could flow as soon as Monday.

    They just tried for another emergency injunction , but the overall lameness of the judicial challenge seems to have had an impact. It’s a $4 billion project. At some point, delaying a virtually finished private infrastructure project could have a chilling effect on privately financed infrastructure.

    As it has previously mentioned, this Court does not lightly countenance any depredation of lands that hold significance to the Standing Rock Sioux. Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here.

    http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf

    This guy bent over backwards to consider the Indian/Environmentalist arguments. But he is sick of them. They have bad lawyers, no case, and are transparently simply stalling.

    Meanwhile, Bakkan oil seems to be the weakest basin and activity is way down from its peak. Bakkan sells at a discount to WTI and transportation is part of it.

    But the point is that ‘liberal’ Federal judges maybe put their thumb on the scale, but can still issue a reasonable opinion in a politically charged case.

    By the way, the pipeline doesn’t cross the reservation boundaries. One of the arguments is that it is that the Sioux are contesting the treaty. From 100 years ago or whenever they drew up the map. Other tribes are drilling actively.

    Even though the market put a final nail in the coffin of some projects, political opposition likely prevented overbuilding. The Keystone looks like it won’t be needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Trump should simply suspend the refugee program in its entirety. That gets religion out of it.

    Was that refugee aspect of the order (90-day freeze) also struck down? It would seem more difficult, although not impossible given the courts' focus on "animus," to make out an EC claim with a blanket ban.

    In light of their reasoning, the courts could find that a blanket ban was unconstitutional if it's only real purpose was to deny Muslims entry's

    Switching gears to another immigration front, does anyone know whether the executive branch could exercise its discretion and decide to simply not issue a huge percentage of green cards under the annual quotas?
  65. @gregor
    To get a stay like this the judge has to determine that the person's case has "high likelihood of success" when eventually decided and that any delay would cause "irreparable harm."

    In this particular case we have an Egyptian-American over in Hawaii trying to bring his mother-in-law over from Syria. The judge said it violates the establishment clause ... to not give this guy's mother-in-law a visa. Wut??? That's a first amendment claim, but as Steve notes it really only makes sense if you presuppose a right for foreigners to settle in the US.

    It’s a ruse, she’s been trying to come supposedly for 12 years now, so a 3 month delay is going to harm her?

    Read More
  66. @Anonymous
    Reporter for Guardian US:

    Julia Carrie Wong‏ @juliacarriew

    Pretty cool that Muslim ban blocked by Chinese-American AG arguing on behalf of Syrian-American plaintiff before a Native Hawaiian judge.
    8,615 Likes

    Deepa Iyer‏ @dviyer 3h3 hours ago

    and represented by an Indian American lawyer (Neal Katyal)!

     

    A reply: "And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this country. You just can't have anything more American than that."

    These are the Western civilization undermining effects that a concentration of non-whites, frankly non-NW Europeans bring, rulings by feelings not the law. People just don’t understand how rare cool, dispassionate thought is among the peoples of the world. Whatever I feel is right that day or who ever can pay my bribe is what many judges in the 3rd world go by.

    Most normal people don’t see anything wrong with it though or don’t notice. So it makes speaking out against it difficult especially in a society where people are now taught that diversity is the number one goal of America. Also this crosses ideological lines on my Twitter TL the most rabid pro-immigrant users are often the #neverTrump conservatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    The Anglo-Celt view of the State and of the common law is unique in the entire planet. These foreigners find the very concept of common law and a priori limitations on State action baffling. To them, the State is like this endless cornucopia, and we just need to have the right people in charge of it distributing the goodies. They really have no grasp of the Enlightenment reasoning behind our institutions. Like Vox Day says, immigrants do not assimilate, they transform.
  67. @anon
    Trump needs to simply suspend the refugee program in its entirety. That gets religion out of it.

    The attorney generals will always include enough to challenge everything. Not that hard to find a single federal judge either to go along with it.

    A rather liberal judge ruled against the indians in the Dakota Access Pipeline case before Obama jumped back in and made the Corps of Engineers reverse the permits to 'allow for additional study.'

    Its ready to go, also.


    The company says crews expect to finish construction and conduct final testing this week, and that oil could flow as soon as Monday.

     

    They just tried for another emergency injunction , but the overall lameness of the judicial challenge seems to have had an impact. It's a $4 billion project. At some point, delaying a virtually finished private infrastructure project could have a chilling effect on privately financed infrastructure.

    As it has previously mentioned, this Court does not lightly countenance any depredation of lands that hold significance to the Standing Rock Sioux. Aware of the indignities visited upon the Tribe over the last centuries, the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care. Having done so, the Court must nonetheless conclude that the Tribe has not demonstrated that an injunction is warranted here.
     
    http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/order-denying-PI.pdf

    This guy bent over backwards to consider the Indian/Environmentalist arguments. But he is sick of them. They have bad lawyers, no case, and are transparently simply stalling.

    Meanwhile, Bakkan oil seems to be the weakest basin and activity is way down from its peak. Bakkan sells at a discount to WTI and transportation is part of it.

    But the point is that 'liberal' Federal judges maybe put their thumb on the scale, but can still issue a reasonable opinion in a politically charged case.

    By the way, the pipeline doesn't cross the reservation boundaries. One of the arguments is that it is that the Sioux are contesting the treaty. From 100 years ago or whenever they drew up the map. Other tribes are drilling actively.

    Even though the market put a final nail in the coffin of some projects, political opposition likely prevented overbuilding. The Keystone looks like it won't be needed.

    Trump should simply suspend the refugee program in its entirety. That gets religion out of it.

    Was that refugee aspect of the order (90-day freeze) also struck down? It would seem more difficult, although not impossible given the courts’ focus on “animus,” to make out an EC claim with a blanket ban.

    In light of their reasoning, the courts could find that a blanket ban was unconstitutional if it’s only real purpose was to deny Muslims entry’s

    Switching gears to another immigration front, does anyone know whether the executive branch could exercise its discretion and decide to simply not issue a huge percentage of green cards under the annual quotas?

    Read More
  68. I wonder if western feminist support for Islamic dress is about distinguishing between high and low liberals. We live in a liberal hegemony where most women are social liberals, so its important for the true progressive feminists to distinguish themselves from the general mass of liberal women.

    Your politically middle-of-the-road western man or women views the burka and other Islamic garb as a sign of men having control over women. However, your highly committed liberal woman will see that a vulgar, obvious attitude. To the Guardian-reading white female, covering yourself up isn’t oppressive, it’s like an Islamic version of wearing a trouser suit or putting on a pair of black jeans and doc martins. You’re not a bimbo interested in girly fashion and make up but a serious women who is non-materialistic and deeply spiritual. And besides your Guardian-reading liberal woman probably knows of at least one Muslim woman in a head scarf who has a job in a university or government department, and empowered women with professional jobs can’t possibly be bossed around by their husbands. That just doesn’t compute in the white feminist world view.

    Read More
  69. @Anonymous
    Reporter for Guardian US:

    Julia Carrie Wong‏ @juliacarriew

    Pretty cool that Muslim ban blocked by Chinese-American AG arguing on behalf of Syrian-American plaintiff before a Native Hawaiian judge.
    8,615 Likes

    Deepa Iyer‏ @dviyer 3h3 hours ago

    and represented by an Indian American lawyer (Neal Katyal)!

     

    A reply: "And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this country. You just can't have anything more American than that."

    Two subcons, two Chinese, an Arab, and a Polynesian team up and overpower the NW European guy.

    Interesting.

    Read More
  70. @Anonymous
    (My usual account seems to be flagged as spam by unz.com, so I'll post anonymously.)

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?
     
    No. Federal judges have plenary power over the United States. As Claude asks, yes, any federal judge in Arkansas or anywhere could just issue an order in any case prohibiting all immigration into the USA any time he feels the urge to do so.

    The restraint on the power of a judge is that any one judge that gets out of line would be reversed by a higher court. If he keeps issuing rulings that judges in general object to, the higher courts will start issuing quick emergency reversals all the time. Eventually they can illustrate to Congress that the out of line judge should be removed for bad behavior. Only by impeachment can a judge be removed.

    But there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent or the law. That is a social shaming convention among judges that any one judge can choose to ignore at the risk of unpopularity and reversals by the court of appeals above him.

    And all US federal judges have a court above them to reverse rulings, except the Supreme Court which has nine members on every case to dilute any one outlier.

    The problem here arises because there is a culture among intellectuals of finding Trump to be illigitimate. Once the judges agree not to shame each other for ruling contrary to the law, there is no restraint on what they can do. That's why judges generally obey the law even with congresses and presidents they hate. Judges finding themselves above the law are quickly knocked down by their colleagues because they are threatening the very integrity of the nation.

    The rapidity with which intellectual culture has turned so hard against the American nation and her people is stunning and the open contempt for us and courting of Constitutional crisis is amazing. But there they are. Under the system we have, we have little defense against them.

    It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Federal Circuit is considered the most corrupt court in the country and routinely reverses Supreme Court rulings. The chief judge had to resign under corruption investigation a couple years ago. The judges rule in their own personal professional interest regularly. It costs the tech industry tens of billions of dollars every year. And there just isn't much anyone can do about it. But CAFC rulings are limited to a few specific jurisdictions.

    It's unclear if the Supreme Court would even reverse this care with Gorsuch. Kennedy, Gorsuch, and Roberts have potential to help lead a Never Trump revolt of the judiciary against the Constitutional order. They seem to care a lot more about elite opinion than they do about America.

    There are a few wrinkles here. The judge's ruling suspending the order mainly affects visa issuance and that happens outside the USA. Judges don't have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, visa issuance is discretionary so the judge can't order that all visas be issued; Trump can just order that State employees issuing visas badly be disciplined and dismissed, implicitly enforcing the order with no reversible order issued.

    And let's not get too excited about the order in the first place. This is not the Moslem ban we were promised and that we need so badly. Syria and Libya and Somalia aren't getting many visas in the first place. Iranian Moslems are among the least troublesome in the world (They're much more like smarter Indonesians than they are like low-IQ and violent Saudis or Somalis). America shouldn't be taking in any Moslem immigrants at all. Zero is the goal. This is more like a five percent cut from absurdly high disaster levels. It's like hiring two guys with buckets and saying the Oroville Dam crisis is fixed.

    Trump isn't even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We'll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won't build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    IOW short of a armed rebellion against the intellectuals and the political-legal establishment there is no other way to fix it, We may get it if they impeach Trump. The lower classes are already quite cognizant of the fact that the white elite is virulently anti-American and hates their guts and wants them eradicated. The lower classes just need a trigger to push back hard and final.

    Always figured it would come down to a class conflict.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    Trump can’t do anymore than what he’s already done. He can’t touch DACA because of the courts, H1-B’s and associated work visas probably need congress to fix and they won’t do it, etc.

    Trump really needs to get rid of Congress and the judiciary since both are at the center of the cancer that is killing the country.

    Read More
  71. @International Jew
    He can't just do it "because he can". He has to show he's playing by the rules. It's all he needs, to scare a small number of Republican congressmen into thinking he's going "autocratic", for them to join a solid front of Dems. And Trump's as good as impeached.

    Right now, Trump's biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that's loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.

    Trump will eventually get impeached no matter what he does. He’s not part of the establishment and they will do anything to get rid of him. The hatred he’s already getting is beyond belief. Both Ryan and McConnell want Trump gone.

    They want to make a example out of him to the people.

    This isn’t politics, it’s a declaration of war by establishment against the American people.

    Right now I’m just getting the impression Trump’s supporters and others are waiting to see what the establishment does before making their move.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    He won't be impeached.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I agree wholeheartedly. The ability to control borders is inherent in nationhood. If the House and Senate want to overturn a Presidential election over whether the President and Congress control immigration and visa issuance policy, let them try. Trump will never be stronger than he is now and this is the issue, more than any other, on which he won the Presidency. Defiance of purported court orders is the only way to go--trying to craft an order that will pass muster with these people is an exercise in futility, since they now claim the prerogative to judge the motives of the order, which they will always find racist and in violation of the judicial gloss which has been placed on interpretations of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    Who run Bartertown?
  72. @Frau Katze
    A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended.

    I realize it's extremely unlikely that anything like this will happen.

    4 Frau Katze > A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended

    As I understand it – it’s not statutory law at all.

    Stopping it will merely require the same actions as those required to decide, which is the “National Butterfly”

    Read More
  73. @Rod1963
    Trump will eventually get impeached no matter what he does. He's not part of the establishment and they will do anything to get rid of him. The hatred he's already getting is beyond belief. Both Ryan and McConnell want Trump gone.

    They want to make a example out of him to the people.

    This isn't politics, it's a declaration of war by establishment against the American people.

    Right now I'm just getting the impression Trump's supporters and others are waiting to see what the establishment does before making their move.

    He won’t be impeached.

    Read More
  74. @Cloudbuster
    I've been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me. How are immigrants coming into New York, for example, even within his jurisdiction? How do individuals within his jurisdiction even have standing to request a nationwide stay?

    What I've seen in the past when a judge issues a stay of a government action, it's for a particular action against particular people, in a particular place - a district judge might issue a stay against a particular federal eminent domain action, but a district judge couldn't (I thought) issue a stay of all federal eminent domain actions everywhere in the country.

    Doesn't the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?

    (1) Allowing a single puisne (i.e. inferior, pronounced “puny”) judge to hold the Executive Branch hostage on a fundamental matter of national security is simply insane. It does not matter whether the judge is debauched, bribed, or suffering from delusions of grandeur.

    At a minimum, injunctions against the Federal Government should require a 4:1 decision by five judges, each from a different federal circuit.

    (2) The problem of judicial overreach can be fixed WITHOUT amending the Constitution.

    The jurisdiction of inferior courts (other than the Supreme Court) is set by statute. The Republicans can simply pass a law with simply majorities to re-balance the court system and reduce the scope for grand-standing by activist judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    The problem of judicial overreach can be fixed instantly by having an elite which wants the problem of judicial overreach fixed. It isn't a plumbing problem. Nothing is broken. No mistake has been made. There is no problem, from the point of view of the people who matter.
  75. @Frau Katze
    A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended.

    I realize it's extremely unlikely that anything like this will happen.

    4 Frau Katze > A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended

    As I understand it – it’s not statutory law at all.

    Stopping it will merely require the same actions as those required to decide, which is the “National Butterfly”

    Read More
  76. @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    I don’t eat lettuce and don’t care if it gets picked at all .

    Read More
  77. @Anon7
    Don't forget, Barack Obama was spotted yesterday in Hawaii. Judge Watson was put on the bench in Hawaii by Obama in 2013.

    If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment. The last federal judge was impeached in 2010, so it's not impossible.

    Federal judges are Civil Officers under the Constitution:

    "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    The US Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants. One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress' place in upholding the "good behavior" of judges.

    “If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment.”

    What’s impeachable about that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Nothing.
    , @Anon7
    Judicial independence is essential and important to the idea of separation of powers. I don't like the idea of a deep state or other kind of arrangement that keeps former administrations in power.

    Presidents (former or current) should stay away from judges.
  78. @bored identity
    Big & Privileged Kenyan to Harvard Kahuna puts Little & Privileged Kamehameha to Harvard Affirmative Action Hero in a Spotlight:



    Judge Derrick Kahala Watson :

    Derrick Kahala Watson was nominated by President Obama in November 2012 to serve as
    a United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, the position to which he was confirmed by the United States Senate in April 2013.

    Prior to taking the bench, Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Hawaii, serving as Chief of the Civil Division beginning in January 2009.

    Previously, he worked at the San Francisco law firm of Farella Braun + MartelLLP, where his practice focused on product liability, toxic tort, and environmental cost recovery litigation. He joined the firm in December 2000 and was named partner in January 2003.

    Judge Watson was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of California from 1995 to 2000, including serving as Deputy Chief of the Civil Division from 1999 to 2000.
    He began his legal career at the law firm of Landels, Ripley & Diamond in San Francisco, where he was an associate from 1991 to 1995.

    Judge Watson received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, his A.B. in 1988 from Harvard College, and is a 1984 graduate of The Kamehameha Schools* whose founder Wuz Honoluluan Queen born in local grass hut compound.

    *By the terms of its founding, the schools' admissions policy prefers applicants with Native Hawaiian ancestry. Since 1965 it has excluded all but two non-Hawaiians from being admitted. A lawsuit challenging the school's admission policy resulted in a narrow victory for Kamehameha in the Ninth Circuit Court; however, Kamehameha ultimately settled, paying the plaintiff $7 million.

     

    Now that Somalis from Mogadishusota got mastered ice-fishing, it's time for Trump administration to drop few contingents of them on Maui beaches to practice blast fishing skills on local ahi tuna population;

    http://khon2.com/2015/11/17/gov-ige-defends-position-on-syria-i-dont-have-the-authority-to-say-yes-or-no/

    That has always been my solution. Trump needs to take liberals at their words and direct all visa applicants to liberal strongholds. Child soldiers should be brought in from Congo and Liberia to be resettled in SF.

    Read More
  79. @Lot
    If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we'd one case per the 150 or so judicial districts. If it is a hot enough issue that the lower judges disagree, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

    This is how we stopped the massive DAPA amnesty. It is content, not procedure, that the judge got wrong. Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban.

    “If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we’d one case per the 150 or so judicial districts.”

    Okay, but isn’t a district judge stealing the plenary power of the executive over immigration itself an illegal act? So why can’t Judge Watson be enjoined completely? Because his name begins with “Judge”?

    “Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban.”

    Hmm, so at the moment, the Constitution hangs on our expectation that swingy-vote Kennedy might make the right decision at a certain point months or years away?

    Somehow, this is not reassuring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Considering the way Roberts bent and snapped like a twig over Obamacare, I'm not hopeful about Kennedy. He's always been wishy-washy, and the left will be flooding his email and phone with threats. However, even if we lose a battle, that doesn't mean we've lost the war. If Ginsberg dies in the next three years, Trump can replace her and we can try again to ban immigration.
  80. Amendment IX

    The enumeration by Supreme Court and Federal District judges of certain rights and laws, shall be construed to deny and disparage others formerly retained by the people and described by their elected representatives.

    Read More
  81. @Wally
    Why do these cases always end up in the hands of leftist judges?

    It’s a good question. It is supposed to be illegal to assign cases to judges based on their known prejudices, but since case assignments are determined opaquely by faceless bureaucrats, and since so many important cases just happen to end up before extreme lefty judges at the most convenient time, it is hard not to conclude that the Leftocracy is fixing things behind the scenes.

    Another commenter said that the judge issued his 43-page ruling just two hours after the request. If true, this is highly suggestive that that the whole thing was a show-trial fixed in advance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Cases at the federal level are assigned based on jurisdiction. Someone filed suit in Hawaii so a Hawaiian judge heard the case. No conspiracy necessary. Take off your foil hat.
  82. @gregor
    To get a stay like this the judge has to determine that the person's case has "high likelihood of success" when eventually decided and that any delay would cause "irreparable harm."

    In this particular case we have an Egyptian-American over in Hawaii trying to bring his mother-in-law over from Syria. The judge said it violates the establishment clause ... to not give this guy's mother-in-law a visa. Wut??? That's a first amendment claim, but as Steve notes it really only makes sense if you presuppose a right for foreigners to settle in the US.

    What’s wrong with this guy? Most men would be ecstatic to have their mother-in-law thousands of miles away.

    Read More
  83. @Rod1963
    Trump will eventually get impeached no matter what he does. He's not part of the establishment and they will do anything to get rid of him. The hatred he's already getting is beyond belief. Both Ryan and McConnell want Trump gone.

    They want to make a example out of him to the people.

    This isn't politics, it's a declaration of war by establishment against the American people.

    Right now I'm just getting the impression Trump's supporters and others are waiting to see what the establishment does before making their move.

    I agree wholeheartedly. The ability to control borders is inherent in nationhood. If the House and Senate want to overturn a Presidential election over whether the President and Congress control immigration and visa issuance policy, let them try. Trump will never be stronger than he is now and this is the issue, more than any other, on which he won the Presidency. Defiance of purported court orders is the only way to go–trying to craft an order that will pass muster with these people is an exercise in futility, since they now claim the prerogative to judge the motives of the order, which they will always find racist and in violation of the judicial gloss which has been placed on interpretations of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    Who run Bartertown?

    Read More
  84. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Alfa158
    That's a good point. Everyone knows lettuce didn't even exist until Mexicans re-entered the US. In fact if we banned immigration we would go back to where we were a century ago when Americans had no food at all.

    You should research what happened to Georgia agriculture when they passed stricter laws on undocumented workers.

    Read More
  85. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Almost Missouri

    "If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment."
     
    What's impeachable about that?

    Nothing.

    Read More
  86. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Almost Missouri
    It's a good question. It is supposed to be illegal to assign cases to judges based on their known prejudices, but since case assignments are determined opaquely by faceless bureaucrats, and since so many important cases just happen to end up before extreme lefty judges at the most convenient time, it is hard not to conclude that the Leftocracy is fixing things behind the scenes.

    Another commenter said that the judge issued his 43-page ruling just two hours after the request. If true, this is highly suggestive that that the whole thing was a show-trial fixed in advance.

    Cases at the federal level are assigned based on jurisdiction. Someone filed suit in Hawaii so a Hawaiian judge heard the case. No conspiracy necessary. Take off your foil hat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    You misread my comment. It did not address choice of jurisdiction. That is legal--unseemly--but legal, and it is no coincidence that these cases are being filed within the notoriously lefty 9th Circuit. But that is not what my comment addressed.

    Within each Circuit there are many Districts. Within each District there are many judges. What my comment did address is the assignment of the judge. Which judge gets which case is not chosen by the litigant but by a federal bureaucrat. The process is arcane, opaque and behind closed doors. By weird coincidence, a doctrinaire lefty always seems to get handed crucial constitutional cases, especially when they are time-sensitive. These rulings may get overturned by the time they reach the Supremes, but by then much water has gone under the bridge, and in any case the Supreme Court has been under siege by leftists since the New Deal. So the Constitution can only win at the final, embattled courtroom, while the Progs can win at every step along the way, which also gives the false impression that the lefty rulings are "normal" while a Constitutional victory at the end is "aberrant". A false impression that the treason-media are not shy about promoting.

    For those collecting Practical Steps to Prevent Proggery, a little sunlight on the judge assignment process could be an excellent disinfectant.

  87. @Dr. X
    This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn't have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn't have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It's Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    Alright, but if the President decides to exercise his right that he is not going to allow, for example, foreign born wives of US citizens who are mothers of US citizens to live in the US, then to be constitutional he needs to make the ban across the board of all countries, races, and religions and not discriminate randomly against, say, marriages where the US citizen is white and the incoming spouse black, otherwise he will be in contravention of numerous Supreme Court rulings on marriage, sanctity and importance thereof.

    The original list of Seven Naughty Nations included Iraq, which has now been removed from the list as it has come into compliance with US immigration requirements. So what exactly did Iraq do to come into compliance, and what are the other nations required to do to come into compliance that every other nation in the world is already doing, but they are not? Why is Mr. Trump not honest about this?

    What ARE the standards required?

    I know people are coming in from Haiti both as undocumented refugees who have thrown away their passports arriving at the southern border, usually traveling from Brazil, and directly from Haiti and the Dominican Republic as wives, husbands, and immigrant workers with visas. Yet I personally would not trust a birth certificate or police certificate of good conduct from Haiti at all, as these things can easily be obtained with a small bribe if they do not exist, and anyway the police have no computerized records, and many original birth certificates are hand written and were registered long after the birth.

    There are many other countries that are also not on the naughty step that are similarly unreliable. Why is Pakistan not on the list? Isn’t that the nation that gave shelter to Osama bin Laden and provided the genetic material for the London Underground bombers?

    This is why the courts are interfering. If Trump wants to exercise his right to interdict travel to the US to keep us all safe from terrorists, he should ban entry for ALL citizens of all countries including airline pilots and crew, Canadian businessmen and computer programmers on H-1 visas and Mexican wives, who could easily be terrorists in disguise, then no one can say that he is discriminating against any US citizen’s rights based on race, religion, or place of origin.

    Read More
  88. @Sunbeam
    I'm not really up on legal theory.

    But if a court on the West Coast can do this, why can't another court strike down some key feature of something these guys are in favor of (whether they know it or not).

    One thing I'd like to see (though no idea how Trump views it) is to force a la carte pricing for cable.

    I think the fallout sees ESPN, CNN and others go under. I mean these guys can just pull things out of their ass, so why can't others do it as well?

    Or it may have been an idea in another thread, but a lawsuit challenging whether blacks are disproportionately represented in public employment as opposed to hispanics?

    One thing I’d like to see (though no idea how Trump views it) is to force a la carte pricing for cable.

    What? Is Trump some kind of a populist then?

    Actually when I lived in the Dominican Republic we had cable TV for $15 per month with 200 channels and a much better selection than what is available from Comcast including local channels, channels in several languages, Al Jazeera News, and all the usual English language US networks and movie channels. The favorite channel in our house was CBeebies, a British Broadcasting Corporation network for children age 6 and under. Very addictive.

    Here in the US we just have over-the-air TV as the cable is not worth having, but we do have unlimited Internet with Netflix, Youtube, and so on.

    The free market solution is just to let cable TV die in the US.

    Read More
  89. @Dr. X
    This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn't have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn't have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It's Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    A process has been set in motion which will eventually lead to people asking why we ever let these black-robed bureaucrats tell us what we can and cannot do in the political realm. When it becomes clear that the managerial state won’t let voters change the government, opportunistic demagogues will seize territories and write their own charters for governance. Then it will be about ownership, not democracy, and judges will only be consulted to construe land grants and other contracts instead of abstract concepts like “equal protection.” The objects of future jurisprudence will be about owners, tenants, and trespassers, not citizens and not the global “persons” who enjoy the infinite protections of the omnipotent 14th Amendment.

    Neo-feudalism, and it is coming whether the statists or even the anarcho-capitalists themselves like it or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Captain Tripps
    Agree. I came to the conclusion when both candidates were selected by their respective parties, that no matter who was elected, we would face a constitutional crisis. I just didn't think it would happen this quickly. Neither side was going to accept the legitimacy of whoever was elected in a close contest.

    But I underestimated the Democrat-Media hysteria to Trump's election. It appears they intend to crash the system, simply to satisfy their myopic need to invalidate Trump's election. Maybe not deliberately, because we still want to have faith that our third branch can remain impartial.

    But it really does feel eerily in parallel with the rise of Marius-Sulla; the legal system is being manipulated and abused to assert one faction's right to dominate all other factions. This will only cause everyone to abandon trust in the basic integrity of the underlying legal framework, and its ability to decide controversial constitutional matters impartially. Paving the way for a "savior" to rescue us from the chaos.
  90. @Ed
    These are the Western civilization undermining effects that a concentration of non-whites, frankly non-NW Europeans bring, rulings by feelings not the law. People just don't understand how rare cool, dispassionate thought is among the peoples of the world. Whatever I feel is right that day or who ever can pay my bribe is what many judges in the 3rd world go by.

    Most normal people don't see anything wrong with it though or don't notice. So it makes speaking out against it difficult especially in a society where people are now taught that diversity is the number one goal of America. Also this crosses ideological lines on my Twitter TL the most rabid pro-immigrant users are often the #neverTrump conservatives.

    The Anglo-Celt view of the State and of the common law is unique in the entire planet. These foreigners find the very concept of common law and a priori limitations on State action baffling. To them, the State is like this endless cornucopia, and we just need to have the right people in charge of it distributing the goodies. They really have no grasp of the Enlightenment reasoning behind our institutions. Like Vox Day says, immigrants do not assimilate, they transform.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    It's funny you mention gov't goodies. The journalists, academics etc on my TL are freaking out over Trump's budget.

    They keep reciting all of these programs that if cut would just harm humanity or that do great things. If they're so great why are they always complaining about this or that problem?
  91. @Frau Katze
    A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended.

    I realize it's extremely unlikely that anything like this will happen.

    Judicial review of laws is useful to congress–they know they can punt unpopular or politically difficult issues to the courts instead of having to take the heat for them.

    Read More
  92. @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    The last time I checked, the cost of labor in a $1 ag purchase was about 6-8 cents. If we doubled ag wages, I’d probably be willing to pay $1.06—-or even $1.08! for the same ag purchase.

    Read More
  93. @gregor
    To get a stay like this the judge has to determine that the person's case has "high likelihood of success" when eventually decided and that any delay would cause "irreparable harm."

    In this particular case we have an Egyptian-American over in Hawaii trying to bring his mother-in-law over from Syria. The judge said it violates the establishment clause ... to not give this guy's mother-in-law a visa. Wut??? That's a first amendment claim, but as Steve notes it really only makes sense if you presuppose a right for foreigners to settle in the US.

    Has to be the only guy in America that wants to be with his mother-in-law. The Judge states that he has suffered irreparable harm including the whole state of Hawaii.

    Read More
  94. @Dr. X
    This is insane, utterly insane. The Constitution clearly and explicitly gives Congress power over immigration and naturalization in Article I, and it is the job of the President to execute the laws of Congress. And Congress has clearly and explicitly given him discretion to ban any and all foreigners.

    The idea that foreigners outside of the country somehow have constitutional rights is batshit crazy, and these Federal judges know it. They are playing politics pure and simple, not interpreting the Constitution or the law.

    They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn't have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn't have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.

    It's Rome, 410 A.D. all over again, guys, and the barbarian hordes are at the gates, and the socio-political elites actually want to let them in.

    U.S. of A., 1776-2008, R.I.P.

    Nice ride while it lasted.

    It isn’t any more insane than Wickard v. Filburn or Roe v. Wade or school busing. There is nothing new here. This is not a new low. Nobody is going to revolt over it. It makes a tiny little cadre of sperged-out policy wonks (me, for example, and, I guess, you) angry, but that’s it.

    Nope, the ride goes all the way down, and we have to ride it all the way down.

    Did you know South Africa has concentration camps for whites? I guess if it was OK for the British to do it, it’s OK for the ANC to do it.

    Read More
  95. @Lot
    If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we'd one case per the 150 or so judicial districts. If it is a hot enough issue that the lower judges disagree, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

    This is how we stopped the massive DAPA amnesty. It is content, not procedure, that the judge got wrong. Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban.

    That’s how it works, but it’s obviously stupid, just as Cloudbuster says. There are a lot of federal districts, and you only have to find one. Things like this—challenges to executive orders affecting national policy—should obviously go to a single special-purpose place. The DC Circuit Court would be the most sensible.

    Read More
  96. @Eagle Eye
    (1) Allowing a single puisne (i.e. inferior, pronounced "puny") judge to hold the Executive Branch hostage on a fundamental matter of national security is simply insane. It does not matter whether the judge is debauched, bribed, or suffering from delusions of grandeur.

    At a minimum, injunctions against the Federal Government should require a 4:1 decision by five judges, each from a different federal circuit.

    (2) The problem of judicial overreach can be fixed WITHOUT amending the Constitution.

    The jurisdiction of inferior courts (other than the Supreme Court) is set by statute. The Republicans can simply pass a law with simply majorities to re-balance the court system and reduce the scope for grand-standing by activist judges.

    The problem of judicial overreach can be fixed instantly by having an elite which wants the problem of judicial overreach fixed. It isn’t a plumbing problem. Nothing is broken. No mistake has been made. There is no problem, from the point of view of the people who matter.

    Read More
  97. Analysis: Hawaii v. Trump

    http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/03/15/instant-analysis-hawaii-v-trump/

    https://twitter.com/JoshMBlackman

    Prof. Josh Blackman:

    “Although Judge Watkins rejected the notion that President Trump’s ‘past conduct must forever taint any effort by it to address the security concerns of the nation,’ it is hard to see how his analysis would ever permit the executive branch to impost any immigration policy that has any effect on predominantly Muslim countries — no matter how small. The court’s analysis, which hinges on parsing statements by Trump and his surrogates on cable news, and determining whether the President repudiated his prior policies, is better suited for fact-checkers, not Article III courts.”

    Hawaii TRO and 9th Circuit En Banc Denial effectively strip Trump of executive powers

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/hawaii-tro-and-9th-circuit-en-banc-denials-effectively-strip-trump-of-executive-powers/

    If you take it further, any law or regulation that Trump signs and affects one muslim negatively will be ruled unconstitutional.

    Read More
  98. @Anonymous
    (My usual account seems to be flagged as spam by unz.com, so I'll post anonymously.)

    Doesn’t the judge have to produce a particular complainant who is claiming harm in respect to a particular person or persons Visa application and stay that particular action?
     
    No. Federal judges have plenary power over the United States. As Claude asks, yes, any federal judge in Arkansas or anywhere could just issue an order in any case prohibiting all immigration into the USA any time he feels the urge to do so.

    The restraint on the power of a judge is that any one judge that gets out of line would be reversed by a higher court. If he keeps issuing rulings that judges in general object to, the higher courts will start issuing quick emergency reversals all the time. Eventually they can illustrate to Congress that the out of line judge should be removed for bad behavior. Only by impeachment can a judge be removed.

    But there is no rule that judges have to follow precedent or the law. That is a social shaming convention among judges that any one judge can choose to ignore at the risk of unpopularity and reversals by the court of appeals above him.

    And all US federal judges have a court above them to reverse rulings, except the Supreme Court which has nine members on every case to dilute any one outlier.

    The problem here arises because there is a culture among intellectuals of finding Trump to be illigitimate. Once the judges agree not to shame each other for ruling contrary to the law, there is no restraint on what they can do. That's why judges generally obey the law even with congresses and presidents they hate. Judges finding themselves above the law are quickly knocked down by their colleagues because they are threatening the very integrity of the nation.

    The rapidity with which intellectual culture has turned so hard against the American nation and her people is stunning and the open contempt for us and courting of Constitutional crisis is amazing. But there they are. Under the system we have, we have little defense against them.

    It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened. The Federal Circuit is considered the most corrupt court in the country and routinely reverses Supreme Court rulings. The chief judge had to resign under corruption investigation a couple years ago. The judges rule in their own personal professional interest regularly. It costs the tech industry tens of billions of dollars every year. And there just isn't much anyone can do about it. But CAFC rulings are limited to a few specific jurisdictions.

    It's unclear if the Supreme Court would even reverse this care with Gorsuch. Kennedy, Gorsuch, and Roberts have potential to help lead a Never Trump revolt of the judiciary against the Constitutional order. They seem to care a lot more about elite opinion than they do about America.

    There are a few wrinkles here. The judge's ruling suspending the order mainly affects visa issuance and that happens outside the USA. Judges don't have extraterritorial jurisdiction. Also, visa issuance is discretionary so the judge can't order that all visas be issued; Trump can just order that State employees issuing visas badly be disciplined and dismissed, implicitly enforcing the order with no reversible order issued.

    And let's not get too excited about the order in the first place. This is not the Moslem ban we were promised and that we need so badly. Syria and Libya and Somalia aren't getting many visas in the first place. Iranian Moslems are among the least troublesome in the world (They're much more like smarter Indonesians than they are like low-IQ and violent Saudis or Somalis). America shouldn't be taking in any Moslem immigrants at all. Zero is the goal. This is more like a five percent cut from absurdly high disaster levels. It's like hiring two guys with buckets and saying the Oroville Dam crisis is fixed.

    Trump isn't even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We'll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won't build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    Great comment.

    Trump isn’t even trying to get a real rational immigration policy yet. We’ll have to wait and see if he ever tries to improve things. This is one pothole and fixing it won’t build us the new high speed rail line we need.

    This raises the question of why Trump is bothering with this nonsense. If you are suspicious of Trump, you have to think that this *is* the Muslim ban he promised. This is what he is going to point to as “I delivered.” I.e. he never really planned to deliver or, more likely, once he figured out how hard it would be to deliver, he decided not to.

    But what’s the benign interpretation of this whole fiasco? That he really believes, for some reason, that a travel ban on these countries is a pressing national security concern? Or that the whole thing is a kind of test case or public demonstration of the constraints he is operating under?

    Read More
  99. @Lot
    You overstate how many Republicans in Congress we have on our side. More than a third of Senate GOPers are in the Rubio/McCain block.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.

    And remember Ted Cruz, who was supposed to be one of the better senators on migration, favors higher legal immigration.

    I have not forgotten. Nor will I ever forgive.

    Read More
  100. @Buzz Mohawk
    Amendment IX

    The enumeration by Supreme Court and Federal District judges of certain rights and laws, shall be construed to deny and disparage others formerly retained by the people and described by their elected representatives.

    Grimly entertaining.

    Read More
  101. @Almost Missouri

    "If the two met, you might be able to get some action in the Congress for impeachment."
     
    What's impeachable about that?

    Judicial independence is essential and important to the idea of separation of powers. I don’t like the idea of a deep state or other kind of arrangement that keeps former administrations in power.

    Presidents (former or current) should stay away from judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It's true that fraternization between an ex-president and a sitting judge ruling on a key action of the current president is extremely bad form. But that's not the same as impeachability.

    Obama should just go into retirement as pretty much every previous president did. Since no one in his entourage, which includes the entire political-media-complex, has ever held him to any ethical standard, this won't happen.

  102. @Anonymous
    Reporter for Guardian US:

    Julia Carrie Wong‏ @juliacarriew

    Pretty cool that Muslim ban blocked by Chinese-American AG arguing on behalf of Syrian-American plaintiff before a Native Hawaiian judge.
    8,615 Likes

    Deepa Iyer‏ @dviyer 3h3 hours ago

    and represented by an Indian American lawyer (Neal Katyal)!

     

    A reply: "And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this country. You just can't have anything more American than that."

    America has countless judges and lawyers from unlikely ethnic background who became prominent as defenders of and builders on ancient English concepts of civil liberties.

    Sadly, the assortment of third-rate place-men listed by the self-absorbed Guardian writer-ess prostituted themselves to become mere place-men and place-women for the Democrat machine, rather than rise to the occasion to defend fundamental principles of a mature democracy.

    Despite its long history, democracy and civil liberties in an advanced society are much more fragile than is commonly supposed. We are skating on thin ice, and these impostors are intentionally hacking wholes into the ice.

    The Democrats are not as stupid and forgiving as Republicans and will never trust their own sell-outs. When Democrats come back into power, these spineless legal puppets will be given sinecures FAR AWAY from any real power.

    Read More
  103. @Polynices
    Anyone else assuming that a gigantic smack down by Trump of these moron judges is coming at some point soon? It's completely insane that random federal judges can seize control of national border control issues and pretty sure it's blatantly unlawful too (though IANAL). I've been figuring that Trump is biding his time and will unleash hell when he's ready. Maybe after Gorsuch is in?

    People no longer need to make the disclaimer, “I’m not a lawyer”, when discussing the fundamentals of the US constitution.

    Talk to lawyers — here in LA and other alien leftist cities, but elsewhere too — and it becomes readily apparent that most of them don’t know a damn thing about the Constitution and don’t care. Same with federal judges. They are indifferent or hostile to the constitution both on and off the bench.

    Not being a lawyer might make you better qualified to interpret the constitution, or at least more trustworthy.

    Read More
  104. @Frau Katze
    A feature of Anglo law that lets judges overturn legislation needs to be ended.

    I realize it's extremely unlikely that anything like this will happen.

    At least a statute stripping the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over any immigration and border matters entirely.

    And an end to life tenure for fed judges.

    Those two measures would be a great start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Lifetime tenure is in the Constitution. However, there may be some effective work-arounds.

    (1) Cut where it hurts. Threaten to clip the wings of the federal Courts of APPEAL, e.g. by limiting appealable subject matter, setting up more circuits (so each circuit is smaller), etc. Also, why shouldn't appellate courts compete for "custom"?

    When the Ninth Circus discovers that its jurisdiction will be limited to Greater LA and a few dusty suburbs, the honored justices may discover hitherto unsuspected reservoirs of judicial deference inside themselves. (Currently, the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses Hawaii and all Western states.)

    (2) Encourage Retirement. Similarly, federal courts could strengthen their efforts to encourage judges INFORMALLY to have justices take "senior status" (i.e. retire) e.g. at 75.

    (3) No more assignment hanky-panky. Leftard Derrick Watson most likely ended up hearing the case through manipulation of the case assignment system by SEIU staff. In future, cases should be assigned on a truly random basis, including assignment to neighboring districts to avoid giving a small cabal of judges a lock on any one district.

  105. Every political action has an equal and opposite reaction.

    Today, the progressives celebrate because they got a judicial hack to rule according to politics rather than according to the law.

    But Trump is President. Republicans control the Senate and House. The Democrats have effectively removed the filibuster–which is already creating an equal and opposite reaction now that the Republicans are in the majority.

    Trump will be able to replace a vast segment of the current judiciary, even over only the next four years. Projections show that he should be able to do so for 38% of the judiciary–the highest across many Presidencies. And of course it will be far higher if he wins another term.

    Trump and the Republicans now have all the talking points they will ever need to force systematically conservative appointments into the judiciary — even, now perhaps especially, those districts traditionally allowed to be left wing, like the 9th.

    That’s the equal and opposite reaction the progressives seem incapable of foreseeing.

    Read More
  106. @Dr. X

    I’ve been a little mystified on how a judge for one particular district can issue a nationwide stay. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
     
    It's called "judicial activism." Judges -- well, they judge things. And while they're supposed to be bound by Federal Rules of Procedure and by precedent, they still have a lot of discretion.

    That being said, in all probability these District Court judges certainly know that their rulings are likely to get slapped down by an appellate court. They issue them anyway, because they're gaming the legal system to play politics against Trump.

    So, let's say a District Court judge issues a national injunction against the Executive Branch. Two things to remember -- they're not ruling on the law or the merits of the case, it's a discretionary, procedural ruling. The actual merits of the case will be litigated at a later date, maybe six months or more. In the meantime they score a political victory by shutting down the Executive Branch.

    Secondly, the procedural ruling itself will be appealed, and though an appellate court might strike it, it could play also politics and let the injunction stay in effect until the actual trial, which as mentioned above may be months if not more. That's exactly what happened with the first Trump Executive Order -- the Ninth Circuit declined to overturn it.

    Judges (and lawyers) of the political Left always game the rules of the system to screw their opponents. If conservatives pass a law restricting, say, abortion or immigration or gay marriage, they'll issue an injunction in about 10 seconds flat. But when the Left passes laws banning guns or requiring transgender rights, they simply allow it to stay in effect while it gets litigated and appealed for years on end and ultimately drowned in the swamp of legal procedure.

    Love your comment.

    Just one quibble: when a judge grants a preliminary injunction, he is necessarily determining that the party getting the injunction is likely to succeed on the merits ultimately. Usually the issuance of a prelim injunction turns on a showing that the movant is STRONGLY likely to succeed on the merits eventually.

    So they are judging the merits in that sense, though you’re right that they’re not bound by that initial assessment and can rule the other way later at trial.

    But it’s not common for a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction and then rule against that party in the end.

    Read More
  107. @International Jew
    He can't just do it "because he can". He has to show he's playing by the rules. It's all he needs, to scare a small number of Republican congressmen into thinking he's going "autocratic", for them to join a solid front of Dems. And Trump's as good as impeached.

    Right now, Trump's biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that's loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.

    Right now, Trump’s biggest problem is a shortage of top-notch legal talent that’s loyal to him. The guy who argued his first travel ban appeal (before the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco) got totally outclassed.

    Even if Trump had “top-notch” legal talent, do you really think the ruling would have been different?

    Read More
  108. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon
    Hope you like picking your own lettuce.

    Oligarchs bribing the political class to open the borders is a perfect example of privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

    Cheap lettuce is paid for with
    - dangerous schools
    - crippling housing costs to avoid the dangerous schools
    - welfare
    - either crumbling infrastructure or more tax for infrastructure.

    Cheap lettuce is very expensive.

    Read More
  109. @The Anti-Gnostic
    The Anglo-Celt view of the State and of the common law is unique in the entire planet. These foreigners find the very concept of common law and a priori limitations on State action baffling. To them, the State is like this endless cornucopia, and we just need to have the right people in charge of it distributing the goodies. They really have no grasp of the Enlightenment reasoning behind our institutions. Like Vox Day says, immigrants do not assimilate, they transform.

    It’s funny you mention gov’t goodies. The journalists, academics etc on my TL are freaking out over Trump’s budget.

    They keep reciting all of these programs that if cut would just harm humanity or that do great things. If they’re so great why are they always complaining about this or that problem?

    Read More
  110. @The Anti-Gnostic

    Our Empire is past crisis stage. Our former republican laws and republican Constitution have been rendered null and void, and the political class has simply degenerated into a cock-fight without any rules or principles.
     
    A process has been set in motion which will eventually lead to people asking why we ever let these black-robed bureaucrats tell us what we can and cannot do in the political realm. When it becomes clear that the managerial state won't let voters change the government, opportunistic demagogues will seize territories and write their own charters for governance. Then it will be about ownership, not democracy, and judges will only be consulted to construe land grants and other contracts instead of abstract concepts like "equal protection." The objects of future jurisprudence will be about owners, tenants, and trespassers, not citizens and not the global "persons" who enjoy the infinite protections of the omnipotent 14th Amendment.

    Neo-feudalism, and it is coming whether the statists or even the anarcho-capitalists themselves like it or not.

    Agree. I came to the conclusion when both candidates were selected by their respective parties, that no matter who was elected, we would face a constitutional crisis. I just didn’t think it would happen this quickly. Neither side was going to accept the legitimacy of whoever was elected in a close contest.

    But I underestimated the Democrat-Media hysteria to Trump’s election. It appears they intend to crash the system, simply to satisfy their myopic need to invalidate Trump’s election. Maybe not deliberately, because we still want to have faith that our third branch can remain impartial.

    But it really does feel eerily in parallel with the rise of Marius-Sulla; the legal system is being manipulated and abused to assert one faction’s right to dominate all other factions. This will only cause everyone to abandon trust in the basic integrity of the underlying legal framework, and its ability to decide controversial constitutional matters impartially. Paving the way for a “savior” to rescue us from the chaos.

    Read More
  111. @sf
    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.

    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.

    There are jobs rotting in the fields waiting for you to start your farming career.

    Read More
  112. @sf
    Farm work should pay $20 per hour minimum. There is no tenure, no job security and no benefits. You are exposed to lots of poisons and probably have a bad back after 20 yr.

    $20 to bend over and pick things ain’t gonna happen. Farm work should be automated, and mostly is at this point. There are automated harvesters for just about every crop.

    Most trades will wreck you by age 50. You either go into management or project/site supervision or you become a contractor and employ tradesmen. Or you go on disability.

    The market for people whose primary capital is a strong back is getting smaller and smaller.

    Read More
  113. @Anon7
    Judicial independence is essential and important to the idea of separation of powers. I don't like the idea of a deep state or other kind of arrangement that keeps former administrations in power.

    Presidents (former or current) should stay away from judges.

    It’s true that fraternization between an ex-president and a sitting judge ruling on a key action of the current president is extremely bad form. But that’s not the same as impeachability.

    Obama should just go into retirement as pretty much every previous president did. Since no one in his entourage, which includes the entire political-media-complex, has ever held him to any ethical standard, this won’t happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If Trump has a brain, he's go after Valerie Jarrett and her ties to the massive amount of money given to Iran. I'm sure Jarrett took kickbacks from that deal. If Trump could lock her up, he'd neuter Obama. She's Obama's evil genius and cattle prod.
  114. @Anon
    Cases at the federal level are assigned based on jurisdiction. Someone filed suit in Hawaii so a Hawaiian judge heard the case. No conspiracy necessary. Take off your foil hat.

    You misread my comment. It did not address choice of jurisdiction. That is legal–unseemly–but legal, and it is no coincidence that these cases are being filed within the notoriously lefty 9th Circuit. But that is not what my comment addressed.

    Within each Circuit there are many Districts. Within each District there are many judges. What my comment did address is the assignment of the judge. Which judge gets which case is not chosen by the litigant but by a federal bureaucrat. The process is arcane, opaque and behind closed doors. By weird coincidence, a doctrinaire lefty always seems to get handed crucial constitutional cases, especially when they are time-sensitive. These rulings may get overturned by the time they reach the Supremes, but by then much water has gone under the bridge, and in any case the Supreme Court has been under siege by leftists since the New Deal. So the Constitution can only win at the final, embattled courtroom, while the Progs can win at every step along the way, which also gives the false impression that the lefty rulings are “normal” while a Constitutional victory at the end is “aberrant”. A false impression that the treason-media are not shy about promoting.

    For those collecting Practical Steps to Prevent Proggery, a little sunlight on the judge assignment process could be an excellent disinfectant.

    Read More
  115. @RadicalCenter
    At least a statute stripping the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over any immigration and border matters entirely.

    And an end to life tenure for fed judges.

    Those two measures would be a great start.

    Lifetime tenure is in the Constitution. However, there may be some effective work-arounds.

    (1) Cut where it hurts. Threaten to clip the wings of the federal Courts of APPEAL, e.g. by limiting appealable subject matter, setting up more circuits (so each circuit is smaller), etc. Also, why shouldn’t appellate courts compete for “custom”?

    When the Ninth Circus discovers that its jurisdiction will be limited to Greater LA and a few dusty suburbs, the honored justices may discover hitherto unsuspected reservoirs of judicial deference inside themselves. (Currently, the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction encompasses Hawaii and all Western states.)

    (2) Encourage Retirement. Similarly, federal courts could strengthen their efforts to encourage judges INFORMALLY to have justices take “senior status” (i.e. retire) e.g. at 75.

    (3) No more assignment hanky-panky. Leftard Derrick Watson most likely ended up hearing the case through manipulation of the case assignment system by SEIU staff. In future, cases should be assigned on a truly random basis, including assignment to neighboring districts to avoid giving a small cabal of judges a lock on any one district.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Thanks for the thoughtful response, Eagle.

    For Item #1: yes, absolutely we should split the Ninth Circuit into at least two circuits, preferably three, as soon as possible. Same with other large circuits.

    A problem here would be that the new circuits would presumably be required to follow Ninth circuit precedent (any holdings in "published" opinions, i.e. those printed in the lawbooks rather than merely posted online on WestLaw or Lexis), until and unless the new circuit sat en banc (all judges rather than a three-judge panel) and overruled that inherited precedent. That's what was done when the Fifth Circuit (which todays contains Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) was split to create the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia).

    But that problem would diminish over time as such en banc overrulings multiplied.

    For Item #2: the problem is that "senior status" does not mean retirement at all.

    A judge who is on senior status loses the ability to vote in court administrative matters (only "active" judges have that right). A senior-status judge also loses the right to sit on the en banc Court (in all circuits except the Ninth, this means every active judge on the Court is hearing the case and voting; in the Ninth Circuit, it means a random selection of about half of the active circuit judges).

    But a senior-status judge retains the right to pick his own caseload. He can keep handling just as many cases as when he was on active status, if he so chooses. Or he can elect a caseload of about half an active judge, or a quarter. Or he can choose to take only new civil cases or only new criminal cases.

    On item #3, you are right again. When challenges to Prez Trump's original Exec Order on travel were filed in the federal district courts in California, they were not always allowed to remain randomly assigned. In more than one district, the cases were simply plucked from most of the judges and reassigned, with no explanation or citation of legal authority, to one particular judge (presumably someone who could be counted on to rule "the right way", or is that the LEFT way).

  116. @Eagle Eye
    Lifetime tenure is in the Constitution. However, there may be some effective work-arounds.

    (1) Cut where it hurts. Threaten to clip the wings of the federal Courts of APPEAL, e.g. by limiting appealable subject matter, setting up more circuits (so each circuit is smaller), etc. Also, why shouldn't appellate courts compete for "custom"?

    When the Ninth Circus discovers that its jurisdiction will be limited to Greater LA and a few dusty suburbs, the honored justices may discover hitherto unsuspected reservoirs of judicial deference inside themselves. (Currently, the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction encompasses Hawaii and all Western states.)

    (2) Encourage Retirement. Similarly, federal courts could strengthen their efforts to encourage judges INFORMALLY to have justices take "senior status" (i.e. retire) e.g. at 75.

    (3) No more assignment hanky-panky. Leftard Derrick Watson most likely ended up hearing the case through manipulation of the case assignment system by SEIU staff. In future, cases should be assigned on a truly random basis, including assignment to neighboring districts to avoid giving a small cabal of judges a lock on any one district.

    Thanks for the thoughtful response, Eagle.

    For Item #1: yes, absolutely we should split the Ninth Circuit into at least two circuits, preferably three, as soon as possible. Same with other large circuits.

    A problem here would be that the new circuits would presumably be required to follow Ninth circuit precedent (any holdings in “published” opinions, i.e. those printed in the lawbooks rather than merely posted online on WestLaw or Lexis), until and unless the new circuit sat en banc (all judges rather than a three-judge panel) and overruled that inherited precedent. That’s what was done when the Fifth Circuit (which todays contains Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) was split to create the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia).

    But that problem would diminish over time as such en banc overrulings multiplied.

    For Item #2: the problem is that “senior status” does not mean retirement at all.

    A judge who is on senior status loses the ability to vote in court administrative matters (only “active” judges have that right). A senior-status judge also loses the right to sit on the en banc Court (in all circuits except the Ninth, this means every active judge on the Court is hearing the case and voting; in the Ninth Circuit, it means a random selection of about half of the active circuit judges).

    But a senior-status judge retains the right to pick his own caseload. He can keep handling just as many cases as when he was on active status, if he so chooses. Or he can elect a caseload of about half an active judge, or a quarter. Or he can choose to take only new civil cases or only new criminal cases.

    On item #3, you are right again. When challenges to Prez Trump’s original Exec Order on travel were filed in the federal district courts in California, they were not always allowed to remain randomly assigned. In more than one district, the cases were simply plucked from most of the judges and reassigned, with no explanation or citation of legal authority, to one particular judge (presumably someone who could be counted on to rule “the right way”, or is that the LEFT way).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Thanks for the careful comments.

    Re (1): You are of course correct - there is a danger in that a new circuit split off from the Ninth would inherit the whole morass of existing Ninth precedent.

    Perhaps the answer is to switch Nevada and California's Eastern and Central districts to the 10th Circuit where they would partake of healthier precedent in that circuit.

    The remaining Ninth Circuit territory could then be split into a Northern and Southern Circuit. Judges should be required - in keeping with the Common Law principle of a "circuit" - physically to reside in the more remote areas of the remoter states within their circuits on a rota basis for at least 250 days a year. Justices unwilling to rotate through the circuit have the option to retire.

    The bracing air of a small Montana town, the Pacific gales in a native village on Hawaii's natives-only Niihau Island, or the continental climate in remote Idaho might work wonders in curing minds and bodies infested by the Left-coast miasma.

  117. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Almost Missouri

    "If the policy is illegal a judge can enjoin it completely. Otherwise we’d one case per the 150 or so judicial districts."
     
    Okay, but isn't a district judge stealing the plenary power of the executive over immigration itself an illegal act? So why can't Judge Watson be enjoined completely? Because his name begins with "Judge"?

    "Once Gorsuch is seated Kennedy will be the swing vote and I expect he will side with Trump and reinstate the ban."
     
    Hmm, so at the moment, the Constitution hangs on our expectation that swingy-vote Kennedy might make the right decision at a certain point months or years away?

    Somehow, this is not reassuring.

    Considering the way Roberts bent and snapped like a twig over Obamacare, I’m not hopeful about Kennedy. He’s always been wishy-washy, and the left will be flooding his email and phone with threats. However, even if we lose a battle, that doesn’t mean we’ve lost the war. If Ginsberg dies in the next three years, Trump can replace her and we can try again to ban immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Kennedy was the one who opened the animus Pandora's Box in Obergefell.

    It's basically a do-whatever-you-want card for Prog judges.
  118. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Almost Missouri
    It's true that fraternization between an ex-president and a sitting judge ruling on a key action of the current president is extremely bad form. But that's not the same as impeachability.

    Obama should just go into retirement as pretty much every previous president did. Since no one in his entourage, which includes the entire political-media-complex, has ever held him to any ethical standard, this won't happen.

    If Trump has a brain, he’s go after Valerie Jarrett and her ties to the massive amount of money given to Iran. I’m sure Jarrett took kickbacks from that deal. If Trump could lock her up, he’d neuter Obama. She’s Obama’s evil genius and cattle prod.

    Read More
  119. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    From Wiki: President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

    Trump’s undoubtedly thinking the same thing about this cretinous Hawaiian judge. Judges are not in charge of the Immigration Service. Trump is.

    Read More
  120. @Anon
    Considering the way Roberts bent and snapped like a twig over Obamacare, I'm not hopeful about Kennedy. He's always been wishy-washy, and the left will be flooding his email and phone with threats. However, even if we lose a battle, that doesn't mean we've lost the war. If Ginsberg dies in the next three years, Trump can replace her and we can try again to ban immigration.

    Kennedy was the one who opened the animus Pandora’s Box in Obergefell.

    It’s basically a do-whatever-you-want card for Prog judges.

    Read More
  121. Article III, section 1, is the relevant text:

    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    There seems to be only one firm rule for the lower courts: no cutting a judge’s pay as long as he holds office. Everything else is at Congress’ whim.

    The Constitution doesn’t even give Supreme Court Justices lifetime tenure.

    Read More
  122. But I don’t think Trump is that skilled — more like merely clever against Hillary! who had to be the world’s worst screw-up.

    And Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush, and Ted Cruz, and everyone else in the GOP, plus Big Media, and the establishment in general. I suppose it’s not a stretch to say that they are a bunch of mopes. But then it becomes sort of an odd thing to mention, since all of our woes come from a bunch of mopes, so that’s the job; stopping the mope agenda.

    Read More
  123. They absolutely need to be impeached, but the Republican House doesn’t have the balls to do it, and the 52-48 Republican Senate wouldn’t have the necessary 2/3 to remove them anyway.

    2/3 of the Senate isn’t necessary. Majority votes in Senate and House, and Presidential signature is what’s required.

    Read More
  124. @bored identity
    As I said - Kahuna Matata:


    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7Ae-KEU0AIvbgA.jpg

    Would quitting on smart phone usage for the next four eight years lead Obama to go back to his other vices – such as smoking in a bathhouse?

    “… The paper reported that Obama spent March 14th playing golf in at the Midway Golf Club in Kailua before joining “friends” in a private room at Noi Thai Cuisine at Royal Hawaiian Center for dinner.

    There was no information on the identity of the individuals Obama dined with.

    Online users have noted that the most direct path from Kailua to Noi Thai would have taken Obama within five minutes of Judge Watson’s residence.”

    http://disobedientmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-17-at-2.38.35-PM-1024×745.png

    Barack is a real fool, if he thinks that his alternative communication methods will work in a long term.
    Interception of carrier pigeons and smoke signals are both young Lord Barron’s specialties!

    Read More
  125. @RadicalCenter
    Thanks for the thoughtful response, Eagle.

    For Item #1: yes, absolutely we should split the Ninth Circuit into at least two circuits, preferably three, as soon as possible. Same with other large circuits.

    A problem here would be that the new circuits would presumably be required to follow Ninth circuit precedent (any holdings in "published" opinions, i.e. those printed in the lawbooks rather than merely posted online on WestLaw or Lexis), until and unless the new circuit sat en banc (all judges rather than a three-judge panel) and overruled that inherited precedent. That's what was done when the Fifth Circuit (which todays contains Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) was split to create the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Alabama, and Georgia).

    But that problem would diminish over time as such en banc overrulings multiplied.

    For Item #2: the problem is that "senior status" does not mean retirement at all.

    A judge who is on senior status loses the ability to vote in court administrative matters (only "active" judges have that right). A senior-status judge also loses the right to sit on the en banc Court (in all circuits except the Ninth, this means every active judge on the Court is hearing the case and voting; in the Ninth Circuit, it means a random selection of about half of the active circuit judges).

    But a senior-status judge retains the right to pick his own caseload. He can keep handling just as many cases as when he was on active status, if he so chooses. Or he can elect a caseload of about half an active judge, or a quarter. Or he can choose to take only new civil cases or only new criminal cases.

    On item #3, you are right again. When challenges to Prez Trump's original Exec Order on travel were filed in the federal district courts in California, they were not always allowed to remain randomly assigned. In more than one district, the cases were simply plucked from most of the judges and reassigned, with no explanation or citation of legal authority, to one particular judge (presumably someone who could be counted on to rule "the right way", or is that the LEFT way).

    Thanks for the careful comments.

    Re (1): You are of course correct – there is a danger in that a new circuit split off from the Ninth would inherit the whole morass of existing Ninth precedent.

    Perhaps the answer is to switch Nevada and California’s Eastern and Central districts to the 10th Circuit where they would partake of healthier precedent in that circuit.

    The remaining Ninth Circuit territory could then be split into a Northern and Southern Circuit. Judges should be required – in keeping with the Common Law principle of a “circuit” – physically to reside in the more remote areas of the remoter states within their circuits on a rota basis for at least 250 days a year. Justices unwilling to rotate through the circuit have the option to retire.

    The bracing air of a small Montana town, the Pacific gales in a native village on Hawaii’s natives-only Niihau Island, or the continental climate in remote Idaho might work wonders in curing minds and bodies infested by the Left-coast miasma.

    Read More
  126. @Whiskey
    Trump's main enemy is ... Paul Ryan and the rest of the Cuckservatives, Lindsay Grahamnesty and John McLettuce McCain who are already calling for Trump to resign over "falsely accusing" Obama of wiretapping him and his campaign. (Which seems to have been done through using the British and the Five Eyes system).

    Someone might argue that Trump is letting Ryan and the rest hang themselves with enough rope, and he can come in and offer single payer "free" healthcare with the proviso that it be paid for by ... kicking out the illegals and preventing mass Third World Immigration. But I don't think Trump is that skilled -- more like merely clever against Hillary! who had to be the world's worst screw-up. Meanwhile Kirsten Sobbing Harpy Gillibrand is upbraiding Marine brass and servicemen for looking at nudie photos -- the same dudes likely to be blown up by an IED in Syria or Yemen or Iraq or Afghanistan. Why should anyone care about naked photos of military sluts? If they did not want the photos to get out they should not have taken them in the first place.

    But lets face it, America is over because White America is over. Its over because of the Hot Civil War between GoodWhites and BadWhites, led by a coastal elite and most White professional women for sure and arguably most White women* against White men particularly those in uncool and unhip places. Uncool Whites have nothing, the Cool Kids have all the judiciary, media, government bureaucrats, Hollywood, corporations, corporate leaders, the managerial class, and universities. We've got Breitbart, Drudge, and Pepe the Frog. Today some guy blamed LA Mayor Garcetti for his fiance's death due to a drunk driver illegal let go by LA's Sanctuary City law -- amazingly White citizens get jailed and fined and illegals get let go. So what? Nothing will change unless and until pols start fearing for their lives by screwing over Joe Average White guy; and Joe Average White guy is habituated to pacifism and non-violence**

    *Arguably Hillary's negative charisma and repellent personality made her campaign underperform among White women; vs. say Barack Obama who seemed to make them swoon, on account of Black y'all.

    **The violence during Weimar by all sides, socialists and NSDAP and Communists and so on was an outgrowth of dutiful German men being habituated to a daily brutal hand to hand combat of kill vs. be killed, for four years, in the most miserable conditions, with poison gas, machine guns, and battle rifles, turning dutiful pacifists and rule followers into anarchic brawlers. They got used to killing and fighting, like people in the Pacific Northwest get used to the gloom and plaid and nose rings. Men are creatures of habit and White men being rule following pacifists in daily life are no match for Muslim or Africans who spend every waking moment scheming on how to kill rivals. [In actual mechanized combat rule-followers are able to withstand horrific shock battle conditions that lead warrior types to flee like typical Big Men -- but Whites are evolved for beta male rule followers in shock battle and absent that fight we lose big time to constant drip-drip-drip hyper aggressive goat herders who are good at ambush but can't screw in a light bulb or even figure out how to use a flush toilet.]

    I am so glad you responded. Stay loyal to the friends and people who care about you

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution