The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
Affirmative-Action Judges Watson and Chuang’s Anti-White Ideology of “Hateism”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Imagine Judge Chuang was white, and spoke at an American Renaissance conference. Then we might see some impeachment!
Imagine Judge Chuang was white, and spoke at an American Renaissance conference. Then we might see some impeachment!
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Another week, another Executive Order on immigration, another effort by judges to block it.

Like a great many of our other problems, this one is a result of gross stupidity on the part of our federal government in the recent past.

Here I get to repeat one of my favorite apothegms: The most astonishing statistic of our age is that our country admitted more Muslims for settlement in the fifteen years since 2001 than we did in the fifteen years prior.[Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants, By Julia Hahn, September 14, 2015]

All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave . Ann Coulter actually said this at the time, as I recall, and got dropped by some magazine or other for her trouble.[See Where’s Janet Reno When We Need Her? September 20, 2001 and L’Affaire Coulter | Goodbye to all that., By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor, October 3, 2001]

Now, by the miracle of chain migration, Muslim numbers have swollen beyond anything we can deal with. Further, the ideology of “Hateism”—the ideology, I mean, that says anything I or my government does that is disobliging to a non-white person is driven by hate, as opposed to other motives like prudence, patriotism, or a desire for demographic stability—the Hateism ideology has fixed its clammy grip on our judiciary.

Thus we heard on Thursday that a federal judge, name of Derrick Watson, had put a hold on the Trump administration’s latest ban on travelers from six majority-Muslim nations.

Who is Derrick Watson? Well, that Anglo name notwithstanding, Judge Watson is of native Hawaiian descent, middle name Kahala. He’s either fifty or fifty-one years old.

Judge Watson was appointed by Barack Obama five years ago. It was frankly and openly an Affirmative-Action appointment. Obama said at the time that his appointment would “ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.” [From a Placid Judge, a Cutting Rejection of Trump’s Travel Ban, By Alexander Burns, New York Times, New York Times March 16, 2017]

You know, like all those Protestants on the U.S. Supreme Court.

They don’t even bother to hide this stuff now.

When in private practice, we’re told by the New York Times’ Burns, Judge Watson did pro bono work on behalf of “Mexican nationals,” and “Hispanics.” The default assumption has to be that those were illegal aliens.

I can’t find any record of him doing pro bono work on behalf of white Americans. But that may just be because his résumé is tilted anti-white for purposes of virtue signaling.

Whether he himself is anti-white or not, Judge Watson is at least a patriot of some kind: He served eight years in the Army Reserve.

In his 43-page ruling—yes, you heard that right: it took the judge forty-three pages to explain why the order should be halted, one more page than the Constitution takes up in my pocket edition from the Cato Institute—in his ruling he argued that President Trump’s order was motivated by an animus against Muslims, and cited a Trump campaign document from last year calling for a shutdown of all Muslim immigration into the U.S.A. [PDF]

The dictionary gives the primary meaning of “animus” as “strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.” None of Trump’s campaign statements show dispositive evidence of that.

If I tell you that you may not come into my house, it may be because you have a contagious disease I don’t want to catch; or because you are known to be a clumsy person and my house contains a collection of priceless Ming vases; or because you are known to have had epileptic fits in which you lash out at other people; or for a hundred other reasons that have nothing to do with “strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.” I may, in all those case, feel pity, sympathy, or concern for you, but still be unwilling to let you into my house.

I don’t in any case see religious animus, as defined, prohibited to the Executive by our Constitution. Many religions, for most of the existence of the human race, have included human sacrifice and sometimes cannibalism as sacraments. These kinds of practices are still current in remote places like the highlands of New Guinea. If the President were to ban entry of persons who adhere to those religions, would Judge Watson suspend that ban on the grounds it was motivated, as it probably would have been, by the President’s “strong dislike” of such practices?

Later on Wednesday another federal judge, Theodore Chuang of Maryland, also an Obama appointee, enjoined the new travel ban. Judge Chuang is another Affirmative-Action hire. During his confirmation hearings, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin played the diversity card on Chuang’s behalf: “He is the son of immigrants from Taiwan who came to America seeking freedom and a better life for their family.”[ Who is the Maryland judge in the Trump travel ban ruling?, by Ian Duncan, The Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2017]

Why that is relevant to the confirmation of a judge, I don’t understand. Nor do I understand why anyone would come to the U.S.A. from Taiwan “seeking freedom.” I was in Taiwan last year. It is perfectly free.

I was previously there in 1971, when Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was running the place, and before Judge Chuang was born. I wouldn’t describe Taiwan as perfectly free in 1971; but people said what they thought, lived pretty much as they pleased, and if you didn’t go out of your way to annoy the authorities, the authorities left you alone.

ORDER IT NOW

Whether Judge Chuang is anti-white I don’t know. But he is much more plainly partisan than Judge Watson. The latter was confirmed by the Senate 94 to zero, no Senators dissenting. Chuang was confirmed 53 to 42, every single Republican voting against confirmation–mainly because when a State Department attorney Chuang had played interference for Mrs. Clinton in the Benghazi investigation. [Senate confirms judge linked to Benghazi scandal, By Ramsey Cox, The Hill, May 1, 2014]

These are the people we have interpreting our laws, and preaching to the President about what Judge Watson calls the “illogic” of his case.

Our constitutional system, as every schoolchild knows, depends on each of the three branches of the federal government checking and balancing the others. It seems to me that when the President is helpless to do his job because of the pettifogging obstructions of these licensed ideologues, the system is out of balance.

Federal judgeships are for life. The only restraint on them is impeachment; and that requires some sufficient number of congressmen to possess spines … so we can forget about impeachment. We’re stuck with these buffoons.

And there’s nothing for the President to do but gird up his loins and fight them.

Go to it, Mr. President!

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
    []
  1. Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration.

    Who run Bartertown?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it.
     
    Exactly. Any federal official who succumbs to the blandishments of these "judges" and their media enablers must be transferred forthwith to special duty on Diego Garcia Island. (Guantanamo is too good for them.)

    Also, look closely at the earlier career of the "judges" doing the bidding of Barry and the Chicagoes, and OF EVERY ONE OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, CLERKS ETC. What documents did Teddy Chuang hide from Congress in relation to Hillary's murder of Chris Stevens?

    Watson is up to his neck in Janet Reno's enforcement dirt.

    Word needs to get out that both judges are "radioactive" and that even the Democrat machine cannot protect them.

    , @Corvinus
    "Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration."

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion, which would result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.
    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
    /jderbyshire/affirmative-action-judges-watson-and-chuangs-anti-white-ideology-of-hateism/#comment-1805866
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    China is America’s most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    A judge who's been a champion of illegal immigrants and pulls legal obstruction of the president out of the air is honorable?

    You have the same source for your opinion about the author's allegiance in the event of hostilities.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    America is doing far more to ensure her own destruction than anything China is doing to her. As they say, I suppose, civilizations die by suicide.
    , @Dissident

    Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers.
     
    "Chinese household"?

    Mr. Derbyshire's wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire's children were born and raised in the U.S.A.

    Why would such a household be anything other than an American one?

    According to Mr. Derbyshire, he often told his children that they were (paraphrasing from memory; I was unable to find the quote now on Derb's web site though I am certain that I read it somewhere from Derb), "50% Chinese peasant, 50% English coal-miner and 100% American"

    (And if such a household were to be considered a foreign one at all, why would it be any more a Chinese one than an English one?)

    What is your basis for claiming that anyone in Mr. Derbyshire's household is anything less than a loyal, patriotic American?

    Mr. Derbyshire's son currently serves in the U.S. military. How have you served your country?
  3. Sunbeam says:

    What’s the problem? I have a perfect solution.

    There has to be a descendant of Queen Liliuokalani (hope I spelled that right or at least how the “right” people would approve of spelling a name like this) running around somewhere right?

    Find one, apologize, and hand Hawaii back to them ASAP. America goes down to 49 states. The polynesians can do whatever they want to with the place.

    I also have a Puerto Rico plan.

    Really the obsessions of the 19th century with world empires and coaling stations mean absolutely nothing to anyone today.

    Read More
  4. How did the Historic Native Born White American Majority ever manage to survive when there were hardly any Asians in America?

    Answer:We managed to survive quite well thank you!!!!!….1969 two Alpha Native Born White American Males descend down from the Gruman Corp LEM onto the Moon….America was 90 percent Native Born White American White American….NASA nearly 100 percent Native Born White American Male…Gruman Corp…THE LEM…..nearly 100 percent Native Born White American Male…

    I mean like who the fuck would be opposed to this demographic state of affairs?

    Answer:The Chinese, Hindus, Koreans, and Pakistani who have already enthusiastically voted the Historic Native Born White American Majority into a racial minority in post-white toilet California….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Urho
    They killed most of the Asians and stole their land due to superior weapons and inferior morality.
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I listened to fresh (2017 / 03 / 19) Radio Derb; it is pretty good.
    I liked this piece especially (see above in Derbysire’s post):

    If I tell you that you may not come into my house, it may be because you have a contagious disease I don’t want to catch; or because you are known to be a clumsy person and my house contains a collection of priceless Ming vases; or because you are known to have had epileptic fits in which you lash out at other people; or for a hundred other reasons that have nothing to do with “strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.” I may, in all those case, feel pity, sympathy, or concern for you, but still be unwilling to let you into my house.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    So what if Trump, Gert Wilders, Victor Orman, Marine Le Pen, and others have an "animus" toward Islam and Muslims. As if such an "animus" were baseless and irrational, a corollary of malice and delusion, visceral and gratuitous, rather than sanity, prudence, reason, commonsense, self-interest. Why would anyone in the U.S. and Canada and Europe have an animus toward Islam and Muslims?! 9-11, San Bernadino, Orlando, Boston, Fort Hood, Paris, Nice, Berlin, the sexual assaults of hundred of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities, the rapes of Swedish women and girls that is now so pandemic that females are afraid to go outside at night etc., Sharia Law, Jihad, "honor killers," ad nauseam. What minimally sane person wouldn't have an "animus" toward Islam and Muslims -not all Muslims, especially the women, but Islam as a religion and Muslims generally, especially young males= and support an end to Muslim immigration.
  6. lavoisier says: • Website

    The assault of these judges on the law is another example of how our society is being destroyed by diversity.

    The mask has fallen off. We no longer have a functioning republic but a state sanctioned tribalism.

    This cannot end well.

    Read More
  7. KenH says:

    Thanks again 1965 immigration and naturalization act (in the case of Judge Chuang)! Another gift that keeps on giving.

    Both “model minority” judges are guilty of usurping executive authority a president has been granted under various immigration and naturalization laws. Either they know exactly what they are doing or Asians aren’t as smart as everyone gives them credit for. Since they are both Hussein Obama appointees it’s probably the former.

    Once again we have left wing activist judges that didn’t judge the EO based on its plain language and existing immigration laws, but used prior statements Trump made during the campaign to infer his presumed ill intent intent behind the EO temporarily banning the issuance of visas to refugees in six majority Muslim nations. Judge Watson’s reasoning that the EO amounts to a Muslim ban falls apart when you consider that Hussein Obama took the very same action in 2011 for a longer period of time, there are between 45-50 Muslim majority nations, 39-44 of whom were left off the list, and there are over 300 ongoing terror investigations related to Muslims refugees who’ve recently entered this nation from some of the nations listed on the EO.

    So it’s clear these were ideological and activist rulings. Either way they are unjust and unlawful given the federal court’s lack of jurisdiction in this matter and Trump should publicly defy them and threaten to abolish federal district courts with Obama appointees. But he won’t because he’s being advised by a coterie of RINOs and cucks with shriveled testicles.

    Trump is totally failing the people who voted for him by not defying this order and merely appealing it to a higher court.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    when you consider that Hussein Obama took the very same action in 2011 for a longer period of time,
     
    Correction: Obama stopped processing only Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011, but his DHS still identified every other nation on Trump's EO as a source of terror. Therefore, refugees from these nations pose a high risk.

    Strangely, Trump left Iraq off of his latest EO. Trump should just refuse to allow any refugees from entering. Then the left wing courts can't find "evidence" of discrimination and bias.

  8. KenH says:
    @KenH
    Thanks again 1965 immigration and naturalization act (in the case of Judge Chuang)! Another gift that keeps on giving.

    Both "model minority" judges are guilty of usurping executive authority a president has been granted under various immigration and naturalization laws. Either they know exactly what they are doing or Asians aren't as smart as everyone gives them credit for. Since they are both Hussein Obama appointees it's probably the former.

    Once again we have left wing activist judges that didn't judge the EO based on its plain language and existing immigration laws, but used prior statements Trump made during the campaign to infer his presumed ill intent intent behind the EO temporarily banning the issuance of visas to refugees in six majority Muslim nations. Judge Watson's reasoning that the EO amounts to a Muslim ban falls apart when you consider that Hussein Obama took the very same action in 2011 for a longer period of time, there are between 45-50 Muslim majority nations, 39-44 of whom were left off the list, and there are over 300 ongoing terror investigations related to Muslims refugees who've recently entered this nation from some of the nations listed on the EO.

    So it's clear these were ideological and activist rulings. Either way they are unjust and unlawful given the federal court's lack of jurisdiction in this matter and Trump should publicly defy them and threaten to abolish federal district courts with Obama appointees. But he won't because he's being advised by a coterie of RINOs and cucks with shriveled testicles.

    Trump is totally failing the people who voted for him by not defying this order and merely appealing it to a higher court.

    when you consider that Hussein Obama took the very same action in 2011 for a longer period of time,

    Correction: Obama stopped processing only Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011, but his DHS still identified every other nation on Trump’s EO as a source of terror. Therefore, refugees from these nations pose a high risk.

    Strangely, Trump left Iraq off of his latest EO. Trump should just refuse to allow any refugees from entering. Then the left wing courts can’t find “evidence” of discrimination and bias.

    Read More
  9. Ace says:
    @Anon
    China is America's most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.

    A judge who’s been a champion of illegal immigrants and pulls legal obstruction of the president out of the air is honorable?

    You have the same source for your opinion about the author’s allegiance in the event of hostilities.

    Read More
  10. KenH says:

    When in private practice, we’re told by the New York Times’ Burns, Judge Watson did pro bono work on behalf of “Mexican nationals,” and “Hispanics.” The default assumption has to be that those were illegal aliens.

    Ok, then, if fake Judge Watson can deign to guess at Trump’s intent based on one or two isolated past comments and rule accordingly, then Trump can assume that given Watson’s extensive past pro-immigrant legal activism that his opinion was not objective and colored by his own biases in favor of dark skinned refugees. As such, Trump should announce he’s “throwing out” Watson’s and also Chuang’s rulings and will proceed with his EO.

    Read More
  11. BIG QUESTION:

    Should Asians be allowed to control the technological means of production in California…and the US as a whole.

    Should Asians be allowed to colonize the US University and College system.

    Should Asians be allowed to colonize the US legal system.

    Preet Bhara was on Chuck Schumer’s legal staff before he was appointed a federal prosecutor by the homosexual Kenyan Foriegner.

    How would it be in the interest of the Historic Native Born White American Majority to have Asians colonize the aforementioned institutions?

    Read More
  12. Truth says:

    So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is “an affirmative-action hire” now?

    Son, have you lost your cotton-pickin’ mind?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    If I had my way graduating from Harvard would bar you from any form of government employment, or public office; let alone being in the judiciary.

    If you want I'll list some other famous institutions I'd give the same treatment.

    Oh yeah, and I'm perfectly willing to include the science and math people in that from these places now.

    Yes, it's gotten to that point.

    , @Pensans
    If he was chosen because of his race (as Obama said) rather than because he graduated from Harvard, then "yes."
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    'So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is “an affirmative-action hire” now?'

    Nice appeal to authority. Now get back down on your knees, boy, and resume licking.
  13. Sunbeam says:
    @Truth
    So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is "an affirmative-action hire" now?

    Son, have you lost your cotton-pickin' mind?

    If I had my way graduating from Harvard would bar you from any form of government employment, or public office; let alone being in the judiciary.

    If you want I’ll list some other famous institutions I’d give the same treatment.

    Oh yeah, and I’m perfectly willing to include the science and math people in that from these places now.

    Yes, it’s gotten to that point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well, eliminating the world's smartest young people from jobs would certainly have an...interesting...effect on things, I'll give you that.
  14. Truth says:
    @Sunbeam
    If I had my way graduating from Harvard would bar you from any form of government employment, or public office; let alone being in the judiciary.

    If you want I'll list some other famous institutions I'd give the same treatment.

    Oh yeah, and I'm perfectly willing to include the science and math people in that from these places now.

    Yes, it's gotten to that point.

    Well, eliminating the world’s smartest young people from jobs would certainly have an…interesting…effect on things, I’ll give you that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the "Judge them by their fruits" argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?

    Remember where you are. This site wants a g%$d#$n IQ test graded by an independent proctor. You know "Let me put my hand on the wounds in his side."

    You can get around it by winning a Fields medal or something. But that is on a per case basis.

    And being a barbarian, knowing only "Eat it, or screw it..."

    Well my impression is it doesn't matter how bright our lawyers are. I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that. The arbitration of things is no more efficient with smart people trying to screw each other over as opposed to dumb people. Maybe things are more random, but hey they won't be able to pocket as much as they do now.

    In short if they aren't involved in science or a field that will produce a real tangible benefit - you know like flipping burgers or pumping out septic tanks...

    If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice a difference. And without them occupying niches where they can conveniently soak up nutrients (read money) from the ecosystem, hey maybe everyone else would find their bottom line mysteriously got better all of a sudden.
    , @Hibernian
    World's most brainwashed young people... ...FIFY
    , @anarchyst
    ...problem is, they are NOT the "smartest" young people...
  15. David says:

    I’m intrigued by the almost but not quite inscrutable racial messages encoded in the picture. The pencil and paper are yellow, as if it’s okay for mere implements to be yellow, while the sandwiches fairly flaunt white bread on top with the yellow cheese all the way at the bottom.

    I imagine this kind of messaging is totally obvious to Asian people.

    Read More
  16. Sunbeam says:
    @Truth
    Well, eliminating the world's smartest young people from jobs would certainly have an...interesting...effect on things, I'll give you that.

    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the “Judge them by their fruits” argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?

    Remember where you are. This site wants a g%$d#$n IQ test graded by an independent proctor. You know “Let me put my hand on the wounds in his side.”

    You can get around it by winning a Fields medal or something. But that is on a per case basis.

    And being a barbarian, knowing only “Eat it, or screw it…”

    Well my impression is it doesn’t matter how bright our lawyers are. I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that. The arbitration of things is no more efficient with smart people trying to screw each other over as opposed to dumb people. Maybe things are more random, but hey they won’t be able to pocket as much as they do now.

    In short if they aren’t involved in science or a field that will produce a real tangible benefit – you know like flipping burgers or pumping out septic tanks…

    If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice a difference. And without them occupying niches where they can conveniently soak up nutrients (read money) from the ecosystem, hey maybe everyone else would find their bottom line mysteriously got better all of a sudden.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    There is a Russian proverb "Sviato mesto pusto ne byvaet"
    --- "A holy place, attractive place, will not stay empty."
    Having a Western medal one and a half rank below Fields one,
    I am sure that USA would survive without my contribution.
    The place I occupy could be filled by Americans,
    may be for higher remuneration, with longer time to study,
    by those bright people who nowadays go to become lawyers.
    Still, my family and I, we are trying to contribute positively,
    and we are grateful that Americans, may be against the will of majority,
    invited us here.
    Thank you , USA !

    Clarification.
    Even Albert Einstein said that most of his discoveries eventually
    would be done by other scientists (within a decade ? my guess, not a citation.)
    An he was talking about absolutely brilliant things:
    the ones he did in "miracle year" of 1905.

    He made an exception for the General Relativity Theory, i.e.
    theory of gravitation based on changing the ideas about geometry of space-time.
    His estimate was time-delay about 50+ extra years for other scientists to come to it.
    His General Relativity nowadays is important for time corrections to GPS signals;
    even more important his Special Relativity Theory (1905.)

    , @Truth

    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the “Judge them by their fruits” argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?
     
    Well Caltech has a graduating class of roughly 200 students every year, and does not offer soft majors...hence the school name...so there are going to be quite a few jobs open after they take their picks.

    Are Ivy league grads smarter than the rest, well, yes, according to all I've read here about he who scores highest on the standardized tests is the smartest.

    I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that.
     
    So we should hire dumb people as our protection from wrongful jail sentences, corporate incursion, protection of the constitution, and of our basic human rights?
  17. SMK says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    I listened to fresh (2017 / 03 / 19) Radio Derb; it is pretty good.
    I liked this piece especially (see above in Derbysire's post):

    If I tell you that you may not come into my house, it may be because you have a contagious disease I don’t want to catch; or because you are known to be a clumsy person and my house contains a collection of priceless Ming vases; or because you are known to have had epileptic fits in which you lash out at other people; or for a hundred other reasons that have nothing to do with “strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity.” I may, in all those case, feel pity, sympathy, or concern for you, but still be unwilling to let you into my house.
     

    So what if Trump, Gert Wilders, Victor Orman, Marine Le Pen, and others have an “animus” toward Islam and Muslims. As if such an “animus” were baseless and irrational, a corollary of malice and delusion, visceral and gratuitous, rather than sanity, prudence, reason, commonsense, self-interest. Why would anyone in the U.S. and Canada and Europe have an animus toward Islam and Muslims?! 9-11, San Bernadino, Orlando, Boston, Fort Hood, Paris, Nice, Berlin, the sexual assaults of hundred of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities, the rapes of Swedish women and girls that is now so pandemic that females are afraid to go outside at night etc., Sharia Law, Jihad, “honor killers,” ad nauseam. What minimally sane person wouldn’t have an “animus” toward Islam and Muslims -not all Muslims, especially the women, but Islam as a religion and Muslims generally, especially young males= and support an end to Muslim immigration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thank you for your reaction.
    I agree with you 100% re the Sailer-Derbyshire's part against "Invite the World".
    But we should not forget to condemn the part "Invade the World."
    Best to you, SMK.
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SMK
    So what if Trump, Gert Wilders, Victor Orman, Marine Le Pen, and others have an "animus" toward Islam and Muslims. As if such an "animus" were baseless and irrational, a corollary of malice and delusion, visceral and gratuitous, rather than sanity, prudence, reason, commonsense, self-interest. Why would anyone in the U.S. and Canada and Europe have an animus toward Islam and Muslims?! 9-11, San Bernadino, Orlando, Boston, Fort Hood, Paris, Nice, Berlin, the sexual assaults of hundred of German women and girls in Cologne and other German cities, the rapes of Swedish women and girls that is now so pandemic that females are afraid to go outside at night etc., Sharia Law, Jihad, "honor killers," ad nauseam. What minimally sane person wouldn't have an "animus" toward Islam and Muslims -not all Muslims, especially the women, but Islam as a religion and Muslims generally, especially young males= and support an end to Muslim immigration.

    Thank you for your reaction.
    I agree with you 100% re the Sailer-Derbyshire’s part against “Invite the World”.
    But we should not forget to condemn the part “Invade the World.”
    Best to you, SMK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    See my previous comment in response to another Derbyshire article on Islam. The final sentence: "No more invite-the-world/invade-the-world in respect to Muslims and Islamic countries."
  19. @Sunbeam
    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the "Judge them by their fruits" argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?

    Remember where you are. This site wants a g%$d#$n IQ test graded by an independent proctor. You know "Let me put my hand on the wounds in his side."

    You can get around it by winning a Fields medal or something. But that is on a per case basis.

    And being a barbarian, knowing only "Eat it, or screw it..."

    Well my impression is it doesn't matter how bright our lawyers are. I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that. The arbitration of things is no more efficient with smart people trying to screw each other over as opposed to dumb people. Maybe things are more random, but hey they won't be able to pocket as much as they do now.

    In short if they aren't involved in science or a field that will produce a real tangible benefit - you know like flipping burgers or pumping out septic tanks...

    If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice a difference. And without them occupying niches where they can conveniently soak up nutrients (read money) from the ecosystem, hey maybe everyone else would find their bottom line mysteriously got better all of a sudden.

    There is a Russian proverb “Sviato mesto pusto ne byvaet”
    — “A holy place, attractive place, will not stay empty.”
    Having a Western medal one and a half rank below Fields one,
    I am sure that USA would survive without my contribution.
    The place I occupy could be filled by Americans,
    may be for higher remuneration, with longer time to study,
    by those bright people who nowadays go to become lawyers.
    Still, my family and I, we are trying to contribute positively,
    and we are grateful that Americans, may be against the will of majority,
    invited us here.
    Thank you , USA !

    Clarification.
    Even Albert Einstein said that most of his discoveries eventually
    would be done by other scientists (within a decade ? my guess, not a citation.)
    An he was talking about absolutely brilliant things:
    the ones he did in “miracle year” of 1905.

    He made an exception for the General Relativity Theory, i.e.
    theory of gravitation based on changing the ideas about geometry of space-time.
    His estimate was time-delay about 50+ extra years for other scientists to come to it.
    His General Relativity nowadays is important for time corrections to GPS signals;
    even more important his Special Relativity Theory (1905.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Einstein was wrong on so many levels that I don't have the patience or endurance to even start with an elaboration but it would suffice to mention his "speed of light" nonsense, his axiom stating that nothing can travel faster than light.
    First of all says "Who", meaning that just because he, E, says so does not then convert his declaration into fact .
    Secondly as concerning the "speed of light" : Thought in the sense of "Telepathy" transcends space : Instantaneously , meaning it travels infinitely faster than light, namely it's movement cannot be measured as it is "Timeless", and therefore it travels " faster" than the speed of light, period.
    And I know that he, E, is worshiped world-wide as some version of an earthly God, even though he was full of dookey.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years, airborne qualified US army vet, and pro jazz artist.
  20. Truth says:
    @Sunbeam
    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the "Judge them by their fruits" argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?

    Remember where you are. This site wants a g%$d#$n IQ test graded by an independent proctor. You know "Let me put my hand on the wounds in his side."

    You can get around it by winning a Fields medal or something. But that is on a per case basis.

    And being a barbarian, knowing only "Eat it, or screw it..."

    Well my impression is it doesn't matter how bright our lawyers are. I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that. The arbitration of things is no more efficient with smart people trying to screw each other over as opposed to dumb people. Maybe things are more random, but hey they won't be able to pocket as much as they do now.

    In short if they aren't involved in science or a field that will produce a real tangible benefit - you know like flipping burgers or pumping out septic tanks...

    If they disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice a difference. And without them occupying niches where they can conveniently soak up nutrients (read money) from the ecosystem, hey maybe everyone else would find their bottom line mysteriously got better all of a sudden.

    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the “Judge them by their fruits” argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?

    Well Caltech has a graduating class of roughly 200 students every year, and does not offer soft majors…hence the school name…so there are going to be quite a few jobs open after they take their picks.

    Are Ivy league grads smarter than the rest, well, yes, according to all I’ve read here about he who scores highest on the standardized tests is the smartest.

    I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that.

    So we should hire dumb people as our protection from wrongful jail sentences, corporate incursion, protection of the constitution, and of our basic human rights?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "So we should hire dumb people as our protection from wrongful jail sentences, corporate incursion, protection of the constitution, and of our basic human rights?"

    C'mon, bring your A-game. You're trying to be glib, but only succeeding at being shallow.

    There's someone on the other end of any legal arrangement. If the guy on the other side is no smarter as a rule than your guy, things are even from that standpoint.

    And while it seems a common belief on this site, that intelligence is next to godliness - or more virtuous or something (whatever that means these days without an absolute reference; not buying what philosophers ... from Harvard are pitching).

    Well that's not my experience. My experience tells me that the guys imposing these wrongful jail sentences, incursing their companies on whoever, violating the constitution, and defiling basic human rights (and it seems to be "just because they can" as of now; there's really a need to record every cell phone conversation?) are the smart guys you claim are on "our" side.

    In case you haven't noticed Chief, it isn't exactly the cast of Deliverance doing all this crap.

    And besides your semi-strawman argument, the nuts and bolts of things is that most interactions of people with the legal system are not the large scale issues you mention.

    Rather it is fairly mundane things like divorce proceedings, lawsuits over car accidents, and suing over the usual BS. Heck, WTF do you need a lawyer to do a title search?

    Then we have the usual suspects that man the CIA. Have they been effective at anything, ever? If they really did nix Kennedy it's about the only thing they ever pulled off. My whole life has been one monumental CIA failure after another, if you read between the lines. And they just love them some Northeast Ivy types, even if the WASP is dead up there now.

    Yet they have a budget from hell, and apparently write the copy for American media. Go figure.

    Then there is the overseas drinking club and finishing school we call the State Department... a more despicable bunch of snowflakes has never drawn breath.

    A sensible nation needs these pricks like they need a hole in the head.
  21. SMK says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    Thank you for your reaction.
    I agree with you 100% re the Sailer-Derbyshire's part against "Invite the World".
    But we should not forget to condemn the part "Invade the World."
    Best to you, SMK.

    See my previous comment in response to another Derbyshire article on Islam. The final sentence: “No more invite-the-world/invade-the-world in respect to Muslims and Islamic countries.”

    Read More
  22. Mark32 says:

    Ivy League graduates are smart but you have left out all the kids that were accepted to Ivy leagues but did not attend because of their phony needs blind policy .
    Many kids were accepted to the Ivy leagues schools who looked at their zip code and mustakenly put them on the full boat list of acceptance, rather than the aid list and refused to offer much aid regardless of parents financial profile.

    Those kids went full scholarship to other schools. The list is huge.

    Read More
  23. Sunbeam says:
    @Truth

    Smartest?

    You sure about that?

    I could bring up the “Judge them by their fruits” argument.

    But are Harvard/UChicago/Princeton/Yale grads any smarter than Caltech grads? From The Sorbonne? Oxbridge? Heidelberg? University of Tokyo (been a while since I did much reading about these guys, think that is the one all the cool kids go to there), whatever the hell the future Masters of the Universe go to in China?
     
    Well Caltech has a graduating class of roughly 200 students every year, and does not offer soft majors...hence the school name...so there are going to be quite a few jobs open after they take their picks.

    Are Ivy league grads smarter than the rest, well, yes, according to all I've read here about he who scores highest on the standardized tests is the smartest.

    I read a book once that made a pretty convincing argument that people who were too smart should be banned from the legal profession. No real purpose is served by having brilliant people involved in that.
     
    So we should hire dumb people as our protection from wrongful jail sentences, corporate incursion, protection of the constitution, and of our basic human rights?

    “So we should hire dumb people as our protection from wrongful jail sentences, corporate incursion, protection of the constitution, and of our basic human rights?”

    C’mon, bring your A-game. You’re trying to be glib, but only succeeding at being shallow.

    There’s someone on the other end of any legal arrangement. If the guy on the other side is no smarter as a rule than your guy, things are even from that standpoint.

    And while it seems a common belief on this site, that intelligence is next to godliness – or more virtuous or something (whatever that means these days without an absolute reference; not buying what philosophers … from Harvard are pitching).

    Well that’s not my experience. My experience tells me that the guys imposing these wrongful jail sentences, incursing their companies on whoever, violating the constitution, and defiling basic human rights (and it seems to be “just because they can” as of now; there’s really a need to record every cell phone conversation?) are the smart guys you claim are on “our” side.

    In case you haven’t noticed Chief, it isn’t exactly the cast of Deliverance doing all this crap.

    And besides your semi-strawman argument, the nuts and bolts of things is that most interactions of people with the legal system are not the large scale issues you mention.

    Rather it is fairly mundane things like divorce proceedings, lawsuits over car accidents, and suing over the usual BS. Heck, WTF do you need a lawyer to do a title search?

    Then we have the usual suspects that man the CIA. Have they been effective at anything, ever? If they really did nix Kennedy it’s about the only thing they ever pulled off. My whole life has been one monumental CIA failure after another, if you read between the lines. And they just love them some Northeast Ivy types, even if the WASP is dead up there now.

    Yet they have a budget from hell, and apparently write the copy for American media. Go figure.

    Then there is the overseas drinking club and finishing school we call the State Department… a more despicable bunch of snowflakes has never drawn breath.

    A sensible nation needs these pricks like they need a hole in the head.

    Read More
  24. Eagle Eye says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Donald Trump doesn't need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration.

    Who run Bartertown?

    Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it.

    Exactly. Any federal official who succumbs to the blandishments of these “judges” and their media enablers must be transferred forthwith to special duty on Diego Garcia Island. (Guantanamo is too good for them.)

    Also, look closely at the earlier career of the “judges” doing the bidding of Barry and the Chicagoes, and OF EVERY ONE OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, CLERKS ETC. What documents did Teddy Chuang hide from Congress in relation to Hillary’s murder of Chris Stevens?

    Watson is up to his neck in Janet Reno’s enforcement dirt.

    Word needs to get out that both judges are “radioactive” and that even the Democrat machine cannot protect them.

    Read More
  25. Longtime Democrat and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said the appeal should not have been necessary because Chuang never should have ruled against it in the first place.

    Dershowitz said the two judges who blocked the ban focused so heavily on President Trump’s campaign rhetoric and not the text of the order, that he believed if President Obama issued the exact same order it would have been upheld.

    “That’s not the way the law is supposed to operate,” Dershowitz said. “I do not believe this is a Muslim ban.”

    He added that Trump was smart to appeal Chuang’s ruling, because his Greenbelt, Md. chambers fall under the moderately conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The other judge who blocked the order, Derrick Watson of Honolulu, falls under the liberal Ninth Circuit, which previously ruled against Trump’s first travel ban.

    “Then, if the case goes to the Supreme Court [if the appeals court rules for Trump], and it ties 4-4, Trump wins,” Dershowitz said.

    He said the blockages of Trump’s travel ban are the first time he has seen courts focus on “the ambiguous rhetoric of a candidate.”

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/18/alan-dershowitz-if-obama-issued-trump-travel-ban-would-not-been-blocked-upheld-court

    Read More
  26. Pensans says:
    @Truth
    So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is "an affirmative-action hire" now?

    Son, have you lost your cotton-pickin' mind?

    If he was chosen because of his race (as Obama said) rather than because he graduated from Harvard, then “yes.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    So graduating Magna cum laude at the best law school in the world, somehow signals to you "being chosen because of his race"?
  27. @Immigrant from former USSR
    There is a Russian proverb "Sviato mesto pusto ne byvaet"
    --- "A holy place, attractive place, will not stay empty."
    Having a Western medal one and a half rank below Fields one,
    I am sure that USA would survive without my contribution.
    The place I occupy could be filled by Americans,
    may be for higher remuneration, with longer time to study,
    by those bright people who nowadays go to become lawyers.
    Still, my family and I, we are trying to contribute positively,
    and we are grateful that Americans, may be against the will of majority,
    invited us here.
    Thank you , USA !

    Clarification.
    Even Albert Einstein said that most of his discoveries eventually
    would be done by other scientists (within a decade ? my guess, not a citation.)
    An he was talking about absolutely brilliant things:
    the ones he did in "miracle year" of 1905.

    He made an exception for the General Relativity Theory, i.e.
    theory of gravitation based on changing the ideas about geometry of space-time.
    His estimate was time-delay about 50+ extra years for other scientists to come to it.
    His General Relativity nowadays is important for time corrections to GPS signals;
    even more important his Special Relativity Theory (1905.)

    Einstein was wrong on so many levels that I don’t have the patience or endurance to even start with an elaboration but it would suffice to mention his “speed of light” nonsense, his axiom stating that nothing can travel faster than light.
    First of all says “Who”, meaning that just because he, E, says so does not then convert his declaration into fact .
    Secondly as concerning the “speed of light” : Thought in the sense of “Telepathy” transcends space : Instantaneously , meaning it travels infinitely faster than light, namely it’s movement cannot be measured as it is “Timeless”, and therefore it travels ” faster” than the speed of light, period.
    And I know that he, E, is worshiped world-wide as some version of an earthly God, even though he was full of dookey.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years, airborne qualified US army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Physics isn't my field, inasmuch as it is part of every field.

    My personal takeaways from Physics are classical mechanics, thermo, and basic circuits.

    But trust me, you don't want to pick a fight with Einstein. Personally I could quibble with the statement it would have taken 50 years to have what Einstein's discoveries duplicated by others. For example I read an article somewhere stating that a lot of what Einstein did do was implied by Poincarre's work. Only a matter of time before someone else pulled the string on that.

    But no, I don't think I have the moxie to question Einstein myself. At least his abilities, even if I do think others could have done what he did not too much later.
  28. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Donald Trump doesn't need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration.

    Who run Bartertown?

    “Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration.”

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion, which would result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The question of what is the law no longer matters. The question is now, whose side are you on?

    Who run Bartertown?
    , @Sunbeam
    Let's clean this up.

    "I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can't result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don't well that is something totally different.)"
  29. Corvinus says:

    “All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave.”

    No thank you.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/immigrants-and-crime/486884/

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If you look closely at those studies you generally find the only reason those conclusions are true is because we have our own homegrown demographic which commits crimes at an extremely high rate. Some additional criticisms:
    - Studies concerning second generation immigrants seem to give mixed results.
    - You'll notice that those studies carefully avoid looking at subgroups of immigrants. They aren't all the same which is the point of allowing selective immigration.
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "No thank you.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/immigrants-and-crime/486884/"

    Yes, please:

    http://www.truth.org/islam/bloodthirsty-lazy-sodomites-one-and-all/
  30. @Corvinus
    "Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration."

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion, which would result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.

    The question of what is the law no longer matters. The question is now, whose side are you on?

    Who run Bartertown?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The question of what is the law no longer matters."

    You are being obtuse. What is the law will always be questioned by those who oppose its application.

    "The question is now, whose side are you on?"

    The side of white people who make their own racial and political decisions. YOU?

    "Who run Bartertown?"

    America is no where near operating like Thunderdome. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
  31. Sunbeam says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    Einstein was wrong on so many levels that I don't have the patience or endurance to even start with an elaboration but it would suffice to mention his "speed of light" nonsense, his axiom stating that nothing can travel faster than light.
    First of all says "Who", meaning that just because he, E, says so does not then convert his declaration into fact .
    Secondly as concerning the "speed of light" : Thought in the sense of "Telepathy" transcends space : Instantaneously , meaning it travels infinitely faster than light, namely it's movement cannot be measured as it is "Timeless", and therefore it travels " faster" than the speed of light, period.
    And I know that he, E, is worshiped world-wide as some version of an earthly God, even though he was full of dookey.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years, airborne qualified US army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Physics isn’t my field, inasmuch as it is part of every field.

    My personal takeaways from Physics are classical mechanics, thermo, and basic circuits.

    But trust me, you don’t want to pick a fight with Einstein. Personally I could quibble with the statement it would have taken 50 years to have what Einstein’s discoveries duplicated by others. For example I read an article somewhere stating that a lot of what Einstein did do was implied by Poincarre’s work. Only a matter of time before someone else pulled the string on that.

    But no, I don’t think I have the moxie to question Einstein myself. At least his abilities, even if I do think others could have done what he did not too much later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, Sunbeam.
    My post had the goal to emphasize that immigrants in the USA can be substituted by Americans at any level of job, if the payoff (in all meanings) is good enough.

    I pulled the analogy with statement that numerous discoveries by Einstein, by his own admission, could be relatively fast discovered by his contemporaries.
    The only exception Einstein thought to be from that row of scientific subjects was his General Relativity Theory.

    I do not make such exception for myself. I could be substituted by Americans.

  32. Sunbeam says:
    @Corvinus
    "Donald Trump doesn’t need to fight the federal judiciary, he needs to defy it. Instruct executive branch officials to disregard any court orders purporting to interfere with the enforcement of the travel restrictions, and to ignore and, if necessary, restrain any federal marshalls sent to enforce them, unless specifically instructed to comply by the Attorney General. This could be the defining moment of the Trump Administration."

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion, which would result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.

    Let’s clean this up.

    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don’t well that is something totally different.)”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment."

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings, given that he or she is purposely circumventing the checks and balances system. As James Madison once observed, one of the chief benefits of having "independent tribunals of justice" in our system is that they can act as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. "The courts," Hamilton wrote, "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority." To say the least, the Supreme Court will not be able to serve as a bulwark in a regime characterized by "executive and congressional non-acquiescence" to its decisions.
  33. Truth says:
    @Pensans
    If he was chosen because of his race (as Obama said) rather than because he graduated from Harvard, then "yes."

    So graduating Magna cum laude at the best law school in the world, somehow signals to you “being chosen because of his race”?

    Read More
  34. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    The question of what is the law no longer matters. The question is now, whose side are you on?

    Who run Bartertown?

    “The question of what is the law no longer matters.”

    You are being obtuse. What is the law will always be questioned by those who oppose its application.

    “The question is now, whose side are you on?”

    The side of white people who make their own racial and political decisions. YOU?

    “Who run Bartertown?”

    America is no where near operating like Thunderdome. Just stop embarrassing yourself.

    Read More
  35. Corvinus says:
    @Sunbeam
    Let's clean this up.

    "I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can't result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don't well that is something totally different.)"

    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment.”

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings, given that he or she is purposely circumventing the checks and balances system. As James Madison once observed, one of the chief benefits of having “independent tribunals of justice” in our system is that they can act as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.” Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. “The courts,” Hamilton wrote, “were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.” To say the least, the Supreme Court will not be able to serve as a bulwark in a regime characterized by “executive and congressional non-acquiescence” to its decisions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.

    So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind? Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era.

    The answer is it wasn't. Just like political parties, they weren't intended (or at least imagined) by these cats with the patina of history and their images on greenbacks.
  36. hempmeister says: • Website

    There are no more Protestants on the Supreme Court. When Roman Catholic Scalia died we were left with 5 Roman Catholics Judges. The other 3 Judges have a Jewish background.

    Read More
  37. Sunbeam says:
    @Corvinus
    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment."

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings, given that he or she is purposely circumventing the checks and balances system. As James Madison once observed, one of the chief benefits of having "independent tribunals of justice" in our system is that they can act as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. "The courts," Hamilton wrote, "were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority." To say the least, the Supreme Court will not be able to serve as a bulwark in a regime characterized by "executive and congressional non-acquiescence" to its decisions.

    They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.

    So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind? Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era.

    The answer is it wasn’t. Just like political parties, they weren’t intended (or at least imagined) by these cats with the patina of history and their images on greenbacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Don't forget, he's a moderate married White American who "has his own opinions on race and culture." At some point, I think his brand of stupidity is so predictable that it has become almost senselessly easy for almost any Unz regular to mimic him and his brand of constant hypocrisy.

    In many ways, I respect him a lot less than the outright liberal trolls, because at least they can admit to who they are.

    , @Corvinus
    "They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind."

    I take that as a compliment, given that you were my mentor.

    "So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind?"

    Ah, yes, judicial activism. That heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and leftists, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new contexts. Fact is, our Constitution is simultaneously a constant and an organic document.

    "Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era."

    A closer examination of the Warren Court reveals that it deferred to Congressional power, enabling Congress to use its own judgement in defining and protecting rights. Moreover, the South had clearly violated the spirit of the Plessy decision--separate but unequal--and the Warren Court rectified it accordingly.
  38. I’m the son of immigrants from Taiwan who came to America seeking money and a better life for their family, through acquiring more money.

    Getting really annoyed by the number of Asian SJWs these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Better living through money. I can relate to that.
  39. @Sunbeam
    They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.

    So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind? Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era.

    The answer is it wasn't. Just like political parties, they weren't intended (or at least imagined) by these cats with the patina of history and their images on greenbacks.

    Don’t forget, he’s a moderate married White American who “has his own opinions on race and culture.” At some point, I think his brand of stupidity is so predictable that it has become almost senselessly easy for almost any Unz regular to mimic him and his brand of constant hypocrisy.

    In many ways, I respect him a lot less than the outright liberal trolls, because at least they can admit to who they are.

    Read More
  40. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave."

    No thank you.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/immigrants-and-crime/486884/

    If you look closely at those studies you generally find the only reason those conclusions are true is because we have our own homegrown demographic which commits crimes at an extremely high rate. Some additional criticisms:
    - Studies concerning second generation immigrants seem to give mixed results.
    - You’ll notice that those studies carefully avoid looking at subgroups of immigrants. They aren’t all the same which is the point of allowing selective immigration.

    Read More
  41. Urho says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    How did the Historic Native Born White American Majority ever manage to survive when there were hardly any Asians in America?


    Answer:We managed to survive quite well thank you!!!!!....1969 two Alpha Native Born White American Males descend down from the Gruman Corp LEM onto the Moon....America was 90 percent Native Born White American White American....NASA nearly 100 percent Native Born White American Male...Gruman Corp...THE LEM.....nearly 100 percent Native Born White American Male...


    I mean like who the fuck would be opposed to this demographic state of affairs?


    Answer:The Chinese, Hindus, Koreans, and Pakistani who have already enthusiastically voted the Historic Native Born White American Majority into a racial minority in post-white toilet California....

    They killed most of the Asians and stole their land due to superior weapons and inferior morality.

    Read More
  42. Svigor says:

    China is America’s most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.

    A neokahn’s pantomime of American patriotism, how sweet. Tell us about all the loyal Arabs and Palestinians in Israel, neokahn.

    These rulings (and many prior) are really opening Pandora’s Box. If the inferior federal courts get to veto any federal executive action based on mind-reading, then the sky’s the limit. And what’s to stop Conservative judges from vetoing everything the Democrats do, based on their anti-White mindset? What’s to stop the inferior courts from bringing the entire federal gov’t to a standstill?

    Strangely, Trump left Iraq off of his latest EO. Trump should just refuse to allow any refugees from entering. Then the left wing courts can’t find “evidence” of discrimination and bias.

    If the inferior courts aren’t reined in, it won’t matter; “Trump is only blocking all refugees so he can block Muslim refugees, who he is targeting due to his anti-Muslim animus, so Trump doesn’t get to block all refugees, either.”

    I’m wondering why Trump doesn’t go judge shopping himself. Find judges willing to issue rulings to block the judges blocking him. Find judges willing to suspend the offending judges’ offices. Find judges willing to overrule judges higher up the ranks; I mean, why not? Who’s going to stop them? A shitty little federal inferior court judge can stop the White House, surely he can stop a judge who outranks him? When higher-ranked courts or judges try to stop them, issue rulings invalidating their orders and blocking them. Etc.

    Who are the inferior courts to say what the executive branch enforces, during all of this mess? Nobody, that’s who.

    Start treating the inferior courts like the sham they really are.

    So graduating Magna cum laude at the best law school in the world, somehow signals to you “being chosen because of his race”?

    It’s certainly possible. E.g., corruption should disqualify even the otherwise most qualified candidate.

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion,

    And you are defending judicial branch rebellion. The difference is, the judicial branch usurpation has been going on for decades. There is nothing in the Constitution about being beholden to the illegitimate usurpation of power.

    Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.

    The judiciary’s runaway malfeasance is the bull in your china shop. ALL judges are able to engage in the kind of malfeasance that’s been going on, and the complaints are so far just noise.

    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don’t well that is something totally different.)”

    Indeed.

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings

    He should have mass impeachment and judicial reform legislation ready to file the instant that happens. If and when Congress feels like it, the federal courts are subject to impeachment proceedings.

    Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. “The courts,” Hamilton wrote, “were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”

    That isn’t what the inferior courts are up to, any more. They are now in full usurpation mode, having taken unto themselves veto power over the executive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The inferior courts, which Congress, as per the Constitution, has from time to time deigned to establish, are inferior in more ways than one.
    , @JerseyJeffersonian
    The Original Sin was Marbury vs. Madison. Jefferson made a cardinal error in allowing Chief Justice Marshall's ruling to stick that a clearly political "leave behind" Federalist appointed at the last minute by the departing Federalist President Adams was entitled to his job as a Justice of the Peace despite Marbury's commission not having yet been delivered.
    It is a complicated case, but formed the formal basis for the supremacy of Judicial Review. See the Wikipedia entry for an overview:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Note that Anti-Federalists were worried that the Judiciary would usurp the powers of the Legislature even as the ratification of the Constitution was being considered. And the chickens have indeed come home to roost.
  43. Svigor says:

    You can bet your arse there are judges out there that are willing to issue rulings that do to activist judges what activist judges are doing to the executive branch.

    Read More
  44. @Anon
    China is America's most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.

    America is doing far more to ensure her own destruction than anything China is doing to her. As they say, I suppose, civilizations die by suicide.

    Read More
  45. Svigor says:

    Daniel, you got that right. But it’s more like murder, than suicide. Murder by an elite minority.

    Calling it suicide is like calling cancer suicidal.

    Read More
  46. @Sunbeam
    Physics isn't my field, inasmuch as it is part of every field.

    My personal takeaways from Physics are classical mechanics, thermo, and basic circuits.

    But trust me, you don't want to pick a fight with Einstein. Personally I could quibble with the statement it would have taken 50 years to have what Einstein's discoveries duplicated by others. For example I read an article somewhere stating that a lot of what Einstein did do was implied by Poincarre's work. Only a matter of time before someone else pulled the string on that.

    But no, I don't think I have the moxie to question Einstein myself. At least his abilities, even if I do think others could have done what he did not too much later.

    Hello, Sunbeam.
    My post had the goal to emphasize that immigrants in the USA can be substituted by Americans at any level of job, if the payoff (in all meanings) is good enough.

    I pulled the analogy with statement that numerous discoveries by Einstein, by his own admission, could be relatively fast discovered by his contemporaries.
    The only exception Einstein thought to be from that row of scientific subjects was his General Relativity Theory.

    I do not make such exception for myself. I could be substituted by Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    Point taken. Like I said, it was an article I read, though it was pretty convincing about Poincare and at least Special Relativity.

    Just don't know enough to speculate about General Relativity.

    If Physics is your field though, do you know anything about Boltzmann? Apparently s = k * ln(w) was mostly Boltzmann's work (not Planck as I always thought).

    That opened the door... for lots of things. Arguably setting the stage in some ways for Physics as I understand it.

    But is that obvious? It always seemed to me he had to have pulled it out of his butt. That would have never have occurred to me (and in much of my studies even things named after famous scientists are often pretty obvious to think of, assuming you are first in the area).

    Know anything about this? Am I exaggerating the importance of that in my own mind? I had a whole graduate class basically that seemed to revolve around taking that equation, and plugging it into classical thermo to see where it took you.

    Of course my graduate study in this area would have been old hat to someone in 1900 or so except for random things like thermionics and the photoelectric effect (thanks Einstein).
  47. Corvinus says:
    @Sunbeam
    They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.

    So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind? Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era.

    The answer is it wasn't. Just like political parties, they weren't intended (or at least imagined) by these cats with the patina of history and their images on greenbacks.

    “They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.”

    I take that as a compliment, given that you were my mentor.

    “So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind?”

    Ah, yes, judicial activism. That heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and leftists, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new contexts. Fact is, our Constitution is simultaneously a constant and an organic document.

    “Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era.”

    A closer examination of the Warren Court reveals that it deferred to Congressional power, enabling Congress to use its own judgement in defining and protecting rights. Moreover, the South had clearly violated the spirit of the Plessy decision–separate but unequal–and the Warren Court rectified it accordingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    “They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.”

    I take that as a compliment
     
    We can tell. (not a compliment)
  48. Sunbeam says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, Sunbeam.
    My post had the goal to emphasize that immigrants in the USA can be substituted by Americans at any level of job, if the payoff (in all meanings) is good enough.

    I pulled the analogy with statement that numerous discoveries by Einstein, by his own admission, could be relatively fast discovered by his contemporaries.
    The only exception Einstein thought to be from that row of scientific subjects was his General Relativity Theory.

    I do not make such exception for myself. I could be substituted by Americans.

    Point taken. Like I said, it was an article I read, though it was pretty convincing about Poincare and at least Special Relativity.

    Just don’t know enough to speculate about General Relativity.

    If Physics is your field though, do you know anything about Boltzmann? Apparently s = k * ln(w) was mostly Boltzmann’s work (not Planck as I always thought).

    That opened the door… for lots of things. Arguably setting the stage in some ways for Physics as I understand it.

    But is that obvious? It always seemed to me he had to have pulled it out of his butt. That would have never have occurred to me (and in much of my studies even things named after famous scientists are often pretty obvious to think of, assuming you are first in the area).

    Know anything about this? Am I exaggerating the importance of that in my own mind? I had a whole graduate class basically that seemed to revolve around taking that equation, and plugging it into classical thermo to see where it took you.

    Of course my graduate study in this area would have been old hat to someone in 1900 or so except for random things like thermionics and the photoelectric effect (thanks Einstein).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Sunbeam:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
    4 topics:

    1. Photoelectric effect
    2. Brownian motion (and Einstein's relationship between diffusion coefficient and mobility; very important for semiconductors)
    3. Special relativity
    4. Mass–energy equivalence
    All that was in miraculous year of 1905.
    Only in the point 3. Wikipedia mentions Henri Poincare.

    I would also count to him (to Einstein)
    5. Bose-Einstein condensation
    6. Stimulated emission of radiation (future MASERs and LASERs)
    and finally
    7. General Relativity Theory (the field in which I personally never worked.)

    But I did some things related to SER,
    related to Electrodynamics of Moving Media
    (compare with the title of Einstein's paper of 1905),
    related to connection between Mobility and Diffusion
    (i.e. between Dissipation and Brownian Fluctuations) for a particular case.

    For me Einstein was a weak person (almost bad human being.)
    I could not force myself to read the book about him by Isaacson (?),
    after reading several pages about his behavior towards Mileva.
    But what a student of Nature !!! What an intuition !!! Such breadth and depth !!!

    Can you kindly give me a reference to the article about contributions of Poincare ?
    Respectful and friendly greetings, your I.f.f.U.

  49. densa says:

    These judges have shown their animus toward both the nation and its ethnic foundation. This animus to break open the borders and re-define the nation as belonging to the world is preferred by those who have been considered minorities, minorities who anticipate becoming the ruling majority after destroying the existing social structure.

    Cornell law website tells us a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.”

    Additionally, it lists these circumstances:

    1. “He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

    2. “In private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy …”

    3. “He has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of a particular case in controversy.”

    4. “He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary… has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

    5. “He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person is … iii known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

    These judges who have shown themselves to favor immigrants over citizens to the point of defending illegal immigration, or have shown themselves to prefer a new nation, one ruled by former minorities that have gained superior rights, should have recused themselves.

    Overruling the elected president as he tries to uphold the nation’s interest because they want a new non-nation nation in which the existing residents are considered inferior and are unable to advocate for their own interest may be politically correct, but it is animus.

    Read More
  50. Svigor says:

    Ah, yes, judicial activism. That heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and leftists, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new contexts. Fact is, our Constitution is simultaneously a constant and an organic document.

    Corvanus is still a lying piece of shit, so some things do seem to be immutable.

    Conservatives argue that if you want to change the Constitution, you Amend it. Leftists argue that you just reinterpret it, which is of course nonsense, and makes a mockery of the very concept of laws.

    Read More
  51. Svigor says:

    The very fact that Congress so rarely impeaches federal judges shows how derelict they have been in their duty. Given the number of activist, malfeasant judges, I mean.

    On the other hand, I suppose if Congress had done their job and removed a few of these little tyrant from their positions, it would have nipped the problem in the bud, and there’d be less malfeasance, and thus less need for Congress to remove corrupt judges.

    Read More
  52. Svigor says:

    Forgot to point out that the fact that Conservatives want to stick to the law, and only change the Constitution by Amending it, shows what a lying piece of shit Corvanus is; Corvanus can’t produce a Conservative who argues the Constitution to be “immutable.”

    Read More
  53. Svigor says:

    C’mon, bring your A-game. You’re trying to be glib, but only succeeding at being shallow.

    Be careful what you wish for. When “Truth” stops being glib, he gives us gems like cars that run on water being suppressed by the gov’t, half the celebs we think are women are actually trannies, and assorted Konspiracy Kookery.

    “Truth,” truth be told, I’ve been worried about you lately. You back on your meds? That’s a guess, not a joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Be careful what you wish for. When “Truth” stops being glib, he gives us gems like cars that run on water being suppressed by the gov’t, half the celebs we think are women are actually trannies, and assorted Konspiracy Kookery.
     
    It seems your "alt-righters" are getting into the "Kookery" old sport* Of course they're years behind me, but better late than never...

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Illuminati-Suppress-Water-Powered-Cars.html


    https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/03/are-celebrities-secret-trannies.html?_ga=1.135269809.1408694968.1464187093

    *much closer to %90 than %50 by my estimation, but, I'm glad you're thinking about it.
  54. @Sunbeam
    Point taken. Like I said, it was an article I read, though it was pretty convincing about Poincare and at least Special Relativity.

    Just don't know enough to speculate about General Relativity.

    If Physics is your field though, do you know anything about Boltzmann? Apparently s = k * ln(w) was mostly Boltzmann's work (not Planck as I always thought).

    That opened the door... for lots of things. Arguably setting the stage in some ways for Physics as I understand it.

    But is that obvious? It always seemed to me he had to have pulled it out of his butt. That would have never have occurred to me (and in much of my studies even things named after famous scientists are often pretty obvious to think of, assuming you are first in the area).

    Know anything about this? Am I exaggerating the importance of that in my own mind? I had a whole graduate class basically that seemed to revolve around taking that equation, and plugging it into classical thermo to see where it took you.

    Of course my graduate study in this area would have been old hat to someone in 1900 or so except for random things like thermionics and the photoelectric effect (thanks Einstein).

    Dear Sunbeam:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

    4 topics:

    1. Photoelectric effect
    2. Brownian motion (and Einstein’s relationship between diffusion coefficient and mobility; very important for semiconductors)
    3. Special relativity
    4. Mass–energy equivalence
    All that was in miraculous year of 1905.
    Only in the point 3. Wikipedia mentions Henri Poincare.

    I would also count to him (to Einstein)
    5. Bose-Einstein condensation
    6. Stimulated emission of radiation (future MASERs and LASERs)
    and finally
    7. General Relativity Theory (the field in which I personally never worked.)

    But I did some things related to SER,
    related to Electrodynamics of Moving Media
    (compare with the title of Einstein’s paper of 1905),
    related to connection between Mobility and Diffusion
    (i.e. between Dissipation and Brownian Fluctuations) for a particular case.

    For me Einstein was a weak person (almost bad human being.)
    I could not force myself to read the book about him by Isaacson (?),
    after reading several pages about his behavior towards Mileva.
    But what a student of Nature !!! What an intuition !!! Such breadth and depth !!!

    Can you kindly give me a reference to the article about contributions of Poincare ?
    Respectful and friendly greetings, your I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    I can't.

    This was something I read a few years ago. No idea where it might be found now.

    But I did do a google:

    https://www.google.com/#q=poincare+theory+relativity&*

    Apparently this idea has been around for a long time. Reading some of those links, things weren't exactly what I thought I remembered anyway.

    But it looks like the math was already there, it just took someone to realize exactly what it meant.

    Hard for me to believe it would have taken 50 years or so for someone to make the connection.

    Of course Einstein did more than just Special Relativity. I had a whole class in Tensor Analysis, which apparently was something Einstein just formulated to make it easier for him to deal with all those vectors and subscripts.

  55. Truth says:
    @Svigor

    C’mon, bring your A-game. You’re trying to be glib, but only succeeding at being shallow.
     
    Be careful what you wish for. When "Truth" stops being glib, he gives us gems like cars that run on water being suppressed by the gov't, half the celebs we think are women are actually trannies, and assorted Konspiracy Kookery.

    "Truth," truth be told, I've been worried about you lately. You back on your meds? That's a guess, not a joke.

    Be careful what you wish for. When “Truth” stops being glib, he gives us gems like cars that run on water being suppressed by the gov’t, half the celebs we think are women are actually trannies, and assorted Konspiracy Kookery.

    It seems your “alt-righters” are getting into the “Kookery” old sport* Of course they’re years behind me, but better late than never…

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Illuminati-Suppress-Water-Powered-Cars.html

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2017/03/are-celebrities-secret-trannies.html?_ga=1.135269809.1408694968.1464187093

    *much closer to %90 than %50 by my estimation, but, I’m glad you’re thinking about it.

    Read More
  56. Hibernian says:
    @Truth
    Well, eliminating the world's smartest young people from jobs would certainly have an...interesting...effect on things, I'll give you that.

    World’s most brainwashed young people… …FIFY

    Read More
  57. Hibernian says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I'm the son of immigrants from Taiwan who came to America seeking money and a better life for their family, through acquiring more money.

    Getting really annoyed by the number of Asian SJWs these days.

    Better living through money. I can relate to that.

    Read More
  58. Hibernian says:
    @Svigor

    China is America’s most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.
     
    A neokahn's pantomime of American patriotism, how sweet. Tell us about all the loyal Arabs and Palestinians in Israel, neokahn.

    These rulings (and many prior) are really opening Pandora's Box. If the inferior federal courts get to veto any federal executive action based on mind-reading, then the sky's the limit. And what's to stop Conservative judges from vetoing everything the Democrats do, based on their anti-White mindset? What's to stop the inferior courts from bringing the entire federal gov't to a standstill?

    Strangely, Trump left Iraq off of his latest EO. Trump should just refuse to allow any refugees from entering. Then the left wing courts can’t find “evidence” of discrimination and bias.
     
    If the inferior courts aren't reined in, it won't matter; "Trump is only blocking all refugees so he can block Muslim refugees, who he is targeting due to his anti-Muslim animus, so Trump doesn't get to block all refugees, either."

    I'm wondering why Trump doesn't go judge shopping himself. Find judges willing to issue rulings to block the judges blocking him. Find judges willing to suspend the offending judges' offices. Find judges willing to overrule judges higher up the ranks; I mean, why not? Who's going to stop them? A shitty little federal inferior court judge can stop the White House, surely he can stop a judge who outranks him? When higher-ranked courts or judges try to stop them, issue rulings invalidating their orders and blocking them. Etc.

    Who are the inferior courts to say what the executive branch enforces, during all of this mess? Nobody, that's who.

    Start treating the inferior courts like the sham they really are.

    So graduating Magna cum laude at the best law school in the world, somehow signals to you “being chosen because of his race”?
     
    It's certainly possible. E.g., corruption should disqualify even the otherwise most qualified candidate.

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion,
     
    And you are defending judicial branch rebellion. The difference is, the judicial branch usurpation has been going on for decades. There is nothing in the Constitution about being beholden to the illegitimate usurpation of power.

    Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.
     
    The judiciary's runaway malfeasance is the bull in your china shop. ALL judges are able to engage in the kind of malfeasance that's been going on, and the complaints are so far just noise.

    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don’t well that is something totally different.)”
     
    Indeed.

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings
     
    He should have mass impeachment and judicial reform legislation ready to file the instant that happens. If and when Congress feels like it, the federal courts are subject to impeachment proceedings.

    Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. “The courts,” Hamilton wrote, “were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”
     
    That isn't what the inferior courts are up to, any more. They are now in full usurpation mode, having taken unto themselves veto power over the executive.

    The inferior courts, which Congress, as per the Constitution, has from time to time deigned to establish, are inferior in more ways than one.

    Read More
  59. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind."

    I take that as a compliment, given that you were my mentor.

    "So where in all this pious rhetoric is there any indication that the founders of this country, the framers of the Constitution, had activist Judges like good old Chuang in mind?"

    Ah, yes, judicial activism. That heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and leftists, who insist it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new contexts. Fact is, our Constitution is simultaneously a constant and an organic document.

    "Or lots of others since that got to be a thing with the Warren Supreme Court era."

    A closer examination of the Warren Court reveals that it deferred to Congressional power, enabling Congress to use its own judgement in defining and protecting rights. Moreover, the South had clearly violated the spirit of the Plessy decision--separate but unequal--and the Warren Court rectified it accordingly.

    “They invented the word disingenuous with you in mind.”

    I take that as a compliment

    We can tell. (not a compliment)

    Read More
  60. Sunbeam says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Sunbeam:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
    4 topics:

    1. Photoelectric effect
    2. Brownian motion (and Einstein's relationship between diffusion coefficient and mobility; very important for semiconductors)
    3. Special relativity
    4. Mass–energy equivalence
    All that was in miraculous year of 1905.
    Only in the point 3. Wikipedia mentions Henri Poincare.

    I would also count to him (to Einstein)
    5. Bose-Einstein condensation
    6. Stimulated emission of radiation (future MASERs and LASERs)
    and finally
    7. General Relativity Theory (the field in which I personally never worked.)

    But I did some things related to SER,
    related to Electrodynamics of Moving Media
    (compare with the title of Einstein's paper of 1905),
    related to connection between Mobility and Diffusion
    (i.e. between Dissipation and Brownian Fluctuations) for a particular case.

    For me Einstein was a weak person (almost bad human being.)
    I could not force myself to read the book about him by Isaacson (?),
    after reading several pages about his behavior towards Mileva.
    But what a student of Nature !!! What an intuition !!! Such breadth and depth !!!

    Can you kindly give me a reference to the article about contributions of Poincare ?
    Respectful and friendly greetings, your I.f.f.U.

    I can’t.

    This was something I read a few years ago. No idea where it might be found now.

    But I did do a google:

    https://www.google.com/#q=poincare+theory+relativity&*

    Apparently this idea has been around for a long time. Reading some of those links, things weren’t exactly what I thought I remembered anyway.

    But it looks like the math was already there, it just took someone to realize exactly what it meant.

    Hard for me to believe it would have taken 50 years or so for someone to make the connection.

    Of course Einstein did more than just Special Relativity. I had a whole class in Tensor Analysis, which apparently was something Einstein just formulated to make it easier for him to deal with all those vectors and subscripts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    Wikipedia has excellent articles about the history of Special and General Relativity, incl. Poincaré's contributions which were considerable, and are never mentioned in textbooks. As to General Relativity, decades before Einstein, Riemann tried to develop a theory of gravitation by representing the gravitational field as the curvature of space, so what Einstein did was really nothing new except that by then people realized that you have to use Minkowski space (i.e., spacetime) instead of Euclidean space. Minkowski space has the right metric: +++- Let's not forget also that David Hilbert was the first to formulate the field equations that constitute General Relativity - he beat Einstein by a few weeks but he was a mathematician, so didn't realize the full physical implications of what he had done.

    Actually, as many people had realized, you don't need the full apparatus of GR to improve on Newton's theory. All you need is the linear correction, i.e., write something like G = g(1 + lin. corr.) to get the correct result for the bending of starlight in the gravitational field or for the perihelion motion of Mercury. This would be what physicists call a phenomenological aproach. Not very satisfying perhaps, but without Einstein's intervention I'm sure this would've been achieved around 1910 or so , and Eddington would've gone on to test it during the 1919 total solar eclipse as he had done with Einstein's theory. This kind of piecemeal approach has often worked in physics. Sometimes you don't need to know the full theory to make successful predictions. For example, Niels Bohr was able to derive the hydrogen spectrum in 1913, 12-13 years before the full apparatus of quantum mechanics was invented.
    , @Anon 2
    Tensor Analysis was actually invented by the Italian mathematician Ricci, and published in 1900. It was further developed by Ricci in collaboration with his student Levi-Civita. Einstein couldn't handle the advanced mathematics required in his theory so he sought help from Levi-Civita, and that's how General Relativity was born. Einstein had excellent physical intuition but mathematics was not his strong suit. He famously said, "After the mathematicians were done with my theory, even I couldn't understand it."
  61. Harold says:
    @Urho
    They killed most of the Asians and stole their land due to superior weapons and inferior morality.

    No, they had superior morality too.

    Read More
  62. Judge Watson was appointed by Barack Obama five years ago. It was frankly and openly an Affirmative-Action appointment. Obama said at the time that his appointment would “ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves.”

    Here’s more of the same kind of federal Asian entitlements:

    1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
    2. 8a set aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
    3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially in government jobs
    4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
    4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions for Asians
    5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
    6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common,
    and many times goes unprosecuted
    7. American policy allows mass importation of Asian products built with slave labor
    8. Whaling allowance for Asian ethnic groups
    9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians

    Read More
  63. Dissident says:
    @Anon
    China is America's most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.

    Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers.

    Chinese household“?

    Mr. Derbyshire’s wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire’s children were born and raised in the U.S.A.

    Why would such a household be anything other than an American one?

    According to Mr. Derbyshire, he often told his children that they were (paraphrasing from memory; I was unable to find the quote now on Derb’s web site though I am certain that I read it somewhere from Derb), “50% Chinese peasant, 50% English coal-miner and 100% American”

    (And if such a household were to be considered a foreign one at all, why would it be any more a Chinese one than an English one?)

    What is your basis for claiming that anyone in Mr. Derbyshire’s household is anything less than a loyal, patriotic American?

    Mr. Derbyshire’s son currently serves in the U.S. military. How have you served your country?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I have met Mr. and Mrs. Derbyshire personally.
    After 3 days of interaction with them (sure, in English)
    I told Mr. D. (in the presence of Mrs. D.) that now I understand,
    why he pursued Mrs. Rosie and married her:
    she is really remarkable person.
    I have not met their kids, only read about them
    on John Derbyshire's web-site.
    , @Truth



    Mr. Derbyshire’s wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire’s children were born and raised in the U.S.A.
     
    I think it's AWESOME that you and Derb love race-mixing as much as I and so many LARGE, FERAL, WILD, UNEDUCATED, MUSCULAR black men do.

    I guess you answered Rodney King's question. We can all get along.
  64. Ben Frank says:

    “As of 2010, there were 678 authorized district court judgeships” per Wikipedia.
    This is a crazy system – all you need is one vote out of six hundred and seventy-eight to tie the hands of the president.

    Any of these judges can veto (at least for a time) any Executive Order. It’s all fun right now when all that happens is a that somebody else’s child or mother becomes a victim of terrorists. For now we can all live with that. But what about when things get serious?

    There has to be a better way. There are lots of special courts; see list below. What about setting up a special court with new judges to review Executive Orders? Could that remove the veto power now exercised by the District Courts?

    United States federal courts with Original Jurisdiction over specific subject matter:
    United States Tax Court[19]
    Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    International Trade Commission
    United States Court of International Trade[20]
    United States Court of Federal Claims[21]
    United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[22]
    United States bankruptcy courts[23]
    Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    United States Merit Systems Protection Board
    United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_of_the_United_States

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    What is the check and balance on the Judicial Branch?

    Impeachment? Length of term? The fact that unlike the other branches they don't have clearly specified capabilities to apply what is in the end, force?

    Jackson said something like "They've made their ruling, now let them enforce it."

    Stalin asked how many divisions the Pope had.

    And more to the point, I get that a Judge can say a law is unconstitutional and invalid unless a higher court reverses him. That makes sense. It also doesn't make sense that a political hack in Hawaii or California can affect Georgia or Louisiana just because.

    Actually a Judge ruling executive orders as unconstitutional doesn't really sit poorly with me in concept. The mechanics are unwieldy and all too easy to game though. And who holds their feet to the fire?

    But how did we get to the point where a Judge can pore over school district maps and reorganize things as he sees fit? To order busing in certain areas (but strangely not in others).

    That is a far cry from saying "Uh guys you can't make a law saying that people named Smith pay twice as much taxes as others."
  65. Ben Frank says:

    Good point by densa!

    “These judges who have shown themselves to favor immigrants over citizens to the point of defending illegal immigration, or have shown themselves to prefer a new nation, one ruled by former minorities that have gained superior rights, should have recused themselves.”

    A biased judge cannot decide a case.

    Read More
  66. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Dissident

    Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers.
     
    "Chinese household"?

    Mr. Derbyshire's wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire's children were born and raised in the U.S.A.

    Why would such a household be anything other than an American one?

    According to Mr. Derbyshire, he often told his children that they were (paraphrasing from memory; I was unable to find the quote now on Derb's web site though I am certain that I read it somewhere from Derb), "50% Chinese peasant, 50% English coal-miner and 100% American"

    (And if such a household were to be considered a foreign one at all, why would it be any more a Chinese one than an English one?)

    What is your basis for claiming that anyone in Mr. Derbyshire's household is anything less than a loyal, patriotic American?

    Mr. Derbyshire's son currently serves in the U.S. military. How have you served your country?

    I have met Mr. and Mrs. Derbyshire personally.
    After 3 days of interaction with them (sure, in English)
    I told Mr. D. (in the presence of Mrs. D.) that now I understand,
    why he pursued Mrs. Rosie and married her:
    she is really remarkable person.
    I have not met their kids, only read about them
    on John Derbyshire’s web-site.

    Read More
  67. Sunbeam says:
    @Ben Frank
    "As of 2010, there were 678 authorized district court judgeships" per Wikipedia.
    This is a crazy system - all you need is one vote out of six hundred and seventy-eight to tie the hands of the president.

    Any of these judges can veto (at least for a time) any Executive Order. It's all fun right now when all that happens is a that somebody else's child or mother becomes a victim of terrorists. For now we can all live with that. But what about when things get serious?

    There has to be a better way. There are lots of special courts; see list below. What about setting up a special court with new judges to review Executive Orders? Could that remove the veto power now exercised by the District Courts?




    United States federal courts with Original Jurisdiction over specific subject matter:
    United States Tax Court[19]
    Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    International Trade Commission
    United States Court of International Trade[20]
    United States Court of Federal Claims[21]
    United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[22]
    United States bankruptcy courts[23]
    Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
    United States Merit Systems Protection Board
    United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_of_the_United_States

    What is the check and balance on the Judicial Branch?

    Impeachment? Length of term? The fact that unlike the other branches they don’t have clearly specified capabilities to apply what is in the end, force?

    Jackson said something like “They’ve made their ruling, now let them enforce it.”

    Stalin asked how many divisions the Pope had.

    And more to the point, I get that a Judge can say a law is unconstitutional and invalid unless a higher court reverses him. That makes sense. It also doesn’t make sense that a political hack in Hawaii or California can affect Georgia or Louisiana just because.

    Actually a Judge ruling executive orders as unconstitutional doesn’t really sit poorly with me in concept. The mechanics are unwieldy and all too easy to game though. And who holds their feet to the fire?

    But how did we get to the point where a Judge can pore over school district maps and reorganize things as he sees fit? To order busing in certain areas (but strangely not in others).

    That is a far cry from saying “Uh guys you can’t make a law saying that people named Smith pay twice as much taxes as others.”

    Read More
  68. Truth says:
    @Dissident

    Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers.
     
    "Chinese household"?

    Mr. Derbyshire's wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire's children were born and raised in the U.S.A.

    Why would such a household be anything other than an American one?

    According to Mr. Derbyshire, he often told his children that they were (paraphrasing from memory; I was unable to find the quote now on Derb's web site though I am certain that I read it somewhere from Derb), "50% Chinese peasant, 50% English coal-miner and 100% American"

    (And if such a household were to be considered a foreign one at all, why would it be any more a Chinese one than an English one?)

    What is your basis for claiming that anyone in Mr. Derbyshire's household is anything less than a loyal, patriotic American?

    Mr. Derbyshire's son currently serves in the U.S. military. How have you served your country?

    Mr. Derbyshire’s wife was born and raised in China (a fact that he makes no secret of). I am fairly certain that like Mr. Derbyshire, who was born and raised in England, his wife has been a full-fledged American citizen for many years now. Mr. Derbyshire’s children were born and raised in the U.S.A.

    I think it’s AWESOME that you and Derb love race-mixing as much as I and so many LARGE, FERAL, WILD, UNEDUCATED, MUSCULAR black men do.

    I guess you answered Rodney King’s question. We can all get along.

    Read More
  69. @Svigor

    China is America’s most formidable foe, militarily, financially and in all other spheres. Mr. Derbyshire lives in a Chinese household whose allegiance will be to China if and when confrontation emerges between the two powers. For him to display such animus towards an honorable American judge, like judge Watson, is laughable.
     
    A neokahn's pantomime of American patriotism, how sweet. Tell us about all the loyal Arabs and Palestinians in Israel, neokahn.

    These rulings (and many prior) are really opening Pandora's Box. If the inferior federal courts get to veto any federal executive action based on mind-reading, then the sky's the limit. And what's to stop Conservative judges from vetoing everything the Democrats do, based on their anti-White mindset? What's to stop the inferior courts from bringing the entire federal gov't to a standstill?

    Strangely, Trump left Iraq off of his latest EO. Trump should just refuse to allow any refugees from entering. Then the left wing courts can’t find “evidence” of discrimination and bias.
     
    If the inferior courts aren't reined in, it won't matter; "Trump is only blocking all refugees so he can block Muslim refugees, who he is targeting due to his anti-Muslim animus, so Trump doesn't get to block all refugees, either."

    I'm wondering why Trump doesn't go judge shopping himself. Find judges willing to issue rulings to block the judges blocking him. Find judges willing to suspend the offending judges' offices. Find judges willing to overrule judges higher up the ranks; I mean, why not? Who's going to stop them? A shitty little federal inferior court judge can stop the White House, surely he can stop a judge who outranks him? When higher-ranked courts or judges try to stop them, issue rulings invalidating their orders and blocking them. Etc.

    Who are the inferior courts to say what the executive branch enforces, during all of this mess? Nobody, that's who.

    Start treating the inferior courts like the sham they really are.

    So graduating Magna cum laude at the best law school in the world, somehow signals to you “being chosen because of his race”?
     
    It's certainly possible. E.g., corruption should disqualify even the otherwise most qualified candidate.

    You are advocating executive branch rebellion,
     
    And you are defending judicial branch rebellion. The difference is, the judicial branch usurpation has been going on for decades. There is nothing in the Constitution about being beholden to the illegitimate usurpation of power.

    Furthermore, if Trump sets this precedent, then ALL presidents would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise.
     
    The judiciary's runaway malfeasance is the bull in your china shop. ALL judges are able to engage in the kind of malfeasance that's been going on, and the complaints are so far just noise.

    “I am advocating judicial branch rebellion, which just can’t result in potential impeachment. Furthermore, if Judges set this precedent, then ALL Judges would be able to engage in this course of action, and any complaint on your part would be just noise. (- As long as they do what I want; if they don’t well that is something totally different.)”
     
    Indeed.

    If and when a president willfully refuses to adhere to a Supreme Court decision, he or she is subject to impeachment proceedings
     
    He should have mass impeachment and judicial reform legislation ready to file the instant that happens. If and when Congress feels like it, the federal courts are subject to impeachment proceedings.

    Alexander Hamilton made a similar point in Federalist 78. “The courts,” Hamilton wrote, “were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.”
     
    That isn't what the inferior courts are up to, any more. They are now in full usurpation mode, having taken unto themselves veto power over the executive.

    The Original Sin was Marbury vs. Madison. Jefferson made a cardinal error in allowing Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling to stick that a clearly political “leave behind” Federalist appointed at the last minute by the departing Federalist President Adams was entitled to his job as a Justice of the Peace despite Marbury’s commission not having yet been delivered.
    It is a complicated case, but formed the formal basis for the supremacy of Judicial Review. See the Wikipedia entry for an overview:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Note that Anti-Federalists were worried that the Judiciary would usurp the powers of the Legislature even as the ratification of the Constitution was being considered. And the chickens have indeed come home to roost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    But obviously, their concern should also have extended to overruling the Executive as well. They just weren't real big on granting major powers to any centralized government, so it wasn't an argument that would have sprung readily to mind, I suppose.
    , @jill
    Is the exceptions clause meaningless?

    Exceptions Clause Law & Legal Definition. Exceptions clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the constitutionally defined appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This clause refers to USCS Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
  70. @JerseyJeffersonian
    The Original Sin was Marbury vs. Madison. Jefferson made a cardinal error in allowing Chief Justice Marshall's ruling to stick that a clearly political "leave behind" Federalist appointed at the last minute by the departing Federalist President Adams was entitled to his job as a Justice of the Peace despite Marbury's commission not having yet been delivered.
    It is a complicated case, but formed the formal basis for the supremacy of Judicial Review. See the Wikipedia entry for an overview:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Note that Anti-Federalists were worried that the Judiciary would usurp the powers of the Legislature even as the ratification of the Constitution was being considered. And the chickens have indeed come home to roost.

    But obviously, their concern should also have extended to overruling the Executive as well. They just weren’t real big on granting major powers to any centralized government, so it wasn’t an argument that would have sprung readily to mind, I suppose.

    Read More
  71. Svigor says:

    Jersey, I’ll take your word for it as to when it got started. But clearly, Congress has the authority and the mandate to rein in the Judicial. It only takes a majority vote to call for impeachment. So the problem is ultimately with the Legislative.

    Read More
  72. KenH says:

    Jersey, I’ll take your word for it as to when it got started. But clearly, Congress has the authority and the mandate to rein in the Judicial. It only takes a majority vote to call for impeachment. So the problem is ultimately with the Legislative.

    Except you would then need 67 Senate votes (66 + 1) to convict and with only 51 Republicans minus 2 (Lindsey Grahamnesty and John McLame) that would be an impossible task. Our government has completely broken down and doesn’t’ work like it was designed to since instead of fealty to the Constitution we have fealty to ideology, cultural Marxism, special interest groups, race lobbies and partisan politics.

    If we can’t peacefully separate then the only real alternative is to utterly crush all left wing opposition and all that entails since that is what they are trying to do to the right wing.

    Read More
  73. jill says:
    @JerseyJeffersonian
    The Original Sin was Marbury vs. Madison. Jefferson made a cardinal error in allowing Chief Justice Marshall's ruling to stick that a clearly political "leave behind" Federalist appointed at the last minute by the departing Federalist President Adams was entitled to his job as a Justice of the Peace despite Marbury's commission not having yet been delivered.
    It is a complicated case, but formed the formal basis for the supremacy of Judicial Review. See the Wikipedia entry for an overview:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Note that Anti-Federalists were worried that the Judiciary would usurp the powers of the Legislature even as the ratification of the Constitution was being considered. And the chickens have indeed come home to roost.

    Is the exceptions clause meaningless?

    Exceptions Clause Law & Legal Definition. Exceptions clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the constitutionally defined appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This clause refers to USCS Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The "exceptions clause" is an excellent way to reign in "rogue courts". This clause was used to prevent the Supreme Court from making a ruling concerning the admission of homosexuals to the Boy Scouts. The ruling was much wider in scope, as it prohibited the courts from ruling on the admission practices of other organizations as well.
  74. anarchyst says:
    @jill
    Is the exceptions clause meaningless?

    Exceptions Clause Law & Legal Definition. Exceptions clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the constitutionally defined appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This clause refers to USCS Const. Art. III, § 2, Cl 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    The “exceptions clause” is an excellent way to reign in “rogue courts”. This clause was used to prevent the Supreme Court from making a ruling concerning the admission of homosexuals to the Boy Scouts. The ruling was much wider in scope, as it prohibited the courts from ruling on the admission practices of other organizations as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The entire judiciary has ignored the exception clause. It's no different from a 500AD village where the local warlord calls himself a Judge and makes up the laws as he goes along.
  75. @Truth
    So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is "an affirmative-action hire" now?

    Son, have you lost your cotton-pickin' mind?

    ‘So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is “an affirmative-action hire” now?’

    Nice appeal to authority. Now get back down on your knees, boy, and resume licking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Nice appeal to authority.
     
    LMFAO! Dude, why are you selecting me, out of all of the posters here, for lauding high IQ?
  76. @Corvinus
    "All settlement of Muslims should have been ended on September 12th, 2001, and Muslim non-citizens here should have been told to leave."

    No thank you.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/immigrants-and-crime/486884/
    Read More
  77. Corvinus says:

    Je Suis, you linked to a non-existent website and neglected to counter the main points of my link. Are you one of those “good whites” trying to earn that all important racial badge for inclusion in the Alt Right club?

    Read More
  78. Truth says:
    @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    'So a Chinese guy who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard law school is “an affirmative-action hire” now?'

    Nice appeal to authority. Now get back down on your knees, boy, and resume licking.

    Nice appeal to authority.

    LMFAO! Dude, why are you selecting me, out of all of the posters here, for lauding high IQ?

    Read More
  79. Now that you are not trying to attenuate the primacy of fair trials JD I am back on your team**. But I am surprised that there have not been urgent sittings of higher courts and interim orders and/or undertakings to make sure these judges can’t gut the President’s attempts to protect the country (I assume the attempts are genuine).

    Some comments raise the question of when if ever the Executive should refuse or fail to act in accordance with a court order. A difficult question because the legàl answer presumably is never. Against which the question might be raised “what if some crooked billionaire or anyone has got up a specious case before a judge known to be rapidly declining into dementia and literal obedience to the court order is likely to be irretrievably disastrous? “. As a minor matter of interest I presume there is a distinction in the US as in (from memory) other common law countries between superior courts and inferior where the errors may be treated as ultra vireds nulllities???

    **Actually I meant tram but my spellcheck on this phablet is very authoritarian. Perhaps I should have written “bus”.

    Read More
  80. Alden says:

    “Our constitutional system, as every schoolchild knows, depends on each of the three branches of the federal government checking and balancing the others.”

    That is a myth and a lie carefully created by the feds back around1790. Judges rule and have ruled since 1804. I really really wish that all these conservative internet posters who keep blathering about the constitution would read constitutional law or at least ask a few lawyers about it.

    Derb’s kids will get affirmative action for Asians so why does he care?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Australia has a constitution very much modeled on the US Constitution with the major exceptions that the Bill of Rights wasn't written in and the relations of executive and legislature are Westminster rather than Washington (a very wise choice made easier by each of the six federation colonies having Westminster type legislatures in which a majority determined who was the executive government). It was devised in a series of conventions from about 1889 to 1901 and there were many very learned lawyers and shrewd lawyer politicians involved in the drafting. I was about to express surprise that they didn't recognise the near 100 year old rule of judges in the US. But maybe they did (the Convention Debates ought to record such views) and made sure that there was no Bill of Rights stating vague general principles that would give the judges great scope for introducing their own preferences.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry about one of the more ludicrous typos that my phablet's proleptically inclined wayward spell checker has inflicted on my first reply to you....
  81. Alden says:
    @anarchyst
    The "exceptions clause" is an excellent way to reign in "rogue courts". This clause was used to prevent the Supreme Court from making a ruling concerning the admission of homosexuals to the Boy Scouts. The ruling was much wider in scope, as it prohibited the courts from ruling on the admission practices of other organizations as well.

    The entire judiciary has ignored the exception clause. It’s no different from a 500AD village where the local warlord calls himself a Judge and makes up the laws as he goes along.

    Read More
  82. anon says: • Disclaimer

    I hope everyone realizes that in their heart of hearts, liberals/Democrats/LGBT want Muslims and others to dominate and destroy Christianity and America.
    These are sick people.
    White people are to be destroyed by minorities, Jews, and others.
    You don’t understand this yet? You are blind.

    Read More
  83. @Alden
    "Our constitutional system, as every schoolchild knows, depends on each of the three branches of the federal government checking and balancing the others."

    That is a myth and a lie carefully created by the feds back around1790. Judges rule and have ruled since 1804. I really really wish that all these conservative internet posters who keep blathering about the constitution would read constitutional law or at least ask a few lawyers about it.

    Derb's kids will get affirmative action for Asians so why does he care?

    Australia has a constitution very much modeled on the US Constitution with the major exceptions that the Bill of Rights wasn’t written in and the relations of executive and legislature are Westminster rather than Washington (a very wise choice made easier by each of the six federation colonies having Westminster type legislatures in which a majority determined who was the executive government). It was devised in a series of conventions from about 1889 to 1901 and there were many very learned lawyers and shrewd lawyer politicians involved in the drafting. I was about to express surprise that they didn’t recognise the near 100 year old rule of judges in the US. But maybe they did (the Convention Debates ought to record such views) and made sure that there was no Bill of Rights stating vague general principles that would give the judges great scope for introducing their own preferences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    and made sure that there was no Bill of Rights stating vague general principles that would give the judges great scope for introducing their own preferences.

    The mischief has derived from the 14th Amendment, and not until about 85 years after it was ratified. The 8th and 5th Amendments in the Bill of Rights have posed some problems. The 8th in particular was quite badly written, to the point where it's questionable as to whether it truly delineates any enforceable entitlement.
  84. @Alden
    "Our constitutional system, as every schoolchild knows, depends on each of the three branches of the federal government checking and balancing the others."

    That is a myth and a lie carefully created by the feds back around1790. Judges rule and have ruled since 1804. I really really wish that all these conservative internet posters who keep blathering about the constitution would read constitutional law or at least ask a few lawyers about it.

    Derb's kids will get affirmative action for Asians so why does he care?

    Sorry about one of the more ludicrous typos that my phablet’s proleptically inclined wayward spell checker has inflicted on my first reply to you….

    Read More
  85. Anon 2 says:
    @Sunbeam
    I can't.

    This was something I read a few years ago. No idea where it might be found now.

    But I did do a google:

    https://www.google.com/#q=poincare+theory+relativity&*

    Apparently this idea has been around for a long time. Reading some of those links, things weren't exactly what I thought I remembered anyway.

    But it looks like the math was already there, it just took someone to realize exactly what it meant.

    Hard for me to believe it would have taken 50 years or so for someone to make the connection.

    Of course Einstein did more than just Special Relativity. I had a whole class in Tensor Analysis, which apparently was something Einstein just formulated to make it easier for him to deal with all those vectors and subscripts.

    Wikipedia has excellent articles about the history of Special and General Relativity, incl. Poincaré’s contributions which were considerable, and are never mentioned in textbooks. As to General Relativity, decades before Einstein, Riemann tried to develop a theory of gravitation by representing the gravitational field as the curvature of space, so what Einstein did was really nothing new except that by then people realized that you have to use Minkowski space (i.e., spacetime) instead of Euclidean space. Minkowski space has the right metric: +++- Let’s not forget also that David Hilbert was the first to formulate the field equations that constitute General Relativity – he beat Einstein by a few weeks but he was a mathematician, so didn’t realize the full physical implications of what he had done.

    Actually, as many people had realized, you don’t need the full apparatus of GR to improve on Newton’s theory. All you need is the linear correction, i.e., write something like G = g(1 + lin. corr.) to get the correct result for the bending of starlight in the gravitational field or for the perihelion motion of Mercury. This would be what physicists call a phenomenological aproach. Not very satisfying perhaps, but without Einstein’s intervention I’m sure this would’ve been achieved around 1910 or so , and Eddington would’ve gone on to test it during the 1919 total solar eclipse as he had done with Einstein’s theory. This kind of piecemeal approach has often worked in physics. Sometimes you don’t need to know the full theory to make successful predictions. For example, Niels Bohr was able to derive the hydrogen spectrum in 1913, 12-13 years before the full apparatus of quantum mechanics was invented.

    Read More
  86. Anon 2 says:
    @Sunbeam
    I can't.

    This was something I read a few years ago. No idea where it might be found now.

    But I did do a google:

    https://www.google.com/#q=poincare+theory+relativity&*

    Apparently this idea has been around for a long time. Reading some of those links, things weren't exactly what I thought I remembered anyway.

    But it looks like the math was already there, it just took someone to realize exactly what it meant.

    Hard for me to believe it would have taken 50 years or so for someone to make the connection.

    Of course Einstein did more than just Special Relativity. I had a whole class in Tensor Analysis, which apparently was something Einstein just formulated to make it easier for him to deal with all those vectors and subscripts.

    Tensor Analysis was actually invented by the Italian mathematician Ricci, and published in 1900. It was further developed by Ricci in collaboration with his student Levi-Civita. Einstein couldn’t handle the advanced mathematics required in his theory so he sought help from Levi-Civita, and that’s how General Relativity was born. Einstein had excellent physical intuition but mathematics was not his strong suit. He famously said, “After the mathematicians were done with my theory, even I couldn’t understand it.”

    Read More
  87. anarchyst says:
    @Truth
    Well, eliminating the world's smartest young people from jobs would certainly have an...interesting...effect on things, I'll give you that.

    …problem is, they are NOT the “smartest” young people…

    Read More
  88. Art Deco says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Australia has a constitution very much modeled on the US Constitution with the major exceptions that the Bill of Rights wasn't written in and the relations of executive and legislature are Westminster rather than Washington (a very wise choice made easier by each of the six federation colonies having Westminster type legislatures in which a majority determined who was the executive government). It was devised in a series of conventions from about 1889 to 1901 and there were many very learned lawyers and shrewd lawyer politicians involved in the drafting. I was about to express surprise that they didn't recognise the near 100 year old rule of judges in the US. But maybe they did (the Convention Debates ought to record such views) and made sure that there was no Bill of Rights stating vague general principles that would give the judges great scope for introducing their own preferences.

    and made sure that there was no Bill of Rights stating vague general principles that would give the judges great scope for introducing their own preferences.

    The mischief has derived from the 14th Amendment, and not until about 85 years after it was ratified. The 8th and 5th Amendments in the Bill of Rights have posed some problems. The 8th in particular was quite badly written, to the point where it’s questionable as to whether it truly delineates any enforceable entitlement.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 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 John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering