The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Trump Must Break Judicial Power
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

They reflect, first, the poisoned character of our politics. The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.”

Such language, reflecting as it does the beliefs of one-half of America about the other, rules out any rapprochement in America’s social or political life. This is pre-civil war language.

For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists? Apparently, you don’t. Rather, you vilify them, riot against them, deny them the right to speak or to be heard.

And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

As for Trump’s disparagement of the judges, only someone ignorant of history can view that as frightening.

Thomas Jefferson not only refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Acts of President John Adams, his party impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase who had presided over one of the trials.

Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s prohibition against moving the Cherokees out of Georgia to west of the Mississippi, where, according to the Harvard resume of Sen. Warren, one of them bundled fruitfully with one of her ancestors, making her part Cherokee.

When Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus violated the Constitution, Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest the chief justice.

FDR proposed adding six justices to emasculate a Supreme Court of the “nine old men” he reviled for having declared some New Deal schemes unconstitutional.

President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out. And here we come to the heart of the matter.

ORDER IT NOW

Whether the rollout of the president’s temporary travel ban was ill-prepared or not, and whether one agrees or not about which nations or people should be subjected to extreme vetting, the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.

That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.

When politicians don black robes and seize powers they do not have, they should be called out for what they are — usurpers and petty tyrants. And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.

Indeed, one of the mightiest forces that has birthed the new populism that imperils the establishment is that unelected justices like Warren and Brennan, and their progeny on the bench, have remade our country without the consent of the governed — and with never having been smacked down by Congress or the president.

Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.
Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable. As rightly they should.

Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.

A clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Supreme Court 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Diogenes says:

    My what bluster and indignation over the Judiciary and about The rule of Law. It seems this issue, for Pat, has triggered an emotional outburst and a call for Rule by Executive [Presidential] Fiat. That would surely be the road to serfdom and Tyranny.
    This is not a “National Security” issue. So make way: Here comes da Judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    No, it's a call to rein in the inflated power of the judiciary, which is long overdue. You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?
    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
    /pbuchanan/trump-must-break-judicial-power/#comment-1761941
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. MEexpert says:

    For the first time Pat has sounded like a bigot. I supported him during his run for the presidency back in 1992. Frankly, I am saddened .

    That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.

    What wartime? The last time I read it was the Congress that has the power of declaring war. To my knowledge Congress has not declared any of the wars that are being waged by the United States. The US has illegally attacked other countries, for which even Pat has criticized it, as he should have. As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 when the US was attacked by Japan.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Marcus
    No, US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that. Also you shouldn't expect PC epithets like bigot to be effective here.
  3. Lit Dog says:

    Mixed in with the vintage Buchanan arguments here is his observation that today’s Trump populism is partly fueled by the failure of anyone to punish judges who abuse their authority. As Pat notes, those judges gave us everything from busing in the 70s to gay marriage in this decade.

    Conservatives never fought back because they were afraid of being called racists or sexists or whatever label the Marxists could invent. Conservatives never conserved anything, and that’s why we have today’s populism which supports Trump.

    Read More
  4. john cronk says: • Website

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, who can correctly assess the issues about this bad decision, the overweening power of jurists and the Supreme Court and the arrogant comments of Trump’s nominee, can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
    The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can’t get my head around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, ....... can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
     
    The failure here is in you, not in Buchanan. By all means disagree with his opinions on the points you mention, but any adult of average intelligence ought to be able to grasp the arguments even without agreeing with them.

    As far as your first point is concerned, if a person takes the view that homosexual activity is inherently immoral (as the vast majority of human beings throughout geography and history always have, until the rather bizarre ideologies of the late C20th US sphere elites took hold in those societies, probably temporarily), then it is not a difficult step from there to arguing that it is a threat to society. It is not necessary to agree with either step - the judgement that homosexual activity is immoral or the opinion that allowing immoral acts is a threat to society - to understand them.

    On the second point, it is a matter of opinion whether human life and the rights that our societies attach to it inalienably begin at birth or at conception, or somewhere in between. If you believe, as many do, that it begins at conception, then from the time of conception pregnancy is not a matter of the woman's body alone, but also of the other person in the situation - the foetus. On this basis, abortion is murder. Again, it is not necessary to agree with this to understand it intellectually.

    Finally, Christianity and other forms of what you in your bigotry (irony intended) dismiss as "ridiculous religious superstition" have been accepted by many of the most intelligent, educated and wise men in history. Again, an adult should not have to agree with another's religious beliefs in order to understand them and respect them.

    If you see a paradox in Buchanan supposedly being intelligent but holding views you see as impossible for any but the stupid to hold, that paradox is easily resolved (for sure, Buchanan is not a stupid man): you are not understanding or honestly assessing the opinions you are misrepresenting as stupid, because you dislike them and disagree with them, for whatever reason.
    , @Authenticjazzman
    " that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body"

    So what you are saying is that a baby growing inside of a woman's body is not a separate entity but rather a "part" of the woman's body, and therefore if she wants to kill a part of her own body then she is entitled to do so, right?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
    , @Pat the rat
    "The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can’t get my head around"

    Nothing wrong with that statement, so long as you realize it applies to all of us, including yourself.

    As for abortion and homosexuality, it is pretty easy to make the case that they do an immense amount of harm in society.

    On Christianity, whether you believe or not, any fair assessment of Christian history and culture will show it has been overwhelmingly a force in the west for justice.
    , @Wally
    False, fake news, strawman arguments galore.

    "that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body" Utter BS, John.

    The admin's issue is whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for other peoples abortions, not whether women can get abortions.

    " what gay people do is a threat"? More uninformed crap, John.

    One of Trump's biggest, most outspoken supporters is a gay man, Milo, who has a black boyfriend.
    Milo has been repeatedly attacked by anti free speech leftists everywhere and by arsonists at Berkeley. His website says it all.
    https://yiannopoulos.net/

    https://stream.org/wp-content/uploads/gay_flag_for_trump_110116.jpg

    Undercover video shows Democrat operatives admitting they incited violence at Trump rallies
    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/undercover-video-shows-democrat-operatives-admitting-they-incited-violence-at-trump-rallies

  5. I agree, the US judiciary needs to be restored to its Constitutional role. I can never understand why the American people consent to be ruled by “Philosopher Kings” with the self-assumed power to declare the Law is whatever they say it to be. US courts regularly act Ultra Vires – outside their powers – in the declarations they make. There seems to be a long term conspiracy between the judicial & other branches of the State, supported by the media, to legitimise this. That rule by judiciary is widely accepted seems unique to the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Indeed. One hand washes the other, one set of usurpers supports the other. And while the media is at least subject to economic forces, the judiciary, unless resisted by executive or legislature, faces no check at all.
    , @The Alarmist
    When courts arrogate to themselves the right to interpret the constituionality of Acts of Congress, then there is no limit to their power, for they will find penumbras of unconstitutionality everywhere they wish to make new law.

    The UK courts had historically been good at respecting the will of Parliament, sticking to adjudicating cases brought before them and generally limiting judicial review to enforcing due process of laws and regulations from capricious abuse by the bureaucracy and local governments, but since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which carved the Supreme Court out of the House of Lords to meet EU requirements (more reason for Brexit), UK judges have started to function like their US counterparts with increasing regularity to thwart the will of Parliament (and the people) and to novate law as they see fit.

    Congress in the US needs to exercise its constiutional powers to reform the courts inferior to the Supreme Court ... it could start by immediately disbanding the Ninth Circuit.

  6. 5371 says:
    @Simon in London
    I agree, the US judiciary needs to be restored to its Constitutional role. I can never understand why the American people consent to be ruled by "Philosopher Kings" with the self-assumed power to declare the Law is whatever they say it to be. US courts regularly act Ultra Vires - outside their powers - in the declarations they make. There seems to be a long term conspiracy between the judicial & other branches of the State, supported by the media, to legitimise this. That rule by judiciary is widely accepted seems unique to the United States.

    Indeed. One hand washes the other, one set of usurpers supports the other. And while the media is at least subject to economic forces, the judiciary, unless resisted by executive or legislature, faces no check at all.

    Read More
  7. 1KoolKat says:

    I agree that the court oversteps its authority at times but so does the president and congress. Herein is the greatest flaw of our representative constitutional government. That is “We the People of the United States” if the people are corrupt then they will govern in a corrupt matter. I believe in a life after this one and everyone will some day stand before the ultimate Judge to give an account.

    Read More
  8. Is Trump playing 4D chess here or were he and his advisors really that clueless that they didn’t foresee that this is exactly what the left was going to do as soon as reality sunk in that their witch had lost the election?

    Either Trump gets ready to steamroll over the courts or he and his supporters just accept that whatever he does for the next four years (assuming he’s allowed to rule for that long) is going to get shot down by a court somewhere.

    Read More
  9. KenH says:

    Judge Robard and the 9th circus court of appeals just unlawfully placed itself above the executive branch on matters of immigration and national security. Therefore, Trump is within his rights to defy the federal courts and proceed with his temporary ban. He should also consider firing all the judges involved as the case should have been thrown out at the circuit level and the judiciary should have deferred to the executive who unquestionably has the power to bar any class of people for virtually any reason.

    If some snowflake lefties and judges think it amounts to a Muslim ban then that’s their problem to work through.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Can Trump fire judges? If so what is he waiting for? All judges are political. Openly defiant political judges should be fair game. Just like the corporate media.
  10. virgile says:

    It is normal to have a check an balance system to prevent abuses. Yet Trump’s executive order was one of the reason he was elected. That means that he has the support of the majority of the Americans. It is not an abuse and it is logical that citizens coming from countries where there is no law and orders be thoroughly vetted. The Obamas’ s vetting system is probably weak and not appropriate to the current situation. It needs to be re evaluated and improved. Until then, it is safe to stop all entries based on the old system.
    Trump should sign another executive order, specifying clearly that until the vetting system is updated to the highest standard, entries of non-residents aliens from certain countries need to be be stopped.

    Read More
  11. Randal says:
    @john cronk
    I don't understand how someone with such a good mind, who can correctly assess the issues about this bad decision, the overweening power of jurists and the Supreme Court and the arrogant comments of Trump's nominee, can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
    The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can't get my head around.

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, ……. can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.

    The failure here is in you, not in Buchanan. By all means disagree with his opinions on the points you mention, but any adult of average intelligence ought to be able to grasp the arguments even without agreeing with them.

    As far as your first point is concerned, if a person takes the view that homosexual activity is inherently immoral (as the vast majority of human beings throughout geography and history always have, until the rather bizarre ideologies of the late C20th US sphere elites took hold in those societies, probably temporarily), then it is not a difficult step from there to arguing that it is a threat to society. It is not necessary to agree with either step – the judgement that homosexual activity is immoral or the opinion that allowing immoral acts is a threat to society – to understand them.

    On the second point, it is a matter of opinion whether human life and the rights that our societies attach to it inalienably begin at birth or at conception, or somewhere in between. If you believe, as many do, that it begins at conception, then from the time of conception pregnancy is not a matter of the woman’s body alone, but also of the other person in the situation – the foetus. On this basis, abortion is murder. Again, it is not necessary to agree with this to understand it intellectually.

    Finally, Christianity and other forms of what you in your bigotry (irony intended) dismiss as “ridiculous religious superstition” have been accepted by many of the most intelligent, educated and wise men in history. Again, an adult should not have to agree with another’s religious beliefs in order to understand them and respect them.

    If you see a paradox in Buchanan supposedly being intelligent but holding views you see as impossible for any but the stupid to hold, that paradox is easily resolved (for sure, Buchanan is not a stupid man): you are not understanding or honestly assessing the opinions you are misrepresenting as stupid, because you dislike them and disagree with them, for whatever reason.

    Read More
    • Agree: Old fogey
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    Well said. I wasn't going to bother, but now it is not even needed.
    , @Qasim
    Excellent reply.

    The suggestion that only an idiot would be concerned with "what gay people do" is particularly absurd. Homosexual men were ground zero for the AIDS epidemic!! It is unbelievably Orwellian how this fact is ignored, especially considering how recent the events are.

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.

    The modern idea that people's sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become.
    , @nickels
    Excellent comment.
    Also, the Queer States of America was pushed by the Oligarchal courts AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

    The Oligarchs push immorality specifically to destroy this one impediment to the rule of their lust.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfNksBbidw
  12. @john cronk
    I don't understand how someone with such a good mind, who can correctly assess the issues about this bad decision, the overweening power of jurists and the Supreme Court and the arrogant comments of Trump's nominee, can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
    The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can't get my head around.

    ” that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body”

    So what you are saying is that a baby growing inside of a woman’s body is not a separate entity but rather a “part” of the woman’s body, and therefore if she wants to kill a part of her own body then she is entitled to do so, right?

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    If the pro choice advocates wish to be credible about their right to "control our own bodies," they need to start before they get knocked up and guys should have no choice but to abide by that choice.
  13. Leftist judges will be the downfall of the nation if they are not brought under control, and ultimately phased out.
    Along with professors they are the most destructive element of society, and these six figure idiots do not understand that when the system implodes they will go down with it.
    They somehow envision themselves as the future cadre’ the future honchos of their desired marxist utopia, and they have no historical perspective to fall back on, the unedumacated fools which they are.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  14. JD says:

    I hope you are sending this advice directly to Miller, Bannon or even Trump himself. You’re in a position to catch their ear in a way that we’re not.

    I think impeachment of the entire gaggle of the 9th Circus justices is warranted. They have a… what, 80% reversal rate at the Supreme Court? Not only are they making a blatantly unconstitutional power grab, but they are the definition of basic incompetence. Can you imagine a doctor that had an 80% misdiagnosis rate when second opinions were consulted? Or a management consultant who put 80% of his clients into bankruptcy?

    It’s insane.

    Read More
  15. Marcus says:
    @Diogenes
    My what bluster and indignation over the Judiciary and about The rule of Law. It seems this issue, for Pat, has triggered an emotional outburst and a call for Rule by Executive [Presidential] Fiat. That would surely be the road to serfdom and Tyranny.
    This is not a "National Security" issue. So make way: Here comes da Judge.

    No, it’s a call to rein in the inflated power of the judiciary, which is long overdue. You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diogenes
    The consensus of opinion among the commentariat appears to be in favor of Buchanan's pronouncement about the Supreme Court and Trump's Executive order.

    "You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?"

    America has a Constitution which prescribes the limitations of institutional powers.

    In the case of institutional conflict over disputed legal initiatives like the Immigration Ban it is desirable to impose a final arbitration over the intent of the Constitution concerning the contentious issue, otherwise the civil order will be impearled.

    Whether the judges are elected or appointed is another matter.

    I am not convinced that to elect and politicize the Judiciary is a good idea, apparently, your founding Father's didn't think so and they must have had good reasons to do so.

    I for one think it is good that the unelected Supreme Court has to power to check the likes of President Trump and the gaggle of corrupt unenlightened elected rabble that comprise the American Congress and the same might be said about the wisdom and good judgment of your elected Senators.

    To take this opinion yet one step further the "Founding Father's" had grave reservations about the wisdom, virtue and good judgment of the American electorate and in their wisdom established a judicial institution which had the power to check the primitive and ill-conceived impulses of the "people" who remain sovereign only in name by design.

    Perhaps the commentariat would prefer civil discord and disharmony without Rule of Law ,instead in the cause of people's sovereignty?

  16. Veritatis says:
    @Randal

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, ....... can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
     
    The failure here is in you, not in Buchanan. By all means disagree with his opinions on the points you mention, but any adult of average intelligence ought to be able to grasp the arguments even without agreeing with them.

    As far as your first point is concerned, if a person takes the view that homosexual activity is inherently immoral (as the vast majority of human beings throughout geography and history always have, until the rather bizarre ideologies of the late C20th US sphere elites took hold in those societies, probably temporarily), then it is not a difficult step from there to arguing that it is a threat to society. It is not necessary to agree with either step - the judgement that homosexual activity is immoral or the opinion that allowing immoral acts is a threat to society - to understand them.

    On the second point, it is a matter of opinion whether human life and the rights that our societies attach to it inalienably begin at birth or at conception, or somewhere in between. If you believe, as many do, that it begins at conception, then from the time of conception pregnancy is not a matter of the woman's body alone, but also of the other person in the situation - the foetus. On this basis, abortion is murder. Again, it is not necessary to agree with this to understand it intellectually.

    Finally, Christianity and other forms of what you in your bigotry (irony intended) dismiss as "ridiculous religious superstition" have been accepted by many of the most intelligent, educated and wise men in history. Again, an adult should not have to agree with another's religious beliefs in order to understand them and respect them.

    If you see a paradox in Buchanan supposedly being intelligent but holding views you see as impossible for any but the stupid to hold, that paradox is easily resolved (for sure, Buchanan is not a stupid man): you are not understanding or honestly assessing the opinions you are misrepresenting as stupid, because you dislike them and disagree with them, for whatever reason.

    Well said. I wasn’t going to bother, but now it is not even needed.

    Read More
  17. Flavius says:

    What Randal said.
    I add only that it shouldn’t be so difficult to regard it as reasonable to argue from the principle that the Constitution is not a magician’s hat from which judges may pull their pet rabbits. It is apparently for those who have gotten used to and like the show.

    Read More
  18. @KenH
    Judge Robard and the 9th circus court of appeals just unlawfully placed itself above the executive branch on matters of immigration and national security. Therefore, Trump is within his rights to defy the federal courts and proceed with his temporary ban. He should also consider firing all the judges involved as the case should have been thrown out at the circuit level and the judiciary should have deferred to the executive who unquestionably has the power to bar any class of people for virtually any reason.

    If some snowflake lefties and judges think it amounts to a Muslim ban then that's their problem to work through.

    Can Trump fire judges? If so what is he waiting for? All judges are political. Openly defiant political judges should be fair game. Just like the corporate media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Trump could probably dismiss the judge(s) using a broad interpretation of the "Good Behavior Clause". Since the district judge and appeals court judges have based their rulings more on ideology and Trump's campaign rhetoric and less on existing law and legal precedent I would argue they are derelict in their duties and therefore in violation of the clause. The second problem is they should have known that they had no standing in this matter (since the president has been granted power to restrict entry of any class of people for national security purposes) and refused to hear the case but chose to anyway seemingly for political reasons.

    The judges swore an oath to the Constitution and not the ultra left wing agenda of the Democrat party. The judiciary must have its ears pinned back and informed that they are not a super legislature and are not above the legislative and executive branches.

  19. mtn cur says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body"

    So what you are saying is that a baby growing inside of a woman's body is not a separate entity but rather a "part" of the woman's body, and therefore if she wants to kill a part of her own body then she is entitled to do so, right?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    If the pro choice advocates wish to be credible about their right to “control our own bodies,” they need to start before they get knocked up and guys should have no choice but to abide by that choice.

    Read More
  20. Trump must break the deliberate and widespread judicial misinterpretation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

    9th amendment says the people, not the federal government, have the power to define civil rights.

    10th amendment says the state governments, not the federal government, have the power to protect civil rights defined by the people.

    Read More
  21. Trump has been compared with Tayyip Erdogan, but to a large degree falsely. Judges and prosecutors in Turkey who try to obstruct Erdogan have been jailed for it, linked to allegedly vast terrorist conspiracies or simply jailed for insulting El Supremo. But Turkey has no real “checks and balances” on the power of the executive.

    Read More
  22. Marcus says:
    @MEexpert
    For the first time Pat has sounded like a bigot. I supported him during his run for the presidency back in 1992. Frankly, I am saddened .

    That a district judge would overrule the president of the United States on a matter of border security in wartime is absurd.
     
    What wartime? The last time I read it was the Congress that has the power of declaring war. To my knowledge Congress has not declared any of the wars that are being waged by the United States. The US has illegally attacked other countries, for which even Pat has criticized it, as he should have. As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 when the US was attacked by Japan.

    No, US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that. Also you shouldn’t expect PC epithets like bigot to be effective here.

    Read More
  23. Qasim says:
    @Randal

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, ....... can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
     
    The failure here is in you, not in Buchanan. By all means disagree with his opinions on the points you mention, but any adult of average intelligence ought to be able to grasp the arguments even without agreeing with them.

    As far as your first point is concerned, if a person takes the view that homosexual activity is inherently immoral (as the vast majority of human beings throughout geography and history always have, until the rather bizarre ideologies of the late C20th US sphere elites took hold in those societies, probably temporarily), then it is not a difficult step from there to arguing that it is a threat to society. It is not necessary to agree with either step - the judgement that homosexual activity is immoral or the opinion that allowing immoral acts is a threat to society - to understand them.

    On the second point, it is a matter of opinion whether human life and the rights that our societies attach to it inalienably begin at birth or at conception, or somewhere in between. If you believe, as many do, that it begins at conception, then from the time of conception pregnancy is not a matter of the woman's body alone, but also of the other person in the situation - the foetus. On this basis, abortion is murder. Again, it is not necessary to agree with this to understand it intellectually.

    Finally, Christianity and other forms of what you in your bigotry (irony intended) dismiss as "ridiculous religious superstition" have been accepted by many of the most intelligent, educated and wise men in history. Again, an adult should not have to agree with another's religious beliefs in order to understand them and respect them.

    If you see a paradox in Buchanan supposedly being intelligent but holding views you see as impossible for any but the stupid to hold, that paradox is easily resolved (for sure, Buchanan is not a stupid man): you are not understanding or honestly assessing the opinions you are misrepresenting as stupid, because you dislike them and disagree with them, for whatever reason.

    Excellent reply.

    The suggestion that only an idiot would be concerned with “what gay people do” is particularly absurd. Homosexual men were ground zero for the AIDS epidemic!! It is unbelievably Orwellian how this fact is ignored, especially considering how recent the events are.

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.

    The modern idea that people’s sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    "The modern idea that people’s sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become."

    Well said. The basis of human society has always been the family and anything that hurts the composition and well-being of family structure undermines the basis of our civilization.

    , @El Dato

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.
     
    Well, one would have immediately noticed that something was brewing, so this argument kinda defeats itself. The antiretroviral therapy still sucks donkey cock btw, quite apart from being expensive.

    It also seems to defeat the argument that homosexuals are an AIDS problem as opposed to overly promiscuous bi/standard-sexuals.
  24. headrick says:

    Buchanan suggests that congress could pass a law codifying the immigration restrictions and declare “This is not subject to judicial review” through article III section 2. I don’t
    know if this is do-able. If the attempt was made, the local police might not go along so Trump may have to federalize the national guard like Ike did in Little Rock in 1957.
    The rubber meets the road in terms of execution of a federal law with this. Don’t know if Trump has the courage to do this, but I think it would work.
    Democrats would howl but that would be music to my ears.

    Read More
  25. nickels says:

    The point of the high courts is and has always been to allow the Oligarchs to overturn the will of the people whenever they like.
    (Paraphrase) E Michael Jones

    The tyranny of the courts will die, one way or another.

    Read More
  26. nickels says:
    @Randal

    I don’t understand how someone with such a good mind, ....... can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
     
    The failure here is in you, not in Buchanan. By all means disagree with his opinions on the points you mention, but any adult of average intelligence ought to be able to grasp the arguments even without agreeing with them.

    As far as your first point is concerned, if a person takes the view that homosexual activity is inherently immoral (as the vast majority of human beings throughout geography and history always have, until the rather bizarre ideologies of the late C20th US sphere elites took hold in those societies, probably temporarily), then it is not a difficult step from there to arguing that it is a threat to society. It is not necessary to agree with either step - the judgement that homosexual activity is immoral or the opinion that allowing immoral acts is a threat to society - to understand them.

    On the second point, it is a matter of opinion whether human life and the rights that our societies attach to it inalienably begin at birth or at conception, or somewhere in between. If you believe, as many do, that it begins at conception, then from the time of conception pregnancy is not a matter of the woman's body alone, but also of the other person in the situation - the foetus. On this basis, abortion is murder. Again, it is not necessary to agree with this to understand it intellectually.

    Finally, Christianity and other forms of what you in your bigotry (irony intended) dismiss as "ridiculous religious superstition" have been accepted by many of the most intelligent, educated and wise men in history. Again, an adult should not have to agree with another's religious beliefs in order to understand them and respect them.

    If you see a paradox in Buchanan supposedly being intelligent but holding views you see as impossible for any but the stupid to hold, that paradox is easily resolved (for sure, Buchanan is not a stupid man): you are not understanding or honestly assessing the opinions you are misrepresenting as stupid, because you dislike them and disagree with them, for whatever reason.

    Excellent comment.
    Also, the Queer States of America was pushed by the Oligarchal courts AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

    The Oligarchs push immorality specifically to destroy this one impediment to the rule of their lust.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfNksBbidw

    Read More
  27. whoaa says:

    A district judge overturns Presidential Executive Orders. Whoaa! Regardless of one’s feelings about immigration policies and Trump, one hard fact needs to be kept in mind. If district judges start overturning Presidential orders, the US will cease to have a functioning government very soon. US judges tend to sidestep and overstep the written word of the constitution a little too commonly. They have had to be reined in by many eminent US Presidents before, as Pat Buchanan points out.

    I am not a lawyer but I think the argument before the Supreme Court needs to examine whether the district judgment was ultra vires the constitution. This judge went into examining the merits of the Presidential order, which is beyond his mandate and competence. Common sense tells us that that way lies the break down of functioning government.

    BTW, I disagree with Trump’s travel ban. However, I also simply can’t understand why it is OK to bomb them “over there” but it is not OK to ban them coming “over here”. Then again, no judge has had the balls to declare assassinations by drones to be illegal. Why? Nor have the politically correct crowd ever questioned the morality or legality of US bombings abroad. Is it because the bombs dropped had been labelled “To promote human rights” or “Building democracy”?

    The politically correct, touchy-feely, progressive crowd are whom this judge addressed himself to. It is part of the process to destabilize the Trump Presidency.

    Read More
  28. Svigor says:

    A-FUCKING-MEN.

    Time to BREAK the usurped power of this entire class of unelected, unaccountable, tyrannical, black-robed Lords and Ladies. The trouble is that Congress is enemy-occupied territory, too. If we could get 60 loyal Senators in the Senate, it would be trivial to reform the courts. In a perfect world:

    1. Remove every federal judge below the SC from office.

    -OR-

    1. “Redistrict” the current courts below the SC out of existence. Every current district is “gerrymandered” out of effective existence. Let them contemplate their navels for the remainder of their tenures.

    2. Enact sweeping judicial reform, and begin appointing new, qualified judges.

    -OR-

    2. Start afresh with an entirely new (and dramatically slimmed-down) federal court system, governed by sweeping judicial reform.

    It’s time for Trump to wage total war against the left’s entire agenda, to gain leverage on immigration. Use every means at his disposal. Fire anyone in the Executive Branch who gives him any trouble in the process.

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

    I’m willing to give Gorsuch some latitude. He’s got a “fascism forever” skeleton in his closet, which I have assumed would sink his nomination from the moment it became public knowledge.

    That said, the opposition to Gorsuch seems quite tepid at this point, so I have to wonder if the media and the democrat Establishment (but, I repeat myself) know something about him that I don’t.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/ninth-circuits-stolen-sovereignty-should-serve-as-final-wakeup-call

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    That said, the opposition to Gorsuch seems quite tepid at this point, so I have to wonder if the media and the democrat Establishment (but, I repeat myself) know something about him that I don’t.
     
    Or think they do. It's amazing how much the Supreme Court justice selection and confirmation process resembles high stakes poker these days. It seems to be all about deceiving people about the views (and future proclivities) of a potential justice and others trying to see through the deceptions. None of this is helped by the tendency of lawyers ambitious for positions like this to avoid controversy on their way up.
    , @JSM
    ’m willing to give Gorsuch some latitude. He’s got a “fascism forever” skeleton in his closet, which I have assumed would sink his nomination from the moment it became public knowledge.

    Is it possible, Svig, that God-Emperor is playing 4-D chess again? Perhaps Donald is figuring his pick, no matter who, will get Borked. Therefore, perhaps the strategy is: pick someone who really does have a fascist skeleton in his closet so that the Left can *really* nutso with the screeches of "FASCIST!" And then, once the public is weary of the whole Lefty screeching hysterical circus, nominate his true pick, who now looks positively moderate by comparison, and get him confirmed sans any nonsense 'tall?
  29. Diogenes says:
    @Marcus
    No, it's a call to rein in the inflated power of the judiciary, which is long overdue. You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?

    The consensus of opinion among the commentariat appears to be in favor of Buchanan’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court and Trump’s Executive order.

    “You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?”

    America has a Constitution which prescribes the limitations of institutional powers.

    In the case of institutional conflict over disputed legal initiatives like the Immigration Ban it is desirable to impose a final arbitration over the intent of the Constitution concerning the contentious issue, otherwise the civil order will be impearled.

    Whether the judges are elected or appointed is another matter.

    I am not convinced that to elect and politicize the Judiciary is a good idea, apparently, your founding Father’s didn’t think so and they must have had good reasons to do so.

    I for one think it is good that the unelected Supreme Court has to power to check the likes of President Trump and the gaggle of corrupt unenlightened elected rabble that comprise the American Congress and the same might be said about the wisdom and good judgment of your elected Senators.

    To take this opinion yet one step further the “Founding Father’s” had grave reservations about the wisdom, virtue and good judgment of the American electorate and in their wisdom established a judicial institution which had the power to check the primitive and ill-conceived impulses of the “people” who remain sovereign only in name by design.

    Perhaps the commentariat would prefer civil discord and disharmony without Rule of Law ,instead in the cause of people’s sovereignty?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    You're still not getting it. SCOTUS opinion was obviously intended to be powerful, but 9 unaccountable lawyers with life tenure were not to have the last say, Justice Marshall largely spun the evidence to the contrary. On matters of security, the executive and legislative have typically been supreme. BTW the "anti-democratic" faction of the founding generation (you could call them Hamiltonians) essentially "lost," and didn't make significant impact again until the Civil War.
    , @Anon

    the civil order will be impearled
     
    Anti-white anti heritage America people statistically have much more problems with grammar (even orthography) than their polemics' objects.
    This isn't coincidental; it is not at all.
  30. Old fogey says:
    @Qasim
    Excellent reply.

    The suggestion that only an idiot would be concerned with "what gay people do" is particularly absurd. Homosexual men were ground zero for the AIDS epidemic!! It is unbelievably Orwellian how this fact is ignored, especially considering how recent the events are.

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.

    The modern idea that people's sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become.

    “The modern idea that people’s sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become.”

    Well said. The basis of human society has always been the family and anything that hurts the composition and well-being of family structure undermines the basis of our civilization.

    Read More
  31. Svigor says:

    Diogenes, you are arguing for oligarchy. The more Americans know about their own system of gov’t, the less they support your positions.

    Read More
  32. Svigor says:

    The entire apparatus of federal judicial overreach is un-Constitutional. It necessarily involves Congressional overreach, as Congress does not have the power to delegate power given to it by the People to another branch.

    Read More
  33. Marcus says:
    @Diogenes
    The consensus of opinion among the commentariat appears to be in favor of Buchanan's pronouncement about the Supreme Court and Trump's Executive order.

    "You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?"

    America has a Constitution which prescribes the limitations of institutional powers.

    In the case of institutional conflict over disputed legal initiatives like the Immigration Ban it is desirable to impose a final arbitration over the intent of the Constitution concerning the contentious issue, otherwise the civil order will be impearled.

    Whether the judges are elected or appointed is another matter.

    I am not convinced that to elect and politicize the Judiciary is a good idea, apparently, your founding Father's didn't think so and they must have had good reasons to do so.

    I for one think it is good that the unelected Supreme Court has to power to check the likes of President Trump and the gaggle of corrupt unenlightened elected rabble that comprise the American Congress and the same might be said about the wisdom and good judgment of your elected Senators.

    To take this opinion yet one step further the "Founding Father's" had grave reservations about the wisdom, virtue and good judgment of the American electorate and in their wisdom established a judicial institution which had the power to check the primitive and ill-conceived impulses of the "people" who remain sovereign only in name by design.

    Perhaps the commentariat would prefer civil discord and disharmony without Rule of Law ,instead in the cause of people's sovereignty?

    You’re still not getting it. SCOTUS opinion was obviously intended to be powerful, but 9 unaccountable lawyers with life tenure were not to have the last say, Justice Marshall largely spun the evidence to the contrary. On matters of security, the executive and legislative have typically been supreme. BTW the “anti-democratic” faction of the founding generation (you could call them Hamiltonians) essentially “lost,” and didn’t make significant impact again until the Civil War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Except that SCOTUS is held accountable by Congress and the people by way of a constitutional amendment. That's called checks and balances.

    Now, Patrick...

    “What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer?”

    Gorsuch was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech in a nonviolent manner. In this day and age, that is demonstrating strength of character.

    “The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.””

    And referring to a judge that Trump thought highly enough to be a candidate for the High Court as a “wimp” is other than the “poisoning character of our politics”.

    “For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists?”

    How do you sit down and work alongside people you believe are race deniers, SJW’s, and fascist leftists?

    “President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out.”

    Just because they wrote legal decisions you personally opposed does not mean they were “worst mistakes”.

    “the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.”

    Acknowledged, not universally conceded. Furthermore, the DOJ is of the opinion that the ban is about protecting America from terrorists and that any and all Congressional oversight in this matter is prohibited.

    “Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.”



    Corrected for accuracy —> The Supreme Court sought to balance secularist and non-secularist interests, ensured that criminals be afforded the constitutional protections they had been denied, and ruled in favor of local control when it came to integration (oh, and by the way, had obliterated the oppressive Jim Crow laws).

    “Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable.”

    

Right, because all Muslims are prone to terrorist activities.

    “Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.”

    Like FDR, whom you in essence chastised for “packing the court with ideologues”?
  34. Svigor says:

    The left is essentially abolishing the Republic by inches. It’s infuriating to see them do it while wrapping themselves in the Flag of that Republic, but patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, after all.

    Read More
  35. Corvinus says:
    @Marcus
    You're still not getting it. SCOTUS opinion was obviously intended to be powerful, but 9 unaccountable lawyers with life tenure were not to have the last say, Justice Marshall largely spun the evidence to the contrary. On matters of security, the executive and legislative have typically been supreme. BTW the "anti-democratic" faction of the founding generation (you could call them Hamiltonians) essentially "lost," and didn't make significant impact again until the Civil War.

    Except that SCOTUS is held accountable by Congress and the people by way of a constitutional amendment. That’s called checks and balances.

    Now, Patrick…

    “What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer?”

    Gorsuch was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech in a nonviolent manner. In this day and age, that is demonstrating strength of character.

    “The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.””

    And referring to a judge that Trump thought highly enough to be a candidate for the High Court as a “wimp” is other than the “poisoning character of our politics”.

    “For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists?”

    How do you sit down and work alongside people you believe are race deniers, SJW’s, and fascist leftists?

    “President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out.”

    Just because they wrote legal decisions you personally opposed does not mean they were “worst mistakes”.

    “the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.”

    Acknowledged, not universally conceded. Furthermore, the DOJ is of the opinion that the ban is about protecting America from terrorists and that any and all Congressional oversight in this matter is prohibited.

    “Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.”



    Corrected for accuracy —> The Supreme Court sought to balance secularist and non-secularist interests, ensured that criminals be afforded the constitutional protections they had been denied, and ruled in favor of local control when it came to integration (oh, and by the way, had obliterated the oppressive Jim Crow laws).

    “Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable.”

    

Right, because all Muslims are prone to terrorist activities.

    “Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.”

    Like FDR, whom you in essence chastised for “packing the court with ideologues”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Now, Patrick…

    “What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer?”

    Gorsuch was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech in a nonviolent manner. In this day and age, that is demonstrating strength of character.
     
    Now, Birdie ...

    Did you expect him to punch Trump out?

    Although it's true that the bar for "strength of character" is rather low in "this day and age" ...
  36. KenH says:
    @WorkingClass
    Can Trump fire judges? If so what is he waiting for? All judges are political. Openly defiant political judges should be fair game. Just like the corporate media.

    Trump could probably dismiss the judge(s) using a broad interpretation of the “Good Behavior Clause”. Since the district judge and appeals court judges have based their rulings more on ideology and Trump’s campaign rhetoric and less on existing law and legal precedent I would argue they are derelict in their duties and therefore in violation of the clause. The second problem is they should have known that they had no standing in this matter (since the president has been granted power to restrict entry of any class of people for national security purposes) and refused to hear the case but chose to anyway seemingly for political reasons.

    The judges swore an oath to the Constitution and not the ultra left wing agenda of the Democrat party. The judiciary must have its ears pinned back and informed that they are not a super legislature and are not above the legislative and executive branches.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Trump can't dismiss Federal judges, but Congress can impeach them.
  37. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Except that SCOTUS is held accountable by Congress and the people by way of a constitutional amendment. That's called checks and balances.

    Now, Patrick...

    “What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer?”

    Gorsuch was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech in a nonviolent manner. In this day and age, that is demonstrating strength of character.

    “The language of Warren — that Sessions is stepped in “racism, sexism & bigotry” echoes the ugliest slander of the Hillary Clinton campaign, where she used similar words to describe Trump’s “deplorables.””

    And referring to a judge that Trump thought highly enough to be a candidate for the High Court as a “wimp” is other than the “poisoning character of our politics”.

    “For how do you sit down and work alongside people you believe to be crypto-Nazis, Klansmen and fascists?”

    How do you sit down and work alongside people you believe are race deniers, SJW’s, and fascist leftists?

    “President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out.”

    Just because they wrote legal decisions you personally opposed does not mean they were “worst mistakes”.

    “the president’s authority in the matter of protecting the borders and keeping out those he sees as potentially dangerous is universally conceded.”

    Acknowledged, not universally conceded. Furthermore, the DOJ is of the opinion that the ban is about protecting America from terrorists and that any and all Congressional oversight in this matter is prohibited.

    “Consider. Secularist justices de-Christianized our country. They invented new rights for vicious criminals as though criminal justice were a game. They tore our country apart with idiotic busing orders to achieve racial balance in public schools. They turned over centuries of tradition and hundreds of state, local and federal laws to discover that the rights to an abortion and same-sex marriage were there in Madison’s Constitution all along. We just couldn’t see them.”



    Corrected for accuracy —> The Supreme Court sought to balance secularist and non-secularist interests, ensured that criminals be afforded the constitutional protections they had been denied, and ruled in favor of local control when it came to integration (oh, and by the way, had obliterated the oppressive Jim Crow laws).

    “Trump has warned the judges that if they block his travel ban, and this results in preventable acts of terror on American soil, they will be held accountable.”

    

Right, because all Muslims are prone to terrorist activities.

    “Meanwhile, Trump’s White House should use the arrogant and incompetent conduct of these federal judges to make the case not only for creating a new Supreme Court, but for Congress to start using Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution — to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to reclaim its stolen powers.”

    Like FDR, whom you in essence chastised for “packing the court with ideologues”?

    Now, Patrick…

    “What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer?”

    Gorsuch was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech in a nonviolent manner. In this day and age, that is demonstrating strength of character.

    Now, Birdie …

    Did you expect him to punch Trump out?

    Although it’s true that the bar for “strength of character” is rather low in “this day and age” …

    Read More
  38. MEexpert says:
    @Marcus
    No, US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that. Also you shouldn't expect PC epithets like bigot to be effective here.

    When? Date and source please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

    Germany and Italy: December 11, 1941
    Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania: June 5, 1942

    Nice work "expert." You realize that asking for references on something like that just makes it clear you are unable to look things up for yourself, right? Especially when Marcus told you which countries, if a bit vaguely: "US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that"

    To be clear, this conversation stems from your incorrect statement in comment 2: "As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 when the US was attacked by Japan."

    And before you complain about Wikipedia as a reference, please follow their reference 9 to:
    Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
  39. El Dato says:
    @Qasim
    Excellent reply.

    The suggestion that only an idiot would be concerned with "what gay people do" is particularly absurd. Homosexual men were ground zero for the AIDS epidemic!! It is unbelievably Orwellian how this fact is ignored, especially considering how recent the events are.

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.

    The modern idea that people's sexual habits have no wider implications for society and are therefore of no concern to anyone except the participants is really damning evidence for how intellectually degenerate our society has become.

    And one could still argue that humans have been very fortunate; if the HIV virus was easily transmissible, or if antiretroviral therapy was less effective, who knows how high the death toll could have reached.

    Well, one would have immediately noticed that something was brewing, so this argument kinda defeats itself. The antiretroviral therapy still sucks donkey cock btw, quite apart from being expensive.

    It also seems to defeat the argument that homosexuals are an AIDS problem as opposed to overly promiscuous bi/standard-sexuals.

    Read More
  40. KenH says:

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?

    What a wimp indeed. It’s time he put his man pants on. The federal judiciary isn’t above reproach or rebuke and if I were Trump I’d pressure him to withdraw and find someone who’s made of sterner stuff.

    His response leads me to fear that he’ll become another John Roberts who votes with the left 50% of the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Agree 100% with your accessment. My first reaction, providing he NG did make such statements, was that he should be withdrawn pronto from the list of potentials.
    It is going to be really tough to find judges who will not cave, with PC angst permeating all of the judicial field, as they are just as terrified of being labeled "Racist" as all of US society is.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
  41. @john cronk
    I don't understand how someone with such a good mind, who can correctly assess the issues about this bad decision, the overweening power of jurists and the Supreme Court and the arrogant comments of Trump's nominee, can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
    The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can't get my head around.

    “The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can’t get my head around”

    Nothing wrong with that statement, so long as you realize it applies to all of us, including yourself.

    As for abortion and homosexuality, it is pretty easy to make the case that they do an immense amount of harm in society.

    On Christianity, whether you believe or not, any fair assessment of Christian history and culture will show it has been overwhelmingly a force in the west for justice.

    Read More
  42. By the way, Neil Gorsuch belongs to the Episcopalian Church, he is a kind of WASP, and he is the only WASP among his future Supreme Court colleagues. Four of them are Catholic, the other four are Jewish. Perhaps US President Donald Trump appointed just by accident a WASP, which dominated and influenced the character and the destiny of the US over 200 years. It’s not very likely that President Trump had this in mind when choosing judge Gorsuch. Even Pat Buchanan didn’t mention this fact. It’s funny, that an alleged WASP nation didn’t have a representative at the US Supreme Court!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The late Antonin Scalia noted this in his dissent in the homosexual marriage case. There has never been a Mormon or a Seventh day Adventist Supreme Court Justice, despite the fact that both religions essentially originated in the United States.
  43. @KenH

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?
     
    What a wimp indeed. It's time he put his man pants on. The federal judiciary isn't above reproach or rebuke and if I were Trump I'd pressure him to withdraw and find someone who's made of sterner stuff.

    His response leads me to fear that he'll become another John Roberts who votes with the left 50% of the time.

    Agree 100% with your accessment. My first reaction, providing he NG did make such statements, was that he should be withdrawn pronto from the list of potentials.
    It is going to be really tough to find judges who will not cave, with PC angst permeating all of the judicial field, as they are just as terrified of being labeled “Racist” as all of US society is.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  44. @Simon in London
    I agree, the US judiciary needs to be restored to its Constitutional role. I can never understand why the American people consent to be ruled by "Philosopher Kings" with the self-assumed power to declare the Law is whatever they say it to be. US courts regularly act Ultra Vires - outside their powers - in the declarations they make. There seems to be a long term conspiracy between the judicial & other branches of the State, supported by the media, to legitimise this. That rule by judiciary is widely accepted seems unique to the United States.

    When courts arrogate to themselves the right to interpret the constituionality of Acts of Congress, then there is no limit to their power, for they will find penumbras of unconstitutionality everywhere they wish to make new law.

    The UK courts had historically been good at respecting the will of Parliament, sticking to adjudicating cases brought before them and generally limiting judicial review to enforcing due process of laws and regulations from capricious abuse by the bureaucracy and local governments, but since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which carved the Supreme Court out of the House of Lords to meet EU requirements (more reason for Brexit), UK judges have started to function like their US counterparts with increasing regularity to thwart the will of Parliament (and the people) and to novate law as they see fit.

    Congress in the US needs to exercise its constiutional powers to reform the courts inferior to the Supreme Court … it could start by immediately disbanding the Ninth Circuit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Agree completely. The makeup & function of the Supreme Court should also be reformed.
    , @jtgw
    I would qualify this by saying that judges should certainly review the constitutionality of laws when cases come before them under those laws (since the Constitution says itself that it is the supreme law of the land); the error is in the idea that the federal judiciary has the sole right of interpreting the Constitution. Ultimately, it should be the states that restrain the federal government; a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.
  45. @KenH
    Trump could probably dismiss the judge(s) using a broad interpretation of the "Good Behavior Clause". Since the district judge and appeals court judges have based their rulings more on ideology and Trump's campaign rhetoric and less on existing law and legal precedent I would argue they are derelict in their duties and therefore in violation of the clause. The second problem is they should have known that they had no standing in this matter (since the president has been granted power to restrict entry of any class of people for national security purposes) and refused to hear the case but chose to anyway seemingly for political reasons.

    The judges swore an oath to the Constitution and not the ultra left wing agenda of the Democrat party. The judiciary must have its ears pinned back and informed that they are not a super legislature and are not above the legislative and executive branches.

    Trump can’t dismiss Federal judges, but Congress can impeach them.

    Read More
  46. @The Alarmist
    When courts arrogate to themselves the right to interpret the constituionality of Acts of Congress, then there is no limit to their power, for they will find penumbras of unconstitutionality everywhere they wish to make new law.

    The UK courts had historically been good at respecting the will of Parliament, sticking to adjudicating cases brought before them and generally limiting judicial review to enforcing due process of laws and regulations from capricious abuse by the bureaucracy and local governments, but since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which carved the Supreme Court out of the House of Lords to meet EU requirements (more reason for Brexit), UK judges have started to function like their US counterparts with increasing regularity to thwart the will of Parliament (and the people) and to novate law as they see fit.

    Congress in the US needs to exercise its constiutional powers to reform the courts inferior to the Supreme Court ... it could start by immediately disbanding the Ninth Circuit.

    Agree completely. The makeup & function of the Supreme Court should also be reformed.

    Read More
  47. Svigor says:

    Alarmist is right, it’s Congress, not the President, though I think the President wields veto.

    Congress can do pretty much anything it wants to the judiciary with a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote, if the President approves.

    Read More
  48. KenH says:

    Trump can’t dismiss Federal judges, but Congress can impeach them.

    But Congress won’t do its duty and even if they did and the House successfully impeached they won’t get 66 votes in the Senate to convict when there’s only 52 Republicans and some of them are RINOs who vote with the left part of the time.

    Congress can also limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to prevent judicial tyranny but have refused to do so.

    Easiest path for Trump is to defy the federal courts since he’s legally exercising powers granted to him by Congress and the federal judiciary needs to quickly and painfully learn that they don’t have veto power over immigration restriction and enforcement and national security.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Trump set the wrong foot forward by appealing to the Ninth Circuit, and would likely not prevail at the USSC because the Judicial mafia would rather protect their turf than uphold the law. Trump would have been better served by making a sober, fact-of-the matter statement that Judge Robart's stay was ultra vires and that the Executive branch would uphold the laws as enacted by Congress. Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?
  49. res says:
    @Svigor
    A-FUCKING-MEN.

    Time to BREAK the usurped power of this entire class of unelected, unaccountable, tyrannical, black-robed Lords and Ladies. The trouble is that Congress is enemy-occupied territory, too. If we could get 60 loyal Senators in the Senate, it would be trivial to reform the courts. In a perfect world:

    1. Remove every federal judge below the SC from office.

    -OR-

    1. "Redistrict" the current courts below the SC out of existence. Every current district is "gerrymandered" out of effective existence. Let them contemplate their navels for the remainder of their tenures.

    2. Enact sweeping judicial reform, and begin appointing new, qualified judges.

    -OR-

    2. Start afresh with an entirely new (and dramatically slimmed-down) federal court system, governed by sweeping judicial reform.

    It's time for Trump to wage total war against the left's entire agenda, to gain leverage on immigration. Use every means at his disposal. Fire anyone in the Executive Branch who gives him any trouble in the process.

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?
     
    I'm willing to give Gorsuch some latitude. He's got a "fascism forever" skeleton in his closet, which I have assumed would sink his nomination from the moment it became public knowledge.

    That said, the opposition to Gorsuch seems quite tepid at this point, so I have to wonder if the media and the democrat Establishment (but, I repeat myself) know something about him that I don't.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/ninth-circuits-stolen-sovereignty-should-serve-as-final-wakeup-call

    That said, the opposition to Gorsuch seems quite tepid at this point, so I have to wonder if the media and the democrat Establishment (but, I repeat myself) know something about him that I don’t.

    Or think they do. It’s amazing how much the Supreme Court justice selection and confirmation process resembles high stakes poker these days. It seems to be all about deceiving people about the views (and future proclivities) of a potential justice and others trying to see through the deceptions. None of this is helped by the tendency of lawyers ambitious for positions like this to avoid controversy on their way up.

    Read More
  50. res says:
    @MEexpert
    When? Date and source please.

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

    Germany and Italy: December 11, 1941
    Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania: June 5, 1942

    Nice work “expert.” You realize that asking for references on something like that just makes it clear you are unable to look things up for yourself, right? Especially when Marcus told you which countries, if a bit vaguely: “US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that”

    To be clear, this conversation stems from your incorrect statement in comment 2: “As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 when the US was attacked by Japan.”

    And before you complain about Wikipedia as a reference, please follow their reference 9 to:
    Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    That is all part of WWII. The point I was trying to make was that it was the last time congress actually declared war under the constitution. Since then all wars, including Vietnam war, have been illegal wars. Congress is not doing its constitutional duties. Authorization for the use of military force is not the same as declaring war.
  51. Art says:

    Clearly the three court judges and the circuit court judge were playing power politics.They show no fidelity to the Constitution. This is not the way it is supposed to be.

    It is time for congress to impeach one or two of the bastards.

    Nothing else will stop them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    It would be easier (and more effective) for Congress to disband the entire Ninth Circuit by a simple majority vote in both houses than it would be for them to impeach a couple of the rogues, which would require showing good reason or cause and getting 67 Senators to go along with it. This is nothing more than good politics, but if the people actually wanted bi-partisanship and agreement, there would only be one party ... not that the elites aren't trying.
  52. @KenH

    Trump can’t dismiss Federal judges, but Congress can impeach them.
     
    But Congress won't do its duty and even if they did and the House successfully impeached they won't get 66 votes in the Senate to convict when there's only 52 Republicans and some of them are RINOs who vote with the left part of the time.

    Congress can also limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to prevent judicial tyranny but have refused to do so.

    Easiest path for Trump is to defy the federal courts since he's legally exercising powers granted to him by Congress and the federal judiciary needs to quickly and painfully learn that they don't have veto power over immigration restriction and enforcement and national security.

    Trump set the wrong foot forward by appealing to the Ninth Circuit, and would likely not prevail at the USSC because the Judicial mafia would rather protect their turf than uphold the law. Trump would have been better served by making a sober, fact-of-the matter statement that Judge Robart’s stay was ultra vires and that the Executive branch would uphold the laws as enacted by Congress. Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?
     
    That's the 64K question and given the hard left, radically pro-immigrant (illegal and otherwise) posture of the 9th circus Trump should not have appealed and simply defied Judge Robart's ruling, announced to America that the federal judiciary has no standing in this matter (because they don't) and authorized DHS to continue enforcement of the EO.

    Ceding jurisdiction by "playing the game" totally backfired and you can't defeat the left by acting in good faith and playing their game especially since they're willing to break all kinds of rules (and laws) to win. We already know that four of the SCOTUS justices will vote against him on this and Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are always wild cards.

    Otherwise, I agree.

  53. @Art
    Clearly the three court judges and the circuit court judge were playing power politics.They show no fidelity to the Constitution. This is not the way it is supposed to be.

    It is time for congress to impeach one or two of the bastards.

    Nothing else will stop them.

    It would be easier (and more effective) for Congress to disband the entire Ninth Circuit by a simple majority vote in both houses than it would be for them to impeach a couple of the rogues, which would require showing good reason or cause and getting 67 Senators to go along with it. This is nothing more than good politics, but if the people actually wanted bi-partisanship and agreement, there would only be one party … not that the elites aren’t trying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    It would be easier (and more effective) for Congress to disband the entire Ninth Circuit by a simple majority vote in both houses than it would be for them to impeach a couple of the rogues, which would require showing good reason or cause and getting 67 Senators to go along with it.
     
    Whatever will do - anything!

    It is time to dispel the notion that they are holly and untouchable.

    The idea that they are not power hungry political turds in black robes, is laughable.

    The first order of business for every judge is to maintain the power of the bench - justice be damned - and screw the Constitution.
  54. KenH says:
    @The Alarmist
    Trump set the wrong foot forward by appealing to the Ninth Circuit, and would likely not prevail at the USSC because the Judicial mafia would rather protect their turf than uphold the law. Trump would have been better served by making a sober, fact-of-the matter statement that Judge Robart's stay was ultra vires and that the Executive branch would uphold the laws as enacted by Congress. Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?

    Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?

    That’s the 64K question and given the hard left, radically pro-immigrant (illegal and otherwise) posture of the 9th circus Trump should not have appealed and simply defied Judge Robart’s ruling, announced to America that the federal judiciary has no standing in this matter (because they don’t) and authorized DHS to continue enforcement of the EO.

    Ceding jurisdiction by “playing the game” totally backfired and you can’t defeat the left by acting in good faith and playing their game especially since they’re willing to break all kinds of rules (and laws) to win. We already know that four of the SCOTUS justices will vote against him on this and Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are always wild cards.

    Otherwise, I agree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Trump can still defy the order because of the 'broken rules'. There can be no precedent when the decision ignored actual law.

    Section 212(f) 8 U.S. Code 1182

    "Whenever the President finds it that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"
  55. Art says:
    @The Alarmist
    It would be easier (and more effective) for Congress to disband the entire Ninth Circuit by a simple majority vote in both houses than it would be for them to impeach a couple of the rogues, which would require showing good reason or cause and getting 67 Senators to go along with it. This is nothing more than good politics, but if the people actually wanted bi-partisanship and agreement, there would only be one party ... not that the elites aren't trying.

    It would be easier (and more effective) for Congress to disband the entire Ninth Circuit by a simple majority vote in both houses than it would be for them to impeach a couple of the rogues, which would require showing good reason or cause and getting 67 Senators to go along with it.

    Whatever will do – anything!

    It is time to dispel the notion that they are holly and untouchable.

    The idea that they are not power hungry political turds in black robes, is laughable.

    The first order of business for every judge is to maintain the power of the bench – justice be damned – and screw the Constitution.

    Read More
  56. The problem is not whether the Executive Branch is supreme in matters of national security, but in determining what IS national security. George W. Bush apparently believed that the US was going to be attacked by Iraq using germ warfare any minute if the US did not strike first, however during the invasion there was no sign of such weapons being used defensively. In retrospect Bush was completely wrong, and the invasion of Iraq did absolutely nothing to protect national security. Trump himself has been critical of Bush on this point.

    Evidence as to whether the seven nation travel ban really is a true immediate emergency of national security could only be determined by classified evidence given in camera.

    There is not much doubt that the ban, the way it was enforced, and uncertainty about future developments has horribly impacted the lives of thousands of innocent people, and perhaps a few terrorists or potential terrorists too. But is it truly a matter of national security that makes these human costs insignificant in the bigger picture, or not? Trump only knows, and maybe even he doesn’t really know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yet there was Obama's same exec. order:

    The “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” (H. R.158), specifically barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.
    , @jtgw
    I agree that "national security" is too vague and the President should not get to decide what it means, at least when we are not formally at war. But to me the interesting question is whether Trump is acting unconstitutionally, or if he is acting constitutionally according to legitimate powers granted him by Congress and the problem is that the law is just badly written.
  57. Wally says:
    @john cronk
    I don't understand how someone with such a good mind, who can correctly assess the issues about this bad decision, the overweening power of jurists and the Supreme Court and the arrogant comments of Trump's nominee, can at the same time hold the view that what gay people do is a threat to anyone, that a woman can't decide what to do with her own body, or that Christianity or any other ridiculous religious superstition makes sense to actually believe.
    The juxtaposition of intelligence and stupidity in people is something I can't get my head around.

    False, fake news, strawman arguments galore.

    “that a woman can’t decide what to do with her own body” Utter BS, John.

    The admin’s issue is whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for other peoples abortions, not whether women can get abortions.

    ” what gay people do is a threat”? More uninformed crap, John.

    One of Trump’s biggest, most outspoken supporters is a gay man, Milo, who has a black boyfriend.
    Milo has been repeatedly attacked by anti free speech leftists everywhere and by arsonists at Berkeley. His website says it all.

    https://yiannopoulos.net/


    Undercover video shows Democrat operatives admitting they incited violence at Trump rallies

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/undercover-video-shows-democrat-operatives-admitting-they-incited-violence-at-trump-rallies

    Read More
  58. Wally says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The problem is not whether the Executive Branch is supreme in matters of national security, but in determining what IS national security. George W. Bush apparently believed that the US was going to be attacked by Iraq using germ warfare any minute if the US did not strike first, however during the invasion there was no sign of such weapons being used defensively. In retrospect Bush was completely wrong, and the invasion of Iraq did absolutely nothing to protect national security. Trump himself has been critical of Bush on this point.

    Evidence as to whether the seven nation travel ban really is a true immediate emergency of national security could only be determined by classified evidence given in camera.

    There is not much doubt that the ban, the way it was enforced, and uncertainty about future developments has horribly impacted the lives of thousands of innocent people, and perhaps a few terrorists or potential terrorists too. But is it truly a matter of national security that makes these human costs insignificant in the bigger picture, or not? Trump only knows, and maybe even he doesn't really know.

    Yet there was Obama’s same exec. order:

    The “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” (H. R.158), specifically barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Yet there was Obama’s same exec. order...

    ... barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.
     

    So what? My wife had to have a face to face interview to get her spousal visa to the US and she is a Christian who is the mother of a US citizen and knows so little about Islam that she calls adherents "Musselmen" and expects them all to go to hell.

    Face to face interviews in the home country are standard for all visas, even for wives from friendly islands neighboring the US, so are medicals by approved providers. They even inspect your blood, before you are allowed a visa. You have to present a police good conduct certificate, fingerprints, lists of every place you have ever lived, a passport, birth certificate or baptismal certificate, financial statements, affidavits of support, and swear that you have never engaged in prostitution, nor do you have any plans to overthrow the US government.

    It would be easy enough to throw in a few questions about whether you plan to commit terrorist acts, have committed same in the past, sympathized with terrorist actions, plan to commit suicide by bomb, or object to the Koran being flushed down the toilet, or whatever other questions the government wants to ask.

    Under these standards even Hillary Clinton would have a hard time getting back into the US if she were not a citizen.

    , @jtgw
    That was an Act of Congress, not an executive order. And the point is whether the act in question gave Trump the power to do what he did in his order, or whether his order went beyond what the act authorized. Didn't he bar entry to those who had already obtained visas according to the conditions laid down by that act?
  59. Wally says:
    @KenH

    Question is, did he create binding precedent by essentially ceding jurisdiction to the rogue court?
     
    That's the 64K question and given the hard left, radically pro-immigrant (illegal and otherwise) posture of the 9th circus Trump should not have appealed and simply defied Judge Robart's ruling, announced to America that the federal judiciary has no standing in this matter (because they don't) and authorized DHS to continue enforcement of the EO.

    Ceding jurisdiction by "playing the game" totally backfired and you can't defeat the left by acting in good faith and playing their game especially since they're willing to break all kinds of rules (and laws) to win. We already know that four of the SCOTUS justices will vote against him on this and Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts are always wild cards.

    Otherwise, I agree.

    Trump can still defy the order because of the ‘broken rules’. There can be no precedent when the decision ignored actual law.

    Section 212(f) 8 U.S. Code 1182

    “Whenever the President finds it that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    I agree-I see no inconsistency with appealing an erroneous decision while simultaneously announcing that it will not be respected, and the pertinent law enforcrcement agencies will continue to enforce the Presidential order. I'd buttress that with an attorney general opinion setting out why the district court and Ninth Circuit decisions were a usurpation of presidential and congressional authority. I predict that the courts will not send federal marshalls to try and enforce the decisions and that the Supreme Court won't want that kind of a confrontation with Donald Trump this early in an administration. I also don't see why the State Department could not be ordered to cease processing any requests for visas from the seven countries involved (although I'd personally stop processing them for any Muslim anywhere, except for accredited diplomatic personnel from Muslim countries).
  60. @Ludwig Watzal
    By the way, Neil Gorsuch belongs to the Episcopalian Church, he is a kind of WASP, and he is the only WASP among his future Supreme Court colleagues. Four of them are Catholic, the other four are Jewish. Perhaps US President Donald Trump appointed just by accident a WASP, which dominated and influenced the character and the destiny of the US over 200 years. It's not very likely that President Trump had this in mind when choosing judge Gorsuch. Even Pat Buchanan didn't mention this fact. It's funny, that an alleged WASP nation didn't have a representative at the US Supreme Court!

    The late Antonin Scalia noted this in his dissent in the homosexual marriage case. There has never been a Mormon or a Seventh day Adventist Supreme Court Justice, despite the fact that both religions essentially originated in the United States.

    Read More
  61. @Wally
    Trump can still defy the order because of the 'broken rules'. There can be no precedent when the decision ignored actual law.

    Section 212(f) 8 U.S. Code 1182

    "Whenever the President finds it that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"

    I agree-I see no inconsistency with appealing an erroneous decision while simultaneously announcing that it will not be respected, and the pertinent law enforcrcement agencies will continue to enforce the Presidential order. I’d buttress that with an attorney general opinion setting out why the district court and Ninth Circuit decisions were a usurpation of presidential and congressional authority. I predict that the courts will not send federal marshalls to try and enforce the decisions and that the Supreme Court won’t want that kind of a confrontation with Donald Trump this early in an administration. I also don’t see why the State Department could not be ordered to cease processing any requests for visas from the seven countries involved (although I’d personally stop processing them for any Muslim anywhere, except for accredited diplomatic personnel from Muslim countries).

    Read More
  62. @Wally
    Yet there was Obama's same exec. order:

    The “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” (H. R.158), specifically barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.

    Yet there was Obama’s same exec. order…

    … barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.

    So what? My wife had to have a face to face interview to get her spousal visa to the US and she is a Christian who is the mother of a US citizen and knows so little about Islam that she calls adherents “Musselmen” and expects them all to go to hell.

    Face to face interviews in the home country are standard for all visas, even for wives from friendly islands neighboring the US, so are medicals by approved providers. They even inspect your blood, before you are allowed a visa. You have to present a police good conduct certificate, fingerprints, lists of every place you have ever lived, a passport, birth certificate or baptismal certificate, financial statements, affidavits of support, and swear that you have never engaged in prostitution, nor do you have any plans to overthrow the US government.

    It would be easy enough to throw in a few questions about whether you plan to commit terrorist acts, have committed same in the past, sympathized with terrorist actions, plan to commit suicide by bomb, or object to the Koran being flushed down the toilet, or whatever other questions the government wants to ask.

    Under these standards even Hillary Clinton would have a hard time getting back into the US if she were not a citizen.

    Read More
  63. Diogenes says:

    It seems to me all the Judge bashing in this thread is just a bunch of sour grapes since you, presumably white guys, want a Muslim ban because you falsely equate Muslim with the potential terrorist and thus national security threat.

    Clearly, Trumps Muslim ban is an attempt to appease his supporters and keep one of his bigoted election promises. He didn’t even care or consider whether it was legally permissible or not and welcomed the opportunity to bully and discredit the Judiciary for ruling against him.

    So now you took his bait and are up in arms over the role of the Supreme Judiciary because you are not getting the Muslim ban. Sorry about not getting your ban which is in effect only really symbolic because it won’t keep you safe from security threats.

    By the way, this crackdown on illegal immigrants is just a scare tactic to discourage illegal immigrants from coming and to go elsewhere. It seems to be driving some fearful immigrant aliens into Canada.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    By the way, this crackdown on illegal immigrants is just a scare tactic to discourage illegal immigrants from coming and to go elsewhere. It seems to be driving some fearful immigrant aliens into Canada.

    And so, the downside is........what, exactly?
  64. The American society must watch closely what CIA did and is doing in Brazil using the Justice system.

    Everything you are complaining about happened last couple of years in Brazil.

    Watch your back!

    Read More
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Diogenes
    The consensus of opinion among the commentariat appears to be in favor of Buchanan's pronouncement about the Supreme Court and Trump's Executive order.

    "You want nine unelected lawyers to have final say on everything?"

    America has a Constitution which prescribes the limitations of institutional powers.

    In the case of institutional conflict over disputed legal initiatives like the Immigration Ban it is desirable to impose a final arbitration over the intent of the Constitution concerning the contentious issue, otherwise the civil order will be impearled.

    Whether the judges are elected or appointed is another matter.

    I am not convinced that to elect and politicize the Judiciary is a good idea, apparently, your founding Father's didn't think so and they must have had good reasons to do so.

    I for one think it is good that the unelected Supreme Court has to power to check the likes of President Trump and the gaggle of corrupt unenlightened elected rabble that comprise the American Congress and the same might be said about the wisdom and good judgment of your elected Senators.

    To take this opinion yet one step further the "Founding Father's" had grave reservations about the wisdom, virtue and good judgment of the American electorate and in their wisdom established a judicial institution which had the power to check the primitive and ill-conceived impulses of the "people" who remain sovereign only in name by design.

    Perhaps the commentariat would prefer civil discord and disharmony without Rule of Law ,instead in the cause of people's sovereignty?

    the civil order will be impearled

    Anti-white anti heritage America people statistically have much more problems with grammar (even orthography) than their polemics’ objects.
    This isn’t coincidental; it is not at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diogenes
    Yes, I misspelled imperiled, I was aware it didn't look right but I thought it was close enough for the reader to guess the word intended.

    That some people would dismiss my thoughts because of faulty spelling and defective English grammar does not surprise me either.

    What does surprise me is that conflating poor language skills with defective intellect is sufficient to
    dismiss one's opinion as defective.

    By the way, there is something unclear and grammatically incorrect in your first sentence but I won't try to correct you because I can guess your meaning and intent.

    Please just think of me as Anti-American that is why I am here on UNZ to bother and insult you!
  66. JSM says:
    @Svigor
    A-FUCKING-MEN.

    Time to BREAK the usurped power of this entire class of unelected, unaccountable, tyrannical, black-robed Lords and Ladies. The trouble is that Congress is enemy-occupied territory, too. If we could get 60 loyal Senators in the Senate, it would be trivial to reform the courts. In a perfect world:

    1. Remove every federal judge below the SC from office.

    -OR-

    1. "Redistrict" the current courts below the SC out of existence. Every current district is "gerrymandered" out of effective existence. Let them contemplate their navels for the remainder of their tenures.

    2. Enact sweeping judicial reform, and begin appointing new, qualified judges.

    -OR-

    2. Start afresh with an entirely new (and dramatically slimmed-down) federal court system, governed by sweeping judicial reform.

    It's time for Trump to wage total war against the left's entire agenda, to gain leverage on immigration. Use every means at his disposal. Fire anyone in the Executive Branch who gives him any trouble in the process.

    “Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said?
     
    I'm willing to give Gorsuch some latitude. He's got a "fascism forever" skeleton in his closet, which I have assumed would sink his nomination from the moment it became public knowledge.

    That said, the opposition to Gorsuch seems quite tepid at this point, so I have to wonder if the media and the democrat Establishment (but, I repeat myself) know something about him that I don't.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/ninth-circuits-stolen-sovereignty-should-serve-as-final-wakeup-call

    ’m willing to give Gorsuch some latitude. He’s got a “fascism forever” skeleton in his closet, which I have assumed would sink his nomination from the moment it became public knowledge.

    Is it possible, Svig, that God-Emperor is playing 4-D chess again? Perhaps Donald is figuring his pick, no matter who, will get Borked. Therefore, perhaps the strategy is: pick someone who really does have a fascist skeleton in his closet so that the Left can *really* nutso with the screeches of “FASCIST!” And then, once the public is weary of the whole Lefty screeching hysterical circus, nominate his true pick, who now looks positively moderate by comparison, and get him confirmed sans any nonsense ‘tall?

    Read More
  67. JSM says:
    @Diogenes
    It seems to me all the Judge bashing in this thread is just a bunch of sour grapes since you, presumably white guys, want a Muslim ban because you falsely equate Muslim with the potential terrorist and thus national security threat.

    Clearly, Trumps Muslim ban is an attempt to appease his supporters and keep one of his bigoted election promises. He didn't even care or consider whether it was legally permissible or not and welcomed the opportunity to bully and discredit the Judiciary for ruling against him.

    So now you took his bait and are up in arms over the role of the Supreme Judiciary because you are not getting the Muslim ban. Sorry about not getting your ban which is in effect only really symbolic because it won't keep you safe from security threats.

    By the way, this crackdown on illegal immigrants is just a scare tactic to discourage illegal immigrants from coming and to go elsewhere. It seems to be driving some fearful immigrant aliens into Canada.

    By the way, this crackdown on illegal immigrants is just a scare tactic to discourage illegal immigrants from coming and to go elsewhere. It seems to be driving some fearful immigrant aliens into Canada.

    And so, the downside is……..what, exactly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diogenes
    Well, the American image of a land which welcomes [legal] immigrants, political refugees and asylum seekers is full up and no economic refugees will be further tolerated.

    Selected Muslim refugees from 7 red-listed countries are not welcome because they might do harm to the US citizens as an act of revenge for the harm the US has done to these countries presently and in the past.

    The most wealthy and powerful country in the world is suffering from a paranoid siege mentality and acknowledging the effects of "blowback" for ill-conceived foreign military rampages.

    There is no downside for admitting your mistakes is there?

  68. Diogenes says:
    @JSM
    By the way, this crackdown on illegal immigrants is just a scare tactic to discourage illegal immigrants from coming and to go elsewhere. It seems to be driving some fearful immigrant aliens into Canada.

    And so, the downside is........what, exactly?

    Well, the American image of a land which welcomes [legal] immigrants, political refugees and asylum seekers is full up and no economic refugees will be further tolerated.

    Selected Muslim refugees from 7 red-listed countries are not welcome because they might do harm to the US citizens as an act of revenge for the harm the US has done to these countries presently and in the past.

    The most wealthy and powerful country in the world is suffering from a paranoid siege mentality and acknowledging the effects of “blowback” for ill-conceived foreign military rampages.

    There is no downside for admitting your mistakes is there?

    Read More
  69. Diogenes says:
    @Anon

    the civil order will be impearled
     
    Anti-white anti heritage America people statistically have much more problems with grammar (even orthography) than their polemics' objects.
    This isn't coincidental; it is not at all.

    Yes, I misspelled imperiled, I was aware it didn’t look right but I thought it was close enough for the reader to guess the word intended.

    That some people would dismiss my thoughts because of faulty spelling and defective English grammar does not surprise me either.

    What does surprise me is that conflating poor language skills with defective intellect is sufficient to
    dismiss one’s opinion as defective.

    By the way, there is something unclear and grammatically incorrect in your first sentence but I won’t try to correct you because I can guess your meaning and intent.

    Please just think of me as Anti-American that is why I am here on UNZ to bother and insult you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Yes, I misspelled imperiled, I was aware it didn’t look right but I thought it was close enough for the reader to guess the word intended.
     
    The thing I think people fail to realize with mistakes like that is it calls into question your understanding of the word. The lucidness of your last response convinces me that isn't what happened here, but that can be hard for a reader to evaluate.

    imperiled basically means to place into peril
    In other words, it's hard to understand the meaning of the word "impearled" if you think it means something like to place into pearl.

    And we're all on computers of one sort or another here. It's not that hard to look up word spelling and definition as we write.

    To be clear, I am drawing a distinction between mistakes which call into question the author's understanding of a word and simple letter transpositions, mistakes in long and complex spellings, incorrect doubling of letters, etc.

    TL;DR Sometimes a mistake is more than just a typo.
  70. One of Obama’s great boners was not to declare a state of judicial and Congressional emergency in order to seat Justice Garland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Would you care to elaborate on the legality and constitutionality of what you say Pres Obama might have done...
  71. res says:
    @Diogenes
    Yes, I misspelled imperiled, I was aware it didn't look right but I thought it was close enough for the reader to guess the word intended.

    That some people would dismiss my thoughts because of faulty spelling and defective English grammar does not surprise me either.

    What does surprise me is that conflating poor language skills with defective intellect is sufficient to
    dismiss one's opinion as defective.

    By the way, there is something unclear and grammatically incorrect in your first sentence but I won't try to correct you because I can guess your meaning and intent.

    Please just think of me as Anti-American that is why I am here on UNZ to bother and insult you!

    Yes, I misspelled imperiled, I was aware it didn’t look right but I thought it was close enough for the reader to guess the word intended.

    The thing I think people fail to realize with mistakes like that is it calls into question your understanding of the word. The lucidness of your last response convinces me that isn’t what happened here, but that can be hard for a reader to evaluate.

    imperiled basically means to place into peril
    In other words, it’s hard to understand the meaning of the word “impearled” if you think it means something like to place into pearl.

    And we’re all on computers of one sort or another here. It’s not that hard to look up word spelling and definition as we write.

    To be clear, I am drawing a distinction between mistakes which call into question the author’s understanding of a word and simple letter transpositions, mistakes in long and complex spellings, incorrect doubling of letters, etc.

    TL;DR Sometimes a mistake is more than just a typo.

    Read More
  72. so pat wants to break the judicial branch. and give all the power it has to el presidente trump? someone needs a refresher course on the federal govt and it’s checks and balances.

    Read More
  73. MEexpert says:
    @res
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

    Germany and Italy: December 11, 1941
    Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania: June 5, 1942

    Nice work "expert." You realize that asking for references on something like that just makes it clear you are unable to look things up for yourself, right? Especially when Marcus told you which countries, if a bit vaguely: "US declared war on Germany and several other Axis countries after that"

    To be clear, this conversation stems from your incorrect statement in comment 2: "As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared war since December 8, 1941 when the US was attacked by Japan."

    And before you complain about Wikipedia as a reference, please follow their reference 9 to:
    Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

    That is all part of WWII. The point I was trying to make was that it was the last time congress actually declared war under the constitution. Since then all wars, including Vietnam war, have been illegal wars. Congress is not doing its constitutional duties. Authorization for the use of military force is not the same as declaring war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Presumably the declarations of war you refer to are formal declarations in relation to recognised foreign states. Would that cover all cases where the US national interest might require military action? Are you saying that there are cases where US national interest could only be unlawfully pursued by force whatever Congress resolved?
  74. John Lost says:

    The solution to the travel ban problem is simple. Have the appropriate agencies provide a simple assessment of all countries of whether its government is able – and willing – to provide accurate and honest information about any visa applicants. Also, whether there are significant areas or groups outside the government control for which it can not accurately or adequately provide the necessary information. Finally, whether there are significant number of individuals in the country, regions, or groups that are likely to be potential threats to the US.

    For any such countries, regions, or groups, no additional visas shall be issued until proper vetting procedures can be enforced. Further, all currently issued visas shall be subject to review and possible revocation.

    The solution to judicial mis-action is impenetrable bureaucracy.

    Read More
  75. jtgw says:

    Pat displays his disregard for the Constitution here:

    And if there is a cause upon which the populist right should unite, it is that elected representatives and executives make the laws and rule the nation. Not judges, and not justices.

    He is absolutely correct that judges do not make law, but he is absolutely incorrect in his insinuation that executives share legislative powers with representatives. Representatives alone make the law. Period. End of story.

    Read More
  76. jtgw says:
    @Wally
    Yet there was Obama's same exec. order:

    The “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act” (H. R.158), specifically barred nationals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Sudan from entering the U.S. without first submitting to interrogation and specialist vetting—including face-to-face interviews in their home countries before setting off.

    That was an Act of Congress, not an executive order. And the point is whether the act in question gave Trump the power to do what he did in his order, or whether his order went beyond what the act authorized. Didn’t he bar entry to those who had already obtained visas according to the conditions laid down by that act?

    Read More
  77. jtgw says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    The problem is not whether the Executive Branch is supreme in matters of national security, but in determining what IS national security. George W. Bush apparently believed that the US was going to be attacked by Iraq using germ warfare any minute if the US did not strike first, however during the invasion there was no sign of such weapons being used defensively. In retrospect Bush was completely wrong, and the invasion of Iraq did absolutely nothing to protect national security. Trump himself has been critical of Bush on this point.

    Evidence as to whether the seven nation travel ban really is a true immediate emergency of national security could only be determined by classified evidence given in camera.

    There is not much doubt that the ban, the way it was enforced, and uncertainty about future developments has horribly impacted the lives of thousands of innocent people, and perhaps a few terrorists or potential terrorists too. But is it truly a matter of national security that makes these human costs insignificant in the bigger picture, or not? Trump only knows, and maybe even he doesn't really know.

    I agree that “national security” is too vague and the President should not get to decide what it means, at least when we are not formally at war. But to me the interesting question is whether Trump is acting unconstitutionally, or if he is acting constitutionally according to legitimate powers granted him by Congress and the problem is that the law is just badly written.

    Read More
  78. jtgw says:
    @The Alarmist
    When courts arrogate to themselves the right to interpret the constituionality of Acts of Congress, then there is no limit to their power, for they will find penumbras of unconstitutionality everywhere they wish to make new law.

    The UK courts had historically been good at respecting the will of Parliament, sticking to adjudicating cases brought before them and generally limiting judicial review to enforcing due process of laws and regulations from capricious abuse by the bureaucracy and local governments, but since the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which carved the Supreme Court out of the House of Lords to meet EU requirements (more reason for Brexit), UK judges have started to function like their US counterparts with increasing regularity to thwart the will of Parliament (and the people) and to novate law as they see fit.

    Congress in the US needs to exercise its constiutional powers to reform the courts inferior to the Supreme Court ... it could start by immediately disbanding the Ninth Circuit.

    I would qualify this by saying that judges should certainly review the constitutionality of laws when cases come before them under those laws (since the Constitution says itself that it is the supreme law of the land); the error is in the idea that the federal judiciary has the sole right of interpreting the Constitution. Ultimately, it should be the states that restrain the federal government; a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.
     
    But they don't have the power to nullify the federal law. There is a process in place to amend the constitution. Until then the federal law supersedes the state law. If they deem any law unconstitutional they can appeal to the supreme court. Only the courts can determine whether any statute is constitutional or not.

    Yes, they can always secede but you know what happened the last the states tried that.
  79. I am not sure Trump thinks at all before he acts. Perhaps his aides have some kind of game plan but three- or whatever-dimensional chess would seem to be beyond him.

    Read More
  80. @MEexpert
    That is all part of WWII. The point I was trying to make was that it was the last time congress actually declared war under the constitution. Since then all wars, including Vietnam war, have been illegal wars. Congress is not doing its constitutional duties. Authorization for the use of military force is not the same as declaring war.

    Presumably the declarations of war you refer to are formal declarations in relation to recognised foreign states. Would that cover all cases where the US national interest might require military action? Are you saying that there are cases where US national interest could only be unlawfully pursued by force whatever Congress resolved?

    Read More
  81. @Bartolo del Bosque
    One of Obama's great boners was not to declare a state of judicial and Congressional emergency in order to seat Justice Garland.

    Would you care to elaborate on the legality and constitutionality of what you say Pres Obama might have done…

    Read More
  82. MEexpert says:
    @jtgw
    I would qualify this by saying that judges should certainly review the constitutionality of laws when cases come before them under those laws (since the Constitution says itself that it is the supreme law of the land); the error is in the idea that the federal judiciary has the sole right of interpreting the Constitution. Ultimately, it should be the states that restrain the federal government; a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.

    a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.

    But they don’t have the power to nullify the federal law. There is a process in place to amend the constitution. Until then the federal law supersedes the state law. If they deem any law unconstitutional they can appeal to the supreme court. Only the courts can determine whether any statute is constitutional or not.

    Yes, they can always secede but you know what happened the last the states tried that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I understand that's how everyone thinks the system works now, but there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the courts the final say in interpreting the Constitution. State nullification, as any student of American history knows, certainly has a controversial history, but it has never been refuted and currently states are testing it by legalizing marijuana, even while it remains prohibited federally. And if you just pause to think about where the federal government ultimately derives its authority, i.e. from the states, then to me its pretty uncontroversial that a state should have the right to nullify federal laws. Federal supremacy in the Constitution only applies in those areas where the Constitution explicitly granted powers to Congress.
  83. jtgw says:
    @MEexpert

    a state should have the power to nullify any federal law that it deems unconstitutional, and if the federal and state governments cannot be reconciled, the state has a right to secede.
     
    But they don't have the power to nullify the federal law. There is a process in place to amend the constitution. Until then the federal law supersedes the state law. If they deem any law unconstitutional they can appeal to the supreme court. Only the courts can determine whether any statute is constitutional or not.

    Yes, they can always secede but you know what happened the last the states tried that.

    I understand that’s how everyone thinks the system works now, but there’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the courts the final say in interpreting the Constitution. State nullification, as any student of American history knows, certainly has a controversial history, but it has never been refuted and currently states are testing it by legalizing marijuana, even while it remains prohibited federally. And if you just pause to think about where the federal government ultimately derives its authority, i.e. from the states, then to me its pretty uncontroversial that a state should have the right to nullify federal laws. Federal supremacy in the Constitution only applies in those areas where the Constitution explicitly granted powers to Congress.

    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 Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored