The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Doing the Worm on the Constitution
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

An NYT oped from the former R-IN Senator:

On Immigration, Law Is on Obama’s Side
By RICHARD G. LUGAR APRIL 18, 2016

THE legal controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement policies will soon come to a head when the Supreme Court justices hear the case United States v. Texas on Monday. Texas claims that the president’s executive decisions lack legal sanction by Congress and have injured the state.

But whether or not you like President Obama’s actions, he has operated under longstanding provisions of law that give the executive branch discretion in enforcement.

I know I’m not a legal eagle, but there would seem to be a difference between traditional “prosecutorial discretion” and printing up 5,000,000 Get Out of Jail Free cards and handing them out to your supporters’ relatives.

“Finally, Big Immigration is above the Law!” exults Obama as he does the Worm on the Constitution.

 
Hide 79 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Prosecutorial discretion” does not mean what Lugar thinks it means, if that’s what he’s talking about. It means pretty much the reverse of what Obama wants to do. Example: “get lost, Rachael Fields.” As for executive discretion, he’s just making that up. The President does not have the discretion to choose which laws are faithfully executed.

    • Replies: @guest
    @I, Libertine

    Funnily enough, according to Obama on the Hillary E-mail Thing, he doesn't have any discretion at all. He doesn't even have any oversight. The FBI and the Justice Department? What are those? He doesn't run them, they run themselves.

  2. If ever there were a case destined for a 4-4 split, this would seem to be it.

    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career. But he is old. Last time I saw him–probably 4 years ago–he wore orthopaedic shoes with his suit and was more or less uninterested in the political function around him. This may be age-ist, but at some point wisdom morphs into senility.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Polynikes


    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career.
     
    OH PLEASE!!!!!!

    Hoosiers with half a brain have long known that Lugar was a "Lindsey Graham" decades before there was a "such a thing", just another lisping closet case cuckservative who repeatedly made statements to an adoring Cultural Marxist Media that he positively loathed the white middle and working class cisgenders of flyover country. From his first years in the Senate. Lugar averaged around just 80 days a year back in Indiana. Lugar would rather spend his weekends appearing on Meet the Press or Face the Nation after spending his nights buying drinks for young twentysomething pages and staffers at "Bullfeathers" along side the likes of "Purdy Mouth" Ralph Reed, Denny Hastert, and the rest of the Log Cabin Republicans and the gay 80's era ex College Republican mafia.

    Lugar finally got the boot when Roy Beck of NumbersUSA revealed only Ted Kennedy had a more consistently Pro-Open Borders voting record over his 36 year tenure in the Senate.

    Also Lugar was the first to announce his support for both Sotomayor and Kagan and then went on the attack against any Republican who questioned their experience or leftist agenda. That was the final straw that caused a massive revolt by Indiana's Republican base. Lugar out spent Murdock by 5-10 to 1 and still got crushed in the primary.

    Lugar was personification of everything that is wrong with the corrupt elitist Republican establish in the Hoosier state that just last week showed its hand with its plot to throw its delegates to Ted Cruz in spite of Trump's likely huge victory in the May 3rd primary.

    My hope now is that Hoosiers having lived through the Lugar nightmare have the good sense not to hand a Senate seat to the dreadful Cuck Rep. Todd Young, a NeoCon wet dream of a closeted ex-Marine with passion in his heart to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    , @pyrrhus
    @Polynikes

    Lugar is a political hack...Anyone who went to a decent law school knows that prosecutorial discretion is completely unrelated to issuing executive orders not to enforce a law. Indeed, common law provides the writ of Mandamus against such malfeasance....

  3. Life with Trump presidency.

  4. In a sane world, a president being so brazen at refusing to perform his job duties without a valid reason would be impeachable. Especially when that same president burned the First Amendment to the ground with the Nakoula Nakoula incident.

    But hey, this isn’t a sane world.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @whorefinder

    We're probably witnessing the development of a "hate speech" doctrine to swallow the First Amendment in real time. There is already broad support for such a thing in the academy, in law schools, and among fully indoctrinated Millennials who state reflexively the anti-constitutional mantra that "Hate Speech is not Free Speech." It's also already an accepted part of the law in the "more enlightened" legal regimes of the Anglosphere, and a mere logical step away from hate crimes laws already in force, which propose a theory of punishing harm to a discrete racial or sexual minority community.

    It's simply a matter of time at this point - the future has been lost, but has simply not come to full fruition as yet.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @whorefinder

  5. One legal principle at issue is that, while discretion may be reposed in an office, discretion is not absolute and may be abused, meriting appellate oversight.

    On the Obama administration’s theory, a misogynist District Attorney could decide that – in his sole discretion – rape allegations without uninterested third party eyewitnesses are confusing and hard to prove and therefore a waste of his office’s resources, justifying the exercise of his discretion not to prosecute any rape cases without third party eyewitnesses. Of course there would be intense opposition to such a policy and we’d all hear from the same Obama fellows how prosecutorial discretion is not absolute or even broad, and certainly not broad enough to create an exception which swallows a law.

    They’d point out that such a policy would amount to a license to rape, as we’ve been pointing out that the failure to enforce immigration law is an invitation for ever greater numbers to break into the United States.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    @Alec Leamas

    Give it a few years. Under the Muslim hudood laws, six (6) male Muslim eyewitnesses are required to convict a Muslim of rape. If a woman reports a rape without the requisite eyewitnesses she can find herself charged with fornication and be beaten or do prison time.

    , @guest
    @Alec Leamas

    That wouldn't bother me, because rape shouldn't be the feds' business.

  6. @whorefinder
    In a sane world, a president being so brazen at refusing to perform his job duties without a valid reason would be impeachable. Especially when that same president burned the First Amendment to the ground with the Nakoula Nakoula incident.

    But hey, this isn't a sane world.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    We’re probably witnessing the development of a “hate speech” doctrine to swallow the First Amendment in real time. There is already broad support for such a thing in the academy, in law schools, and among fully indoctrinated Millennials who state reflexively the anti-constitutional mantra that “Hate Speech is not Free Speech.” It’s also already an accepted part of the law in the “more enlightened” legal regimes of the Anglosphere, and a mere logical step away from hate crimes laws already in force, which propose a theory of punishing harm to a discrete racial or sexual minority community.

    It’s simply a matter of time at this point – the future has been lost, but has simply not come to full fruition as yet.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Alec Leamas

    Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful. But part of the problem is defining what is hateful and what isn't. And the bigger part of the problem is that these laws would not be impartially enforced. Many on the left openly call for explicitly anti-white "hate speech" laws.

    http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/hatespeech.pdf

    Replies: @dumpstersquirrel, @Jack D

    , @whorefinder
    @Alec Leamas

    The 14th Amendment will be used as justification to undoing the 1st. The argument will be that it's broad powers give congress and the courts the power to abrogate all previous Amendments when the 14th A's goals of "equality" is threatened.

    First it will be used to justify hate speech laws against blacks, and then extended to women, gays, etc.

  7. That’s an incredible Kingpin clip. “And some lucky fan has a souvenir”….lol. Was that Chris Schenkel? Thank you for that. Norm Macdonald had a bit about his goal being to make so much money when he needs a kidney he can get to top of list immediately. Don’t know if Farrelly brothers cribbed that or vice versa.

    I always thought that was a Cyndi Lauper song. Original is great but her amazing voice gives it the edge.

  8. @Polynikes
    If ever there were a case destined for a 4-4 split, this would seem to be it.

    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career. But he is old. Last time I saw him--probably 4 years ago--he wore orthopaedic shoes with his suit and was more or less uninterested in the political function around him. This may be age-ist, but at some point wisdom morphs into senility.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist, @pyrrhus

    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career.

    OH PLEASE!!!!!!

    Hoosiers with half a brain have long known that Lugar was a “Lindsey Graham” decades before there was a “such a thing”, just another lisping closet case cuckservative who repeatedly made statements to an adoring Cultural Marxist Media that he positively loathed the white middle and working class cisgenders of flyover country. From his first years in the Senate. Lugar averaged around just 80 days a year back in Indiana. Lugar would rather spend his weekends appearing on Meet the Press or Face the Nation after spending his nights buying drinks for young twentysomething pages and staffers at “Bullfeathers” along side the likes of “Purdy Mouth” Ralph Reed, Denny Hastert, and the rest of the Log Cabin Republicans and the gay 80’s era ex College Republican mafia.

    Lugar finally got the boot when Roy Beck of NumbersUSA revealed only Ted Kennedy had a more consistently Pro-Open Borders voting record over his 36 year tenure in the Senate.

    Also Lugar was the first to announce his support for both Sotomayor and Kagan and then went on the attack against any Republican who questioned their experience or leftist agenda. That was the final straw that caused a massive revolt by Indiana’s Republican base. Lugar out spent Murdock by 5-10 to 1 and still got crushed in the primary.

    Lugar was personification of everything that is wrong with the corrupt elitist Republican establish in the Hoosier state that just last week showed its hand with its plot to throw its delegates to Ted Cruz in spite of Trump’s likely huge victory in the May 3rd primary.

    My hope now is that Hoosiers having lived through the Lugar nightmare have the good sense not to hand a Senate seat to the dreadful Cuck Rep. Todd Young, a NeoCon wet dream of a closeted ex-Marine with passion in his heart to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    2016 R primary Senate

    Marlin Stutzman NumbersUSA: B+
    Todd Young: B-
    Barron Hill (D) C-

    The real regret is that Joe Donnelly turned from a Blue Dog to an SJW the minute he was sworn in as Senator.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

  9. If our next President wants to end this nonsense, (s)he should unilaterally decide if the Nation’s discrimination laws, or any other laws that are near and dear to the left, need to be enforced. My guess is they would come unglued.

  10. Ed says:

    As others have pointed out, a prosecutor can decide not to prosecute someone for a crime for valid reasons, such as the suspect is not really a menace to society, and prosecution would mean diverting resources away from prosecutions of much more dangerous people who are suspected of more serious crimes. This sort of thing is very different from deciding not to prosecute entire classes of crimes, or entire categories of people.

    Often you get situations where out-of-date laws are not enforced by prosecutors and police, and sometimes this happens with drug prohibition and vice laws that no one believes should be enforced (I found out recently, by means of one of the controversies over some Trump comments, that alot of pro-life people want anti-abortion laws on the books but don’t want them to be actually enforced). This is really an unfortunate consequence of having no good, regular, procedure to clean the statue books of archaic and ornamental laws. You wind up having to rely on dictators such as Justinian and Napoleon to provide this service. Its not something to be celebrated or abused.

    Obama and his justice department has also decided that the laws against financial fraud are not enforceable, at least against the bigger players, and this has taken at least as much criticism as the decision not to enforce the immigration laws.

    Also, one criticism of Trump is essentially that he is just one person, and can’t do much even as President in the face of Congress and the permanent bureaucracy. This may be true with the bureaucracy, but its immigration that his supporters are upset about, and this is a case of statue law already providing alot of controls over immigration but poor enforcement (lots of restrictions on the INS, no inspections of employers of illegal immigrants, etc.). And enforcement is very much a function of the executive branch.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Ed

    The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy.

    N.B., I believe that the anti-sodomy statute used by activists to create a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was little or never enforced, but there are indications that its local enforcement in that case was a contrivance to create the test case with which to invalidate state anti-sodomy laws and pave the way for the most holy institution of Ghey Marriage. Discovery of the contrivance would arguably have provided grounds for the case to be dismissed as nonjusticiable for want of an actual controversy, so of course no media investigation was undertaken.

    Replies: @Ed, @Diversity Heretic, @Big Bill

  11. 1. They want to rule the world.

    2. The world is “diverse.”

    3. Therefore, our country must be diverse, so our rule doesn’t look ickily racist.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Desiderius

    "2. The world is “diverse.”

    Most countries in the world are racially homogeneous. How much racial diversity is there in Senegal for example? How many White and other Nonblack people live there?

  12. Yeah, there’s reason he is former Senator Lugar.

    I’d also not put it past him to hold a certain amount of spite towards those ingrate voters that didn’t have the decency to let him die in office gracefully like good ol’ Strom and Teddy.

    Well, I say good riddance to these cuckservative hold-overs of the Statist Generation. That can’t be ousted from office soon enough.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Portlander

    Folks here in Indiana are still laughing at Lugar's hissy fits from getting primaried.

    Not even our local "controlled opposition", that is 100% kosher, ultra NeoCon "Emmis" Communications owned talk radio station WIBC here in Indy will openly throw Lugar a bone because they know their listenership won't tolerate Lugar's BS.

    Hell yes Lugar is spiteful, as is the rest of Indiana's ultra corrupt elitist Republican establishment. Right now they are plotting to rob Trump of his delegates from the upcoming May 3rd primary.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-totally-corrupt-rigged-system-gop-plans-to-strip-trump-of-delegates-in-indiana-wyoming-too_042016


    In a meeting behind closed doors yesterday, GOP party leaders met in Indiana to select 21 delegates that are expected to be anti-Trump, even though voters don’t get to vote for another three weeks in the state, according to Bloomberg News.

    This is the same process which occurred in Colorado, where delegates are chosen for candidates ahead of an actual primary election by GOP voters, essentially nullifying votes.

    A similar situation is expected to follow in Wyoming, where 14 delegates are chosen at the state primary’s convention, the majority of which are reportedly anti-Trump.

     

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

  13. Anybody else notice the NY Times and the WSJ continue to incorrectly report Trumps delegate count ? He now has at least 756 bounded delegates, yet they report he has just 744, they have not added the 12 additional delegates he won in Missouri, which was just certified last week.

    Nate Silver at least shows the accurate delegate count at his site , fivethirtyeight. He has Trump at 758.

  14. @Alec Leamas
    @whorefinder

    We're probably witnessing the development of a "hate speech" doctrine to swallow the First Amendment in real time. There is already broad support for such a thing in the academy, in law schools, and among fully indoctrinated Millennials who state reflexively the anti-constitutional mantra that "Hate Speech is not Free Speech." It's also already an accepted part of the law in the "more enlightened" legal regimes of the Anglosphere, and a mere logical step away from hate crimes laws already in force, which propose a theory of punishing harm to a discrete racial or sexual minority community.

    It's simply a matter of time at this point - the future has been lost, but has simply not come to full fruition as yet.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @whorefinder

    Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful. But part of the problem is defining what is hateful and what isn’t. And the bigger part of the problem is that these laws would not be impartially enforced. Many on the left openly call for explicitly anti-white “hate speech” laws.

    http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/hatespeech.pdf

    • Replies: @dumpstersquirrel
    @AndrewR

    "Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful."

    One man's hate is another man's truth. Allowing Uncle Samantha to determine which is which and then stealing the liberty of whomever loses is insidious. You're not a real deep thinker, is you?

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @AndrewR

    , @Jack D
    @AndrewR

    Note that the linked article was written by Bernardo Alexander Attias, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies,College of Arts, Media, and Communication,California State University, Northridge. Not exactly the Harvard Law Review.

    First Amendment jurisprudence is very well settled and clear and has support on the Supreme Court from both the liberal and conservative wings. You would need a lot more wise Latinas on the court to change this. Someone like Garland would not change a hair on the head of this body of law. Bernardo refers to the intellectual support for hate speech laws as "outsider jurisprudence" for good reason. Way outside, as in fringe.

    Non-outsider jurisprudence (which is to say settled law) says that with very narrow exceptions, our law does not punish mere speech that is not connected with action. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, can be punished. So " I hate blacks" won't cut it, but "Let's go into the street, you and me, and beat up the first black [or white] person we see" could be construed as a crime. This is where the law stands now and the Overton Windows in the S. Ct. would have to do a whole lotta shifting to change it.

    Replies: @AndrewR

  15. @Ed
    As others have pointed out, a prosecutor can decide not to prosecute someone for a crime for valid reasons, such as the suspect is not really a menace to society, and prosecution would mean diverting resources away from prosecutions of much more dangerous people who are suspected of more serious crimes. This sort of thing is very different from deciding not to prosecute entire classes of crimes, or entire categories of people.

    Often you get situations where out-of-date laws are not enforced by prosecutors and police, and sometimes this happens with drug prohibition and vice laws that no one believes should be enforced (I found out recently, by means of one of the controversies over some Trump comments, that alot of pro-life people want anti-abortion laws on the books but don't want them to be actually enforced). This is really an unfortunate consequence of having no good, regular, procedure to clean the statue books of archaic and ornamental laws. You wind up having to rely on dictators such as Justinian and Napoleon to provide this service. Its not something to be celebrated or abused.

    Obama and his justice department has also decided that the laws against financial fraud are not enforceable, at least against the bigger players, and this has taken at least as much criticism as the decision not to enforce the immigration laws.

    Also, one criticism of Trump is essentially that he is just one person, and can't do much even as President in the face of Congress and the permanent bureaucracy. This may be true with the bureaucracy, but its immigration that his supporters are upset about, and this is a case of statue law already providing alot of controls over immigration but poor enforcement (lots of restrictions on the INS, no inspections of employers of illegal immigrants, etc.). And enforcement is very much a function of the executive branch.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy.

    N.B., I believe that the anti-sodomy statute used by activists to create a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was little or never enforced, but there are indications that its local enforcement in that case was a contrivance to create the test case with which to invalidate state anti-sodomy laws and pave the way for the most holy institution of Ghey Marriage. Discovery of the contrivance would arguably have provided grounds for the case to be dismissed as nonjusticiable for want of an actual controversy, so of course no media investigation was undertaken.

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    "The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy. "

    This is not supported by historical experience. As you noted in your second paragraph, historically the function of removing obsolete laws from the books in the US has been done by the courts, not the legislatures.

    If the legislatures took up the responsibility, each house of the federal and state legislature would have a permanent standing committee whose function would be to review randomly selected parts of the code, that had been enacted over a dozen years earlier, and possibly recommend repeal to the wider body. These wouldn't be choice committee assignments, but in reality legislatures do maintain various housekeeping committees such as administration committees and ethics committees. Alternately, you could make it common practice to sunset every piece of legislation passed. Neither of these things are done in any state.

    Legislatures have limited time to do business, and limited staff, though they could potentially increase their own staff. In the US much of the staff-work is now done by lobbyists. Outside of the US its by civil servants in the executive branch, but at least there parliamentary systems allow the legislatures to keep the executive branches under their thumbs to a greater extent.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @27 year old, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    , @Diversity Heretic
    @Alec Leamas

    I believe that the circumstances leading to the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (statutes banning contraceptives to married couples are unconstitutional) was similarly contrived.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @Big Bill
    @Alec Leamas

    This "ginning up" of a case is standard operating procedure by progressive legal activists. Oftentimes activists will look for years for the perfect victim, the perfect set of facts, to challenge the law. Rosa Parks was carefully selected and groomed to be the perfect bus boycott lady. Roe (of Roe v. Wade) was carefully selected as the close-to-perfect victim to challenge the abortion laws.

    This careful selection of victims and facts lets one steer the law over a period of decades by nibbling at the edge of the legal fabric on issue after successive issue until many interlocking precedents are established.

    Pity that conservative activists don't fund organizations to do the same thing.

  16. @Alec Leamas
    @whorefinder

    We're probably witnessing the development of a "hate speech" doctrine to swallow the First Amendment in real time. There is already broad support for such a thing in the academy, in law schools, and among fully indoctrinated Millennials who state reflexively the anti-constitutional mantra that "Hate Speech is not Free Speech." It's also already an accepted part of the law in the "more enlightened" legal regimes of the Anglosphere, and a mere logical step away from hate crimes laws already in force, which propose a theory of punishing harm to a discrete racial or sexual minority community.

    It's simply a matter of time at this point - the future has been lost, but has simply not come to full fruition as yet.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @whorefinder

    The 14th Amendment will be used as justification to undoing the 1st. The argument will be that it’s broad powers give congress and the courts the power to abrogate all previous Amendments when the 14th A’s goals of “equality” is threatened.

    First it will be used to justify hate speech laws against blacks, and then extended to women, gays, etc.

  17. P.S. Obama is just handing Trumo ammunition now. Two—and potentially three–part ammunition:

    1. He gives Trump a talking point about how bad the country is under Obama. “Can you believe this guy, he doesn’t feel like doing his job, while Americans don’t have jobs. He’d rather keep rapists and drug dealers and cheap labor here than protect Americans!”

    2. Gives him precedence in his own time in office to merely not enforce laws his supporters don’t like. “If Obama can do it, I can too.”

    3. If another terrorist-event happens (God forbid) before the election, he just points at Obama. “This guy didn’t want to deport immigrants, and look what happened.

  18. @Alec Leamas
    One legal principle at issue is that, while discretion may be reposed in an office, discretion is not absolute and may be abused, meriting appellate oversight.

    On the Obama administration's theory, a misogynist District Attorney could decide that - in his sole discretion - rape allegations without uninterested third party eyewitnesses are confusing and hard to prove and therefore a waste of his office's resources, justifying the exercise of his discretion not to prosecute any rape cases without third party eyewitnesses. Of course there would be intense opposition to such a policy and we'd all hear from the same Obama fellows how prosecutorial discretion is not absolute or even broad, and certainly not broad enough to create an exception which swallows a law.

    They'd point out that such a policy would amount to a license to rape, as we've been pointing out that the failure to enforce immigration law is an invitation for ever greater numbers to break into the United States.

    Replies: @Big Bill, @guest

    Give it a few years. Under the Muslim hudood laws, six (6) male Muslim eyewitnesses are required to convict a Muslim of rape. If a woman reports a rape without the requisite eyewitnesses she can find herself charged with fornication and be beaten or do prison time.

  19. The left is really bad at playing chess – they can’t play even one move ahead. They live completely in the moment. You have Biden on the floor of the Senate saying “there’s NO WAY a President should be able to nominate an SC justice in the last year of his term.” Didn’t it occur to him that someday that the President would be a Democrat again and that his words might later be turned against him? Likewise, doesn’t it occur to them that if Obama is allowed to increase the power of the executive branch to dictatorial levels, then future Republican Presidents will also have that same power? If the President can just completely ignore every law passed by Congress on the grounds that he has “discretion” in law enforcement, then you might as well tear up the Constitution.

    • Replies: @Abe
    @Jack D


    Likewise, doesn’t it occur to them that if Obama is allowed to increase the power of the executive branch to dictatorial levels, then future Republican Presidents will also have that same power?
     
    But, my friend, that is what cucks are for. At least in the juridical realm the other side plays by no rules and basically has no decency, while relying on us to be principled, moderate, and exquisitely conscientious. For 20 years now I've been reading the concern-troll pablum of liberal legal analysts about how Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist risk losing their strict-constructionist souls if they wake up and act like we still have a 10th Amendment, and how only a judicial "activist" would fail to realize that the Federal government has compelling interest in mandating access to gender-preferred preschool bathrooms as this is obviously integral to the functioning of interstate commerce.

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while Chief Justice Cuckberts resisted striking down Obamacare despite (one would hope) his own personal political preferences, Poz-berg, Kagan, Breyer, etc. have never once let logic or precedent lead to them making a recognizably conservative ruling.

    And so it goes with Ghey marriage. Despite being rejected in state referenda like 20-1, poz activists were able to court shop until they found a San Francisco judge willing to overturn California's traditional marriage proposition as unconstitutional, then overturn a constitutional amendment as un-extra constitutional (violates the 0.0069 Amendment of "not who we are"), then use California's "approval" of gay marriage as momentum going into the Supreme Court ruling which gave them total victory. And we just take it, and keep voting for leaders like Cuck-sich who tell us it's time to move on.
    , @27 year old
    @Jack D

    Yeah they're so bad at chess they own all of us...

  20. @Portlander
    Yeah, there's reason he is former Senator Lugar.

    I'd also not put it past him to hold a certain amount of spite towards those ingrate voters that didn't have the decency to let him die in office gracefully like good ol' Strom and Teddy.

    Well, I say good riddance to these cuckservative hold-overs of the Statist Generation. That can't be ousted from office soon enough.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    Folks here in Indiana are still laughing at Lugar’s hissy fits from getting primaried.

    Not even our local “controlled opposition”, that is 100% kosher, ultra NeoCon “Emmis” Communications owned talk radio station WIBC here in Indy will openly throw Lugar a bone because they know their listenership won’t tolerate Lugar’s BS.

    Hell yes Lugar is spiteful, as is the rest of Indiana’s ultra corrupt elitist Republican establishment. Right now they are plotting to rob Trump of his delegates from the upcoming May 3rd primary.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-totally-corrupt-rigged-system-gop-plans-to-strip-trump-of-delegates-in-indiana-wyoming-too_042016

    In a meeting behind closed doors yesterday, GOP party leaders met in Indiana to select 21 delegates that are expected to be anti-Trump, even though voters don’t get to vote for another three weeks in the state, according to Bloomberg News.

    This is the same process which occurred in Colorado, where delegates are chosen for candidates ahead of an actual primary election by GOP voters, essentially nullifying votes.

    A similar situation is expected to follow in Wyoming, where 14 delegates are chosen at the state primary’s convention, the majority of which are reportedly anti-Trump.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/election/2016?&state=IN

    Quite disgusting that Brooks doesn't have a challenger.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

  21. Ed says:
    @Alec Leamas
    @Ed

    The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy.

    N.B., I believe that the anti-sodomy statute used by activists to create a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was little or never enforced, but there are indications that its local enforcement in that case was a contrivance to create the test case with which to invalidate state anti-sodomy laws and pave the way for the most holy institution of Ghey Marriage. Discovery of the contrivance would arguably have provided grounds for the case to be dismissed as nonjusticiable for want of an actual controversy, so of course no media investigation was undertaken.

    Replies: @Ed, @Diversity Heretic, @Big Bill

    “The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy. ”

    This is not supported by historical experience. As you noted in your second paragraph, historically the function of removing obsolete laws from the books in the US has been done by the courts, not the legislatures.

    If the legislatures took up the responsibility, each house of the federal and state legislature would have a permanent standing committee whose function would be to review randomly selected parts of the code, that had been enacted over a dozen years earlier, and possibly recommend repeal to the wider body. These wouldn’t be choice committee assignments, but in reality legislatures do maintain various housekeeping committees such as administration committees and ethics committees. Alternately, you could make it common practice to sunset every piece of legislation passed. Neither of these things are done in any state.

    Legislatures have limited time to do business, and limited staff, though they could potentially increase their own staff. In the US much of the staff-work is now done by lobbyists. Outside of the US its by civil servants in the executive branch, but at least there parliamentary systems allow the legislatures to keep the executive branches under their thumbs to a greater extent.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Ed

    Although your idea has merit, it's trickier than it sounds to achieve consensus that a law is obsolete. I remember that one recommendation to the reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission was to remove the "One House Veto" of a regulation that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in the context of a different agency and statute. The proposal ran into opposition from a couple of legislators who liked the One House Veto, Supreme Court decision to the contrary notwithstanding. Given the practice of the Supreme Court reversing itself in the course of constitutional jurisprudence, it might be tough convincing a skeptic that a law is genuinely obsolete.

    , @27 year old
    @Ed

    Trump should propose this on a massive scale. Review the federal laws looking for stuff to cut. It could be a jobs program for law school grads. Then present it to congress as a huge omnibus repeal bill that nobody would read.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Ed

    Your proposal is a capital idea, purging the accumulated bile and bilge of the body-politic in a systematic way. It makes perfect sense, and hence is hopelessly confined to realm of the impossible.

    There is a way to see it implemented. Couch it in academic double-speak, the dishonest trappings of benefiting the currently preferred minorities and especially note how it advantages one-party Democrat rule and you will see it implemented before the new year arrives!

  22. @AndrewR
    @Alec Leamas

    Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful. But part of the problem is defining what is hateful and what isn't. And the bigger part of the problem is that these laws would not be impartially enforced. Many on the left openly call for explicitly anti-white "hate speech" laws.

    http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/hatespeech.pdf

    Replies: @dumpstersquirrel, @Jack D

    “Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful.”

    One man’s hate is another man’s truth. Allowing Uncle Samantha to determine which is which and then stealing the liberty of whomever loses is insidious. You’re not a real deep thinker, is you?

    • Agree: Alec Leamas
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @dumpstersquirrel

    That's a relativist assertion. There are certain things that we know to be true, and dissent from thereof can be roughly equated to treason. In the past we used terms like sedition, subversion, lese majeste, blashphemy, etc.

    For instance, the Koran and the Hadiths are clearly works of hate that inspire the violent conquest of all who oppose them. While it is foolish to ban the physical text, banning the people who advocate the text is appropriate.

    If you oppose our civilization, the proper thing to do is to emigrate. If you want Sharia, go to KSA or IRI. If you want LGBT, then go to San Francisco. If you don't leave voluntarily, and decide to be a subversive, a just society should exile you.

    , @AndrewR
    @dumpstersquirrel

    Lol predictable response.

    You are projecting.

    Btw, it's "whoever."

  23. @I, Libertine
    "Prosecutorial discretion" does not mean what Lugar thinks it means, if that's what he's talking about. It means pretty much the reverse of what Obama wants to do. Example: "get lost, Rachael Fields." As for executive discretion, he's just making that up. The President does not have the discretion to choose which laws are faithfully executed.

    Replies: @guest

    Funnily enough, according to Obama on the Hillary E-mail Thing, he doesn’t have any discretion at all. He doesn’t even have any oversight. The FBI and the Justice Department? What are those? He doesn’t run them, they run themselves.

  24. @Alec Leamas
    One legal principle at issue is that, while discretion may be reposed in an office, discretion is not absolute and may be abused, meriting appellate oversight.

    On the Obama administration's theory, a misogynist District Attorney could decide that - in his sole discretion - rape allegations without uninterested third party eyewitnesses are confusing and hard to prove and therefore a waste of his office's resources, justifying the exercise of his discretion not to prosecute any rape cases without third party eyewitnesses. Of course there would be intense opposition to such a policy and we'd all hear from the same Obama fellows how prosecutorial discretion is not absolute or even broad, and certainly not broad enough to create an exception which swallows a law.

    They'd point out that such a policy would amount to a license to rape, as we've been pointing out that the failure to enforce immigration law is an invitation for ever greater numbers to break into the United States.

    Replies: @Big Bill, @guest

    That wouldn’t bother me, because rape shouldn’t be the feds’ business.

  25. Abe says: • Website
    @Jack D
    The left is really bad at playing chess - they can't play even one move ahead. They live completely in the moment. You have Biden on the floor of the Senate saying "there's NO WAY a President should be able to nominate an SC justice in the last year of his term." Didn't it occur to him that someday that the President would be a Democrat again and that his words might later be turned against him? Likewise, doesn't it occur to them that if Obama is allowed to increase the power of the executive branch to dictatorial levels, then future Republican Presidents will also have that same power? If the President can just completely ignore every law passed by Congress on the grounds that he has "discretion" in law enforcement, then you might as well tear up the Constitution.

    Replies: @Abe, @27 year old

    Likewise, doesn’t it occur to them that if Obama is allowed to increase the power of the executive branch to dictatorial levels, then future Republican Presidents will also have that same power?

    But, my friend, that is what cucks are for. At least in the juridical realm the other side plays by no rules and basically has no decency, while relying on us to be principled, moderate, and exquisitely conscientious. For 20 years now I’ve been reading the concern-troll pablum of liberal legal analysts about how Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist risk losing their strict-constructionist souls if they wake up and act like we still have a 10th Amendment, and how only a judicial “activist” would fail to realize that the Federal government has compelling interest in mandating access to gender-preferred preschool bathrooms as this is obviously integral to the functioning of interstate commerce.

    Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but while Chief Justice Cuckberts resisted striking down Obamacare despite (one would hope) his own personal political preferences, Poz-berg, Kagan, Breyer, etc. have never once let logic or precedent lead to them making a recognizably conservative ruling.

    And so it goes with Ghey marriage. Despite being rejected in state referenda like 20-1, poz activists were able to court shop until they found a San Francisco judge willing to overturn California’s traditional marriage proposition as unconstitutional, then overturn a constitutional amendment as un-extra constitutional (violates the 0.0069 Amendment of “not who we are”), then use California’s “approval” of gay marriage as momentum going into the Supreme Court ruling which gave them total victory. And we just take it, and keep voting for leaders like Cuck-sich who tell us it’s time to move on.

    • Agree: International Jew
  26. @Alec Leamas
    @Ed

    The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy.

    N.B., I believe that the anti-sodomy statute used by activists to create a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was little or never enforced, but there are indications that its local enforcement in that case was a contrivance to create the test case with which to invalidate state anti-sodomy laws and pave the way for the most holy institution of Ghey Marriage. Discovery of the contrivance would arguably have provided grounds for the case to be dismissed as nonjusticiable for want of an actual controversy, so of course no media investigation was undertaken.

    Replies: @Ed, @Diversity Heretic, @Big Bill

    I believe that the circumstances leading to the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (statutes banning contraceptives to married couples are unconstitutional) was similarly contrived.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Diversity Heretic

    Roe vs. Wade was contrived too. So was Rosa Parks famous bus incident. Astro-turfing has been around since before it had a name.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  27. @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    "The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy. "

    This is not supported by historical experience. As you noted in your second paragraph, historically the function of removing obsolete laws from the books in the US has been done by the courts, not the legislatures.

    If the legislatures took up the responsibility, each house of the federal and state legislature would have a permanent standing committee whose function would be to review randomly selected parts of the code, that had been enacted over a dozen years earlier, and possibly recommend repeal to the wider body. These wouldn't be choice committee assignments, but in reality legislatures do maintain various housekeeping committees such as administration committees and ethics committees. Alternately, you could make it common practice to sunset every piece of legislation passed. Neither of these things are done in any state.

    Legislatures have limited time to do business, and limited staff, though they could potentially increase their own staff. In the US much of the staff-work is now done by lobbyists. Outside of the US its by civil servants in the executive branch, but at least there parliamentary systems allow the legislatures to keep the executive branches under their thumbs to a greater extent.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @27 year old, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Although your idea has merit, it’s trickier than it sounds to achieve consensus that a law is obsolete. I remember that one recommendation to the reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission was to remove the “One House Veto” of a regulation that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in the context of a different agency and statute. The proposal ran into opposition from a couple of legislators who liked the One House Veto, Supreme Court decision to the contrary notwithstanding. Given the practice of the Supreme Court reversing itself in the course of constitutional jurisprudence, it might be tough convincing a skeptic that a law is genuinely obsolete.

  28. Lugar is an old fool. The argument that the Constitution allows Obama “prosecutorial discretion” to allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to avoid deportation is ridiculous sophistry. Nothing in the Constitution mentions prosecutorial or executive discretion.

    What the Constitution actually DOES say in the Preamble is that it was written for “ourselves and our posterity” — NOT foreigners. And Art. II, Sec. 3 states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

    The Constitution actually requires the opposite of what Obama is doing. This should be quite obvious to anyone who has actually read it, which, sadly, probably excludes the vast majority of the Washington Establishment types like Lugar.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Dr. X

    Lugar is like Jimmy Carter; he is still pissed that the voters (those know nothing plebes) threw him out.

  29. @Jack D
    The left is really bad at playing chess - they can't play even one move ahead. They live completely in the moment. You have Biden on the floor of the Senate saying "there's NO WAY a President should be able to nominate an SC justice in the last year of his term." Didn't it occur to him that someday that the President would be a Democrat again and that his words might later be turned against him? Likewise, doesn't it occur to them that if Obama is allowed to increase the power of the executive branch to dictatorial levels, then future Republican Presidents will also have that same power? If the President can just completely ignore every law passed by Congress on the grounds that he has "discretion" in law enforcement, then you might as well tear up the Constitution.

    Replies: @Abe, @27 year old

    Yeah they’re so bad at chess they own all of us…

  30. @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    "The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy. "

    This is not supported by historical experience. As you noted in your second paragraph, historically the function of removing obsolete laws from the books in the US has been done by the courts, not the legislatures.

    If the legislatures took up the responsibility, each house of the federal and state legislature would have a permanent standing committee whose function would be to review randomly selected parts of the code, that had been enacted over a dozen years earlier, and possibly recommend repeal to the wider body. These wouldn't be choice committee assignments, but in reality legislatures do maintain various housekeeping committees such as administration committees and ethics committees. Alternately, you could make it common practice to sunset every piece of legislation passed. Neither of these things are done in any state.

    Legislatures have limited time to do business, and limited staff, though they could potentially increase their own staff. In the US much of the staff-work is now done by lobbyists. Outside of the US its by civil servants in the executive branch, but at least there parliamentary systems allow the legislatures to keep the executive branches under their thumbs to a greater extent.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @27 year old, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Trump should propose this on a massive scale. Review the federal laws looking for stuff to cut. It could be a jobs program for law school grads. Then present it to congress as a huge omnibus repeal bill that nobody would read.

  31. What if we told politicians like Richard Lugar to go pound sand?

    What if we chose to get our Constitutional interpretation from someone who’s actually been a judge?

    What if that judge wrote informative essays we could read right here on Unz?

    https://www.unz.com/anapolitano/the-president-and-the-rule-of-law/

  32. @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    "The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy. "

    This is not supported by historical experience. As you noted in your second paragraph, historically the function of removing obsolete laws from the books in the US has been done by the courts, not the legislatures.

    If the legislatures took up the responsibility, each house of the federal and state legislature would have a permanent standing committee whose function would be to review randomly selected parts of the code, that had been enacted over a dozen years earlier, and possibly recommend repeal to the wider body. These wouldn't be choice committee assignments, but in reality legislatures do maintain various housekeeping committees such as administration committees and ethics committees. Alternately, you could make it common practice to sunset every piece of legislation passed. Neither of these things are done in any state.

    Legislatures have limited time to do business, and limited staff, though they could potentially increase their own staff. In the US much of the staff-work is now done by lobbyists. Outside of the US its by civil servants in the executive branch, but at least there parliamentary systems allow the legislatures to keep the executive branches under their thumbs to a greater extent.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @27 year old, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Your proposal is a capital idea, purging the accumulated bile and bilge of the body-politic in a systematic way. It makes perfect sense, and hence is hopelessly confined to realm of the impossible.

    There is a way to see it implemented. Couch it in academic double-speak, the dishonest trappings of benefiting the currently preferred minorities and especially note how it advantages one-party Democrat rule and you will see it implemented before the new year arrives!

  33. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Polynikes


    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career.
     
    OH PLEASE!!!!!!

    Hoosiers with half a brain have long known that Lugar was a "Lindsey Graham" decades before there was a "such a thing", just another lisping closet case cuckservative who repeatedly made statements to an adoring Cultural Marxist Media that he positively loathed the white middle and working class cisgenders of flyover country. From his first years in the Senate. Lugar averaged around just 80 days a year back in Indiana. Lugar would rather spend his weekends appearing on Meet the Press or Face the Nation after spending his nights buying drinks for young twentysomething pages and staffers at "Bullfeathers" along side the likes of "Purdy Mouth" Ralph Reed, Denny Hastert, and the rest of the Log Cabin Republicans and the gay 80's era ex College Republican mafia.

    Lugar finally got the boot when Roy Beck of NumbersUSA revealed only Ted Kennedy had a more consistently Pro-Open Borders voting record over his 36 year tenure in the Senate.

    Also Lugar was the first to announce his support for both Sotomayor and Kagan and then went on the attack against any Republican who questioned their experience or leftist agenda. That was the final straw that caused a massive revolt by Indiana's Republican base. Lugar out spent Murdock by 5-10 to 1 and still got crushed in the primary.

    Lugar was personification of everything that is wrong with the corrupt elitist Republican establish in the Hoosier state that just last week showed its hand with its plot to throw its delegates to Ted Cruz in spite of Trump's likely huge victory in the May 3rd primary.

    My hope now is that Hoosiers having lived through the Lugar nightmare have the good sense not to hand a Senate seat to the dreadful Cuck Rep. Todd Young, a NeoCon wet dream of a closeted ex-Marine with passion in his heart to Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    2016 R primary Senate

    Marlin Stutzman NumbersUSA: B+
    Todd Young: B-
    Barron Hill (D) C-

    The real regret is that Joe Donnelly turned from a Blue Dog to an SJW the minute he was sworn in as Senator.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Maj. Kong

    Rep. Marlin Stutzman has his flaws. Like lots of men his age he started out as a spergy, "must not violate the N.A.P." Libertarian. But I see some hope of him learning and even possibly being "Red Pilled".

    Rep. Todd Young, like the dreadful Rep Susan Brooks (Hamilton County/Carmel) is beyond redemption. I met Todd Young in person back in 2013 on behalf of NumbersUSA and he just reeks of Cuck sweat.

    Rep. Joe Donnelly got elected to congress in 2006 as a part of Rahm Emmanuel's strategy of triangulating against Dubya's disastrous backing of the Kennedy/McCain amnesty proposal. A dozen or more immigration moderate Democrats helped hand the House to the Dems against mostly loyal Bushies. Then almost immediately Emmanuel read the riot act to any Democrats who opposed amnesty. Most like 2006's Jim Webb and Indiana's Rep Brad Elsworth were gone after one or two terms.

    Donnelly survived by towing the party line on Open Borders while luckily facing horrible establishment Republicans on immigration.

    I think Donnelly can beat Todd Young. Young is that bad on Immigration and is running insane neocon foreign policy campaign ads. Young is despised in his own district, mostly suburban Johnson County.

  34. @dumpstersquirrel
    @AndrewR

    "Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful."

    One man's hate is another man's truth. Allowing Uncle Samantha to determine which is which and then stealing the liberty of whomever loses is insidious. You're not a real deep thinker, is you?

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @AndrewR

    That’s a relativist assertion. There are certain things that we know to be true, and dissent from thereof can be roughly equated to treason. In the past we used terms like sedition, subversion, lese majeste, blashphemy, etc.

    For instance, the Koran and the Hadiths are clearly works of hate that inspire the violent conquest of all who oppose them. While it is foolish to ban the physical text, banning the people who advocate the text is appropriate.

    If you oppose our civilization, the proper thing to do is to emigrate. If you want Sharia, go to KSA or IRI. If you want LGBT, then go to San Francisco. If you don’t leave voluntarily, and decide to be a subversive, a just society should exile you.

  35. @dumpstersquirrel
    @AndrewR

    "Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful."

    One man's hate is another man's truth. Allowing Uncle Samantha to determine which is which and then stealing the liberty of whomever loses is insidious. You're not a real deep thinker, is you?

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @AndrewR

    Lol predictable response.

    You are projecting.

    Btw, it’s “whoever.”

  36. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Portlander

    Folks here in Indiana are still laughing at Lugar's hissy fits from getting primaried.

    Not even our local "controlled opposition", that is 100% kosher, ultra NeoCon "Emmis" Communications owned talk radio station WIBC here in Indy will openly throw Lugar a bone because they know their listenership won't tolerate Lugar's BS.

    Hell yes Lugar is spiteful, as is the rest of Indiana's ultra corrupt elitist Republican establishment. Right now they are plotting to rob Trump of his delegates from the upcoming May 3rd primary.

    http://www.thedailysheeple.com/a-totally-corrupt-rigged-system-gop-plans-to-strip-trump-of-delegates-in-indiana-wyoming-too_042016


    In a meeting behind closed doors yesterday, GOP party leaders met in Indiana to select 21 delegates that are expected to be anti-Trump, even though voters don’t get to vote for another three weeks in the state, according to Bloomberg News.

    This is the same process which occurred in Colorado, where delegates are chosen for candidates ahead of an actual primary election by GOP voters, essentially nullifying votes.

    A similar situation is expected to follow in Wyoming, where 14 delegates are chosen at the state primary’s convention, the majority of which are reportedly anti-Trump.

     

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/election/2016?&state=IN

    Quite disgusting that Brooks doesn’t have a challenger.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Maj. Kong

    Rep. Susan Brooks , NumbersUSA grade of F, is a both a horrible Cuck and comes across as so stupid it seems almost impossible that she ever passed the bar.

    But, Greg Garrison at WIBC, the clueless enabler of lots of Hoosier Cucks is Brooks' good friend and helped her get into office. I like lots of other one time WIBC listeners would call in every couple of months begging for someone to primary challenge her. That is one of the reason's WIBC no longer takes listener calls.

    Like Todd Young. Brooks is a rabid NeoCon so Emmis Communications will go all out to protect her.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

  37. @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    2016 R primary Senate

    Marlin Stutzman NumbersUSA: B+
    Todd Young: B-
    Barron Hill (D) C-

    The real regret is that Joe Donnelly turned from a Blue Dog to an SJW the minute he was sworn in as Senator.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    Rep. Marlin Stutzman has his flaws. Like lots of men his age he started out as a spergy, “must not violate the N.A.P.” Libertarian. But I see some hope of him learning and even possibly being “Red Pilled”.

    Rep. Todd Young, like the dreadful Rep Susan Brooks (Hamilton County/Carmel) is beyond redemption. I met Todd Young in person back in 2013 on behalf of NumbersUSA and he just reeks of Cuck sweat.

    Rep. Joe Donnelly got elected to congress in 2006 as a part of Rahm Emmanuel’s strategy of triangulating against Dubya’s disastrous backing of the Kennedy/McCain amnesty proposal. A dozen or more immigration moderate Democrats helped hand the House to the Dems against mostly loyal Bushies. Then almost immediately Emmanuel read the riot act to any Democrats who opposed amnesty. Most like 2006’s Jim Webb and Indiana’s Rep Brad Elsworth were gone after one or two terms.

    Donnelly survived by towing the party line on Open Borders while luckily facing horrible establishment Republicans on immigration.

    I think Donnelly can beat Todd Young. Young is that bad on Immigration and is running insane neocon foreign policy campaign ads. Young is despised in his own district, mostly suburban Johnson County.

  38. @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    https://www.numbersusa.com/candidate-comparison/election/2016?&state=IN

    Quite disgusting that Brooks doesn't have a challenger.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    Rep. Susan Brooks , NumbersUSA grade of F, is a both a horrible Cuck and comes across as so stupid it seems almost impossible that she ever passed the bar.

    But, Greg Garrison at WIBC, the clueless enabler of lots of Hoosier Cucks is Brooks’ good friend and helped her get into office. I like lots of other one time WIBC listeners would call in every couple of months begging for someone to primary challenge her. That is one of the reason’s WIBC no longer takes listener calls.

    Like Todd Young. Brooks is a rabid NeoCon so Emmis Communications will go all out to protect her.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    Cuckold is a term that only relates to males. For female 'conservative' traitors the best phrase that comes to mind is either swinger, slut or shrew.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

  39. @Polynikes
    If ever there were a case destined for a 4-4 split, this would seem to be it.

    On a side note, Lugar is a decent man and had a fine senatorial career. But he is old. Last time I saw him--probably 4 years ago--he wore orthopaedic shoes with his suit and was more or less uninterested in the political function around him. This may be age-ist, but at some point wisdom morphs into senility.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist, @pyrrhus

    Lugar is a political hack…Anyone who went to a decent law school knows that prosecutorial discretion is completely unrelated to issuing executive orders not to enforce a law. Indeed, common law provides the writ of Mandamus against such malfeasance….

  40. @Diversity Heretic
    @Alec Leamas

    I believe that the circumstances leading to the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (statutes banning contraceptives to married couples are unconstitutional) was similarly contrived.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Roe vs. Wade was contrived too. So was Rosa Parks famous bus incident. Astro-turfing has been around since before it had a name.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Jim Don Bob

    The Scopes trial was another contrived case.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  41. @Dr. X
    Lugar is an old fool. The argument that the Constitution allows Obama "prosecutorial discretion" to allow tens of millions of illegal aliens to avoid deportation is ridiculous sophistry. Nothing in the Constitution mentions prosecutorial or executive discretion.

    What the Constitution actually DOES say in the Preamble is that it was written for "ourselves and our posterity" -- NOT foreigners. And Art. II, Sec. 3 states that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

    The Constitution actually requires the opposite of what Obama is doing. This should be quite obvious to anyone who has actually read it, which, sadly, probably excludes the vast majority of the Washington Establishment types like Lugar.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Lugar is like Jimmy Carter; he is still pissed that the voters (those know nothing plebes) threw him out.

  42. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Maj. Kong

    Rep. Susan Brooks , NumbersUSA grade of F, is a both a horrible Cuck and comes across as so stupid it seems almost impossible that she ever passed the bar.

    But, Greg Garrison at WIBC, the clueless enabler of lots of Hoosier Cucks is Brooks' good friend and helped her get into office. I like lots of other one time WIBC listeners would call in every couple of months begging for someone to primary challenge her. That is one of the reason's WIBC no longer takes listener calls.

    Like Todd Young. Brooks is a rabid NeoCon so Emmis Communications will go all out to protect her.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    Cuckold is a term that only relates to males. For female ‘conservative’ traitors the best phrase that comes to mind is either swinger, slut or shrew.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Maj. Kong


    Cuckold is a term that only relates to males.
     
    The term Cuckold derives from the fate of the sparrow who is fooled/coerced into raising the cuckoo's egg. Both the male and female sparrow parents are worked, sometimes to death to raise the cuckoo hatchling, but the sparrow is otherwise an innocent victim of its biological programing and subterfuge.

    However, with ex-Sen Richard Lugar and Rep Todd Young especially and perhaps ex-Gov Mitch Daniels as well I can imaging the Donor class having their files on them that insured they will do their bidding.

    Perhaps that is the case with Susan Brooks as well and she has some dark secrets in her past. But I really think she is just both that clueless and unconcerned for her constituents. I have never heard one non donor originated talking point or position come out of Susan Brooks' mouth. Rep Brooks is most likely just an affirmative action woman in a man's job. Brooks is almost the Republican flipside to my congressman the truly pathetic Black Muslim Democrat Andre Carson who inherited his Grandma Julia's house seat representing Indianapolis.
  43. @AndrewR
    @Alec Leamas

    Unlike many reactionaries, I am not reflexively opposed to laws against hate speech in principle. Hate speech is harmful. But part of the problem is defining what is hateful and what isn't. And the bigger part of the problem is that these laws would not be impartially enforced. Many on the left openly call for explicitly anti-white "hate speech" laws.

    http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/hatespeech.pdf

    Replies: @dumpstersquirrel, @Jack D

    Note that the linked article was written by Bernardo Alexander Attias, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies,College of Arts, Media, and Communication,California State University, Northridge. Not exactly the Harvard Law Review.

    First Amendment jurisprudence is very well settled and clear and has support on the Supreme Court from both the liberal and conservative wings. You would need a lot more wise Latinas on the court to change this. Someone like Garland would not change a hair on the head of this body of law. Bernardo refers to the intellectual support for hate speech laws as “outsider jurisprudence” for good reason. Way outside, as in fringe.

    Non-outsider jurisprudence (which is to say settled law) says that with very narrow exceptions, our law does not punish mere speech that is not connected with action. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, can be punished. So ” I hate blacks” won’t cut it, but “Let’s go into the street, you and me, and beat up the first black [or white] person we see” could be construed as a crime. This is where the law stands now and the Overton Windows in the S. Ct. would have to do a whole lotta shifting to change it.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    The PDF references Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against "historically marginalized populations."

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob, @William Badwhite

  44. @Jim Don Bob
    @Diversity Heretic

    Roe vs. Wade was contrived too. So was Rosa Parks famous bus incident. Astro-turfing has been around since before it had a name.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    The Scopes trial was another contrived case.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Harry Baldwin

    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was a set up by the trolley companies trying to get a Jim Crow law that cost them money overturned. They recruited Mr. Plessy in part because he was so minimally black by appearance.

    It's not necessarily a bad idea to set up legal showdowns to answer questions that are up in the air at present. But it's weird how little it's known that so many famous cases were concocted.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Alec Leamas

  45. Richard Lugar was a favorite up-and-coming Republican politician of Richard Nixon, who was grooming him for higher office (he was the keynote speaker at the 72′ convention). Lugar has a long history of cuckservatism. For example, he was a long-time supporter of gun-control, getting an F-rating from the NRA.

  46. @Harry Baldwin
    @Jim Don Bob

    The Scopes trial was another contrived case.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was a set up by the trolley companies trying to get a Jim Crow law that cost them money overturned. They recruited Mr. Plessy in part because he was so minimally black by appearance.

    It’s not necessarily a bad idea to set up legal showdowns to answer questions that are up in the air at present. But it’s weird how little it’s known that so many famous cases were concocted.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Steve Sailer

    I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court's refusal to give advisory opinions. The refusal stems in part from the Constitutional requirement that there be a case or controversy to confer jurisdiction, and in part on policy considerations that a case is more effectively adjudicated when there are parties with something at stake. Some state supreme courts, on the other hand, do issue advisory opinions. It seems to me that an advisory opinion on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" might be helpful in the present circumstances in light of the Cruz candidacy. Waiting until a President is sworn in to decide whether he is qualified under the Constitution to hold the office is a recipe for disaster.

    Replies: @Ed

    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    The irony of overturning of Plessy vs Ferguson today is as Paul Kersey over at SBPDL repeatedly points out, is that due in part to a lack of "separate but equal" whites are now rightfully fearful of assault while using public transportation in "diverse" urban areas. Back in the 1890's letting the octoroon Mr Plessy sit in the "white" section would not have caused problems and would have saved the rail company a few shekels but surely the rail line plaintiffs on Plessy's side did not want color blind race mixing as a sane and profitable business model in New Orleans. The plaintiffs simply wanted for themselves the right to decide who was "white enough" or "socialized enough" to not have to sit in the "colored" section and pay the premium fare. Good business maybe, but tough law, simpler to stick with the mostly "one drop rule" world of Jim Crow.

    The sad fact is that environmentalists are butt hurt to admit is that the golden age of public transportation in "diverse" America was the "Separate but Equal", Plessy era.

    Only the mass adoption of the automobile allowed the SCOTUS the practical option of overturning Plessy as an early fine example of the trend towards "virtue signaling" as a judicial theory.

    Today moves to provide "light rail" in any urban area with a significant black population are strongly opposed by whites on "libertarian" grounds vs of course the real reasons, racial tension and black on white violence. This means only those whites without other options will use it and mostly white neighborhoods fearing the importation of black predatory behavior are strongly opposed.

    Public transportations still thrives in American's few remaining "Portlandias" and where an a still capable police presence with strong and still realist, if liberal, support insures public safety as in most of NYC and on Chicago's Northside and its suburban Metra commuter rail system.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

    , @Alec Leamas
    @Steve Sailer

    The issue is that in order for a case to be justiciable by the Supreme Court, there must be an actual controversy between the parties, defined as the parties seeking different and opposing results. If an actual controversy is not present, as in an "amicable" or "friendly" case, the Court is supposed to dismiss the matter.

    In cases like Lawrence, the parties practice a fraud in that they give the appearance of opposing one another, while both colluding within the litigation to engineer an outcome in which the desired policy is promulgated.

  47. @Steve Sailer
    @Harry Baldwin

    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was a set up by the trolley companies trying to get a Jim Crow law that cost them money overturned. They recruited Mr. Plessy in part because he was so minimally black by appearance.

    It's not necessarily a bad idea to set up legal showdowns to answer questions that are up in the air at present. But it's weird how little it's known that so many famous cases were concocted.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Alec Leamas

    I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court’s refusal to give advisory opinions. The refusal stems in part from the Constitutional requirement that there be a case or controversy to confer jurisdiction, and in part on policy considerations that a case is more effectively adjudicated when there are parties with something at stake. Some state supreme courts, on the other hand, do issue advisory opinions. It seems to me that an advisory opinion on what constitutes a “natural born citizen” might be helpful in the present circumstances in light of the Cruz candidacy. Waiting until a President is sworn in to decide whether he is qualified under the Constitution to hold the office is a recipe for disaster.

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Diversity Heretic

    "I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court’s refusal to give advisory opinions."

    I think the reason is exactly this.

    Lots of countries have followed the US in creating their version of a Supreme Court (its usually called something different) that rules on constitutional questions. However as later adopters they tend to make some improvements, and one of them is often allowing for advisory opinions. I remember from my comparative politics text that this is certainly the case in France and most likely true elsewhere. And you only see these sorts of contrived cases in the US.

    The potential for a workaround exists in the US, by way of Congress at the federal level issuing an advisory opinion by both Houses passing a resolution stating this is how some provision of federal law or the federal constitution should be interpreted. State legislatures could do the same for state laws and state constitutions, though not for federal laws. Courts will almost always respect that. The federal Supreme Court in its history has actually struck down very few federal laws, what it tends to go after are state laws and federal and state executive branch actions. Unless such a resolution is really, egregiously, ridiculously wrong they will respect that, and even ignoring a really wrong resolution would raise the question of how other parts of the government should treat some of the more ridiculous Supreme Court decisions.

    The natural born qualification for the presidency, as you noted, is something that really calls out for an advisory opinion, but it is also something that could definitely be handled by a Congressional resolution. But Senators that have been asked about this keep dodging the question.

    Replies: @Jack D

  48. @Steve Sailer
    @Harry Baldwin

    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was a set up by the trolley companies trying to get a Jim Crow law that cost them money overturned. They recruited Mr. Plessy in part because he was so minimally black by appearance.

    It's not necessarily a bad idea to set up legal showdowns to answer questions that are up in the air at present. But it's weird how little it's known that so many famous cases were concocted.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Alec Leamas

    Steve,

    The irony of overturning of Plessy vs Ferguson today is as Paul Kersey over at SBPDL repeatedly points out, is that due in part to a lack of “separate but equal” whites are now rightfully fearful of assault while using public transportation in “diverse” urban areas. Back in the 1890’s letting the octoroon Mr Plessy sit in the “white” section would not have caused problems and would have saved the rail company a few shekels but surely the rail line plaintiffs on Plessy’s side did not want color blind race mixing as a sane and profitable business model in New Orleans. The plaintiffs simply wanted for themselves the right to decide who was “white enough” or “socialized enough” to not have to sit in the “colored” section and pay the premium fare. Good business maybe, but tough law, simpler to stick with the mostly “one drop rule” world of Jim Crow.

    The sad fact is that environmentalists are butt hurt to admit is that the golden age of public transportation in “diverse” America was the “Separate but Equal”, Plessy era.

    Only the mass adoption of the automobile allowed the SCOTUS the practical option of overturning Plessy as an early fine example of the trend towards “virtue signaling” as a judicial theory.

    Today moves to provide “light rail” in any urban area with a significant black population are strongly opposed by whites on “libertarian” grounds vs of course the real reasons, racial tension and black on white violence. This means only those whites without other options will use it and mostly white neighborhoods fearing the importation of black predatory behavior are strongly opposed.

    Public transportations still thrives in American’s few remaining “Portlandias” and where an a still capable police presence with strong and still realist, if liberal, support insures public safety as in most of NYC and on Chicago’s Northside and its suburban Metra commuter rail system.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    The irony of "integration" is that it led only to more segregation. In Philadelphia, we had Girard College (not actually college but a boarding prep school/orphanage) that was set up in 1831 under the will of Stephen Girard for the benefit of “poor, white, male, orphans". In the 1960s, there was a legal battle to "integrate" the school and they enrolled their first black student. Today, 2% of the students are white.

    , @Ed
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    This is a really interesting argument (basically that white Americans won't use integrated mass transit, so striking down segregation ruined mass transit). However, there are powerful alternative explanations for the US adopting the car as its primary means of transit.

    Basically making the car the primary means of transit for Americans made alot of sense in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. At the time, the US was the main oil producer in the world by a large margin, like Saudi Arabia (which is just now installing mass transit) has been over the past few decades. Population was growing more than in European, meaning lots of new neighborhoods had to be created, and there was plenty of space to spread out. The US also had the strongest car manufacturing industry in the world. There is more in this vein, but all of this is sufficient to explain a preference for using cars.

    People didn't anticipate how much the population would grow -especially as the growth has mainly come from post-1964 immigration- and therefore how bad traffic would get. Good estimates on how much oil there really was to exploit didn't start coming out until the 1960s, similar with pollution, and there are people who still think there is plenty of oil left and burning the stuff doesn't really damage the environment.

    What crime and other fall-outs of desegregation may have done was to keep the US from switching back to mass transit in the 1970s, when more evidence started coming out about the costs of relying so heavily on cars.

    The rest of the world also switched to cars and dismantled much of their passenger rail about the same time. The process was in fact more complete in South American and South Africa. You can argue in the case of places like Brazil and South Africa that they had the same racial issues to deal with as the US, but in South Africa the trains would have been segregated in the 1950s and 1960s and remained segregated until about 1990.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad

  49. I heard Constitutional scholar John Eastman make the analogy: if a police officer declines to pull you over for traveling five miles per hour over the speed limit, he’s exercising discretion in that particular instance, not granting lawful status to your speeding.

    So yesterday I posed the question to my classmates and law professor, and online to immigration advocate @mkolken: Can the executive grant “lawful presence,” and consequent eligibility for Social Security and other benefits, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

    I haven’t gotten a clear answer.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Evan McLaren

    I am not a lawyer, though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, but a cop not giving someone a ticket and Obama granting legal status are completely different things. The cops action is passive; he is exercising discretion about enforcing the speed limit. Obama's action is active; he is granting status and privileges without any legal authority.

    But, hey, he enforced his version of GM's bankruptcy, opened an embassy in Cuba, etc. despite laws to the contrary. He has boasted, "I have a phone and a pen" and has used them to do what he wants, knowing that Congress would never dare even murmur the word impeachment.

    Replies: @Evan McLaren

  50. @Maj. Kong
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    Cuckold is a term that only relates to males. For female 'conservative' traitors the best phrase that comes to mind is either swinger, slut or shrew.

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    Cuckold is a term that only relates to males.

    The term Cuckold derives from the fate of the sparrow who is fooled/coerced into raising the cuckoo’s egg. Both the male and female sparrow parents are worked, sometimes to death to raise the cuckoo hatchling, but the sparrow is otherwise an innocent victim of its biological programing and subterfuge.

    However, with ex-Sen Richard Lugar and Rep Todd Young especially and perhaps ex-Gov Mitch Daniels as well I can imaging the Donor class having their files on them that insured they will do their bidding.

    Perhaps that is the case with Susan Brooks as well and she has some dark secrets in her past. But I really think she is just both that clueless and unconcerned for her constituents. I have never heard one non donor originated talking point or position come out of Susan Brooks’ mouth. Rep Brooks is most likely just an affirmative action woman in a man’s job. Brooks is almost the Republican flipside to my congressman the truly pathetic Black Muslim Democrat Andre Carson who inherited his Grandma Julia’s house seat representing Indianapolis.

  51. @Jack D
    @AndrewR

    Note that the linked article was written by Bernardo Alexander Attias, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Studies,College of Arts, Media, and Communication,California State University, Northridge. Not exactly the Harvard Law Review.

    First Amendment jurisprudence is very well settled and clear and has support on the Supreme Court from both the liberal and conservative wings. You would need a lot more wise Latinas on the court to change this. Someone like Garland would not change a hair on the head of this body of law. Bernardo refers to the intellectual support for hate speech laws as "outsider jurisprudence" for good reason. Way outside, as in fringe.

    Non-outsider jurisprudence (which is to say settled law) says that with very narrow exceptions, our law does not punish mere speech that is not connected with action. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, can be punished. So " I hate blacks" won't cut it, but "Let's go into the street, you and me, and beat up the first black [or white] person we see" could be construed as a crime. This is where the law stands now and the Overton Windows in the S. Ct. would have to do a whole lotta shifting to change it.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    The PDF references Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against “historically marginalized populations.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AndrewR

    As I said before, get 5 wise Latinas (Hawaiian Japanese female leftist law professors, etc.) on the court and you might change the law but for now it's not going anywhere because, believe it or not, there are still some shreds of intellectual integrity left on the Supreme Court. What a surprise that Prof. Matsuda wants a special law that privileges her group. How fortunate that hating on white men would be no problem under her law. The University of Hawaii is not exactly at the pinnacle of American legal thought either.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @AndrewR

    As Jesse Jackson once famously said, "Blacks can't be racist because they don't have any power".

    , @William Badwhite
    @AndrewR

    "Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against “historically marginalized populations.”

    I find Asians complaining about racism, discrimination, oppression, etc to be extremely offensive. It is an act of overt hostility to founding stock Americans.

    Nobody forced them to come to this country. For the most part, they've been treated extremely well. Calling themselves "historically marginalized" is a form of aggression and stealing. Matsuda should feel free to return to her ancestral homeland.

    Btw, one of the reasons Roosevelt ordered some "Japanese-Americans" interned during WW2 was because not a small number of them were collaborating with Japan, doing things such as reporting which ships left west coast ports and when. We knew this because we had broken the MAGIC codes. Yes I'm sure numerous among them were loyal and innocent, however the usual nonsense that the internments were due to "hysteria" is nonsense. Also, it wasn't all "Japanese-Americans", it was only those living in certain designated zones, mostly around major ports.

    Replies: @Jack D

  52. @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    The PDF references Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against "historically marginalized populations."

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob, @William Badwhite

    As I said before, get 5 wise Latinas (Hawaiian Japanese female leftist law professors, etc.) on the court and you might change the law but for now it’s not going anywhere because, believe it or not, there are still some shreds of intellectual integrity left on the Supreme Court. What a surprise that Prof. Matsuda wants a special law that privileges her group. How fortunate that hating on white men would be no problem under her law. The University of Hawaii is not exactly at the pinnacle of American legal thought either.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    Yes I read that but I don't understand why you think it's improbable that we will get at least five openly anti-white justices on the court within the next few decades. Look at the demographic and ideological changes occurring and projected to occur, then fast forward another generation to when the bulk of today's SJWs are old enough to become nominated to federal courts. Matsuda is already old like the Wise Latina. Their views are even more common among younger people than among their own fossilizing generation. Your optimism is unwarranted. I'm sorry.

  53. @Diversity Heretic
    @Steve Sailer

    I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court's refusal to give advisory opinions. The refusal stems in part from the Constitutional requirement that there be a case or controversy to confer jurisdiction, and in part on policy considerations that a case is more effectively adjudicated when there are parties with something at stake. Some state supreme courts, on the other hand, do issue advisory opinions. It seems to me that an advisory opinion on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" might be helpful in the present circumstances in light of the Cruz candidacy. Waiting until a President is sworn in to decide whether he is qualified under the Constitution to hold the office is a recipe for disaster.

    Replies: @Ed

    “I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court’s refusal to give advisory opinions.”

    I think the reason is exactly this.

    Lots of countries have followed the US in creating their version of a Supreme Court (its usually called something different) that rules on constitutional questions. However as later adopters they tend to make some improvements, and one of them is often allowing for advisory opinions. I remember from my comparative politics text that this is certainly the case in France and most likely true elsewhere. And you only see these sorts of contrived cases in the US.

    The potential for a workaround exists in the US, by way of Congress at the federal level issuing an advisory opinion by both Houses passing a resolution stating this is how some provision of federal law or the federal constitution should be interpreted. State legislatures could do the same for state laws and state constitutions, though not for federal laws. Courts will almost always respect that. The federal Supreme Court in its history has actually struck down very few federal laws, what it tends to go after are state laws and federal and state executive branch actions. Unless such a resolution is really, egregiously, ridiculously wrong they will respect that, and even ignoring a really wrong resolution would raise the question of how other parts of the government should treat some of the more ridiculous Supreme Court decisions.

    The natural born qualification for the presidency, as you noted, is something that really calls out for an advisory opinion, but it is also something that could definitely be handled by a Congressional resolution. But Senators that have been asked about this keep dodging the question.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Ed

    The Supreme Court also looks at the "legislative history" of a law for clues about what the drafter's meant - what was said in debate on the floor of Congress, in committee reports, etc.

    If Congress really wants to clarify a law, they can pass another law rather than just a resolution and that law will overrule any Supreme Court ruling regarding the interpretation of the statute except if the ruling was based on Constitutional grounds and not the words of the statute. But in practice, it is often difficult to get new legislation passed so Supreme Court rulings, even questionable ones, end up being the law for many decades. And the Supreme Court is reluctant to overrule its own past rulings, though it does now and then. Not to mention that the Supreme Court can always invent some Constitutional dimension (the "right of privacy" ) so that nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can overrule them.

    Even in Constitutional matters, Congress has a lot of discretion - the Constitution specifies a patent system and a bankruptcy system and a system of naturalization but the legislation is what puts flesh on the bones outlined in the Constitution. They can't completely contradict the Constitution but they can do quite a bit around the margins. So for example the Constitution says that patents and copyrights are for "limited Times" but don't say how long that is, so copyright (thanks to Disney and the MPAA and deep thinker Sonny Bono) has gone from a couple of decades to over a century (while the duration of patents hasn't changed much at all).

  54. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    The irony of overturning of Plessy vs Ferguson today is as Paul Kersey over at SBPDL repeatedly points out, is that due in part to a lack of "separate but equal" whites are now rightfully fearful of assault while using public transportation in "diverse" urban areas. Back in the 1890's letting the octoroon Mr Plessy sit in the "white" section would not have caused problems and would have saved the rail company a few shekels but surely the rail line plaintiffs on Plessy's side did not want color blind race mixing as a sane and profitable business model in New Orleans. The plaintiffs simply wanted for themselves the right to decide who was "white enough" or "socialized enough" to not have to sit in the "colored" section and pay the premium fare. Good business maybe, but tough law, simpler to stick with the mostly "one drop rule" world of Jim Crow.

    The sad fact is that environmentalists are butt hurt to admit is that the golden age of public transportation in "diverse" America was the "Separate but Equal", Plessy era.

    Only the mass adoption of the automobile allowed the SCOTUS the practical option of overturning Plessy as an early fine example of the trend towards "virtue signaling" as a judicial theory.

    Today moves to provide "light rail" in any urban area with a significant black population are strongly opposed by whites on "libertarian" grounds vs of course the real reasons, racial tension and black on white violence. This means only those whites without other options will use it and mostly white neighborhoods fearing the importation of black predatory behavior are strongly opposed.

    Public transportations still thrives in American's few remaining "Portlandias" and where an a still capable police presence with strong and still realist, if liberal, support insures public safety as in most of NYC and on Chicago's Northside and its suburban Metra commuter rail system.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

    The irony of “integration” is that it led only to more segregation. In Philadelphia, we had Girard College (not actually college but a boarding prep school/orphanage) that was set up in 1831 under the will of Stephen Girard for the benefit of “poor, white, male, orphans”. In the 1960s, there was a legal battle to “integrate” the school and they enrolled their first black student. Today, 2% of the students are white.

  55. Ed says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Steve Sailer

    Steve,

    The irony of overturning of Plessy vs Ferguson today is as Paul Kersey over at SBPDL repeatedly points out, is that due in part to a lack of "separate but equal" whites are now rightfully fearful of assault while using public transportation in "diverse" urban areas. Back in the 1890's letting the octoroon Mr Plessy sit in the "white" section would not have caused problems and would have saved the rail company a few shekels but surely the rail line plaintiffs on Plessy's side did not want color blind race mixing as a sane and profitable business model in New Orleans. The plaintiffs simply wanted for themselves the right to decide who was "white enough" or "socialized enough" to not have to sit in the "colored" section and pay the premium fare. Good business maybe, but tough law, simpler to stick with the mostly "one drop rule" world of Jim Crow.

    The sad fact is that environmentalists are butt hurt to admit is that the golden age of public transportation in "diverse" America was the "Separate but Equal", Plessy era.

    Only the mass adoption of the automobile allowed the SCOTUS the practical option of overturning Plessy as an early fine example of the trend towards "virtue signaling" as a judicial theory.

    Today moves to provide "light rail" in any urban area with a significant black population are strongly opposed by whites on "libertarian" grounds vs of course the real reasons, racial tension and black on white violence. This means only those whites without other options will use it and mostly white neighborhoods fearing the importation of black predatory behavior are strongly opposed.

    Public transportations still thrives in American's few remaining "Portlandias" and where an a still capable police presence with strong and still realist, if liberal, support insures public safety as in most of NYC and on Chicago's Northside and its suburban Metra commuter rail system.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed

    This is a really interesting argument (basically that white Americans won’t use integrated mass transit, so striking down segregation ruined mass transit). However, there are powerful alternative explanations for the US adopting the car as its primary means of transit.

    Basically making the car the primary means of transit for Americans made alot of sense in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. At the time, the US was the main oil producer in the world by a large margin, like Saudi Arabia (which is just now installing mass transit) has been over the past few decades. Population was growing more than in European, meaning lots of new neighborhoods had to be created, and there was plenty of space to spread out. The US also had the strongest car manufacturing industry in the world. There is more in this vein, but all of this is sufficient to explain a preference for using cars.

    People didn’t anticipate how much the population would grow -especially as the growth has mainly come from post-1964 immigration- and therefore how bad traffic would get. Good estimates on how much oil there really was to exploit didn’t start coming out until the 1960s, similar with pollution, and there are people who still think there is plenty of oil left and burning the stuff doesn’t really damage the environment.

    What crime and other fall-outs of desegregation may have done was to keep the US from switching back to mass transit in the 1970s, when more evidence started coming out about the costs of relying so heavily on cars.

    The rest of the world also switched to cars and dismantled much of their passenger rail about the same time. The process was in fact more complete in South American and South Africa. You can argue in the case of places like Brazil and South Africa that they had the same racial issues to deal with as the US, but in South Africa the trains would have been segregated in the 1950s and 1960s and remained segregated until about 1990.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Ed

    The factors that you mention are certainly important, but there is also a "tipping point" phenomenon when it comes to desegregation. Once any institution/area/thing becomes roughly 30% minority, the rest of the whites flee and then it becomes almost 100% minority. This was the rationale for the "black a block" thing that they did in Oak Park, IL that Steve has mentioned.

    So, for example you could compare mass transit in two roughly comparable cities - say Philadelphia and Boston. With its higher % of whites and lots of college students, white people continued to use the T in Boston along with minorities, but in Philadelphia the city transit system (not the suburban trains) "tipped" and most white people avoid it for the most part. Oil prices, car ownership, yadda, yadda were all more or less the same in both cities but the differing racial demographics caused a different outcome.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    , @AnotherDad
    @Ed

    Ed, terrific thoughtful posts by both you and Mr. Antimarxist. You guys covered the ground well.

    Let me throw in the other--admittedly super-obvious--factor. Cars are really a huge leap forward in freedom, utility and privacy. With public transit you have to go where and when they want to take you. It's just a huge, huge leap forward to be to just saddle up when you want and drive *directly* there yourself. And you get to do it ... privately. In you space, with your friends or your junk--no one else peering in at what you're doing. (Cars were obviously a big part of changing sexual-mores.)

    People used to be confined by localism. Even if you had something cool nearby--the beach, mountains, a lake, the woods. You had to either saddle up the horse, or hitch it to a wagon. Or you could go only where some railroad had decided to offer tourist service. Whereas, if the spirit had moved me today ... "hot day ... lemme go down to Mt.Rainier", i could have tossed a cooler in the car and hit the road. (Hmm, maybe a quick jaunt this evening to Snoqualmie Falls with AnotherMom?)

    Whenever income rises in a developing country--even nations that are blessedly undiverse--people jump at the chance to get a car once they can afford it. The freedom boost is so powerful ... everyone wants it.

    Replies: @Jack D

  56. @Steve Sailer
    @Harry Baldwin

    Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was a set up by the trolley companies trying to get a Jim Crow law that cost them money overturned. They recruited Mr. Plessy in part because he was so minimally black by appearance.

    It's not necessarily a bad idea to set up legal showdowns to answer questions that are up in the air at present. But it's weird how little it's known that so many famous cases were concocted.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Alec Leamas

    The issue is that in order for a case to be justiciable by the Supreme Court, there must be an actual controversy between the parties, defined as the parties seeking different and opposing results. If an actual controversy is not present, as in an “amicable” or “friendly” case, the Court is supposed to dismiss the matter.

    In cases like Lawrence, the parties practice a fraud in that they give the appearance of opposing one another, while both colluding within the litigation to engineer an outcome in which the desired policy is promulgated.

  57. @Ed
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    This is a really interesting argument (basically that white Americans won't use integrated mass transit, so striking down segregation ruined mass transit). However, there are powerful alternative explanations for the US adopting the car as its primary means of transit.

    Basically making the car the primary means of transit for Americans made alot of sense in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. At the time, the US was the main oil producer in the world by a large margin, like Saudi Arabia (which is just now installing mass transit) has been over the past few decades. Population was growing more than in European, meaning lots of new neighborhoods had to be created, and there was plenty of space to spread out. The US also had the strongest car manufacturing industry in the world. There is more in this vein, but all of this is sufficient to explain a preference for using cars.

    People didn't anticipate how much the population would grow -especially as the growth has mainly come from post-1964 immigration- and therefore how bad traffic would get. Good estimates on how much oil there really was to exploit didn't start coming out until the 1960s, similar with pollution, and there are people who still think there is plenty of oil left and burning the stuff doesn't really damage the environment.

    What crime and other fall-outs of desegregation may have done was to keep the US from switching back to mass transit in the 1970s, when more evidence started coming out about the costs of relying so heavily on cars.

    The rest of the world also switched to cars and dismantled much of their passenger rail about the same time. The process was in fact more complete in South American and South Africa. You can argue in the case of places like Brazil and South Africa that they had the same racial issues to deal with as the US, but in South Africa the trains would have been segregated in the 1950s and 1960s and remained segregated until about 1990.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad

    The factors that you mention are certainly important, but there is also a “tipping point” phenomenon when it comes to desegregation. Once any institution/area/thing becomes roughly 30% minority, the rest of the whites flee and then it becomes almost 100% minority. This was the rationale for the “black a block” thing that they did in Oak Park, IL that Steve has mentioned.

    So, for example you could compare mass transit in two roughly comparable cities – say Philadelphia and Boston. With its higher % of whites and lots of college students, white people continued to use the T in Boston along with minorities, but in Philadelphia the city transit system (not the suburban trains) “tipped” and most white people avoid it for the most part. Oil prices, car ownership, yadda, yadda were all more or less the same in both cities but the differing racial demographics caused a different outcome.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D

    I grew up in Philadelphia in the 1980s and 1990s during the Section 8 nonsense that destroyed vast areas of the City. I think the regional rail lines are the way they are relative to Boston for several reasons - white residents of Philadelphia were more proportionately blue collar workers, with a relative few white collar and office workers, and therefore they didn't need to collect in one general area of the City to earn their daily bread. Until maybe 10-15 or so years ago, Center City Philadelphia closed at or before 5, and there just wasn't much activity. Parking wasn't as scarce as it is now. There just weren't too many good reasons to regularly visit Center City for business or pleasure. As a kid it was maybe a once a year thing to visit the Liberty Bell, blankly stare at the Constitution for the requisite time to please a teacher, maybe the Betsey Ross house or one of the Museums with a program appealing to children.

    All of this seems to have changed with massive gentrification precipitated by a reduction in violent crime since the mid 1990s and a concerted plan on the part of some movers and shakers to aggressively and proactively police the area around City Hall radiating outward to encourage commercial activity and residency by higher income (viz, white) people. Now plenty of white people ride regional rail to work in Center City, while the elevated system is still viewed as a potential no go zone.

    It's going to be interesting to see whether the Ferguson Effect (buried lede - shooting victims up 44% over last year http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160419_Philly_s_bloody_weekend_the_latest_in_a_violent_first_quarter_of_year.html ) will reverse this trend.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed, @Big Bill

  58. @Jack D
    @AndrewR

    As I said before, get 5 wise Latinas (Hawaiian Japanese female leftist law professors, etc.) on the court and you might change the law but for now it's not going anywhere because, believe it or not, there are still some shreds of intellectual integrity left on the Supreme Court. What a surprise that Prof. Matsuda wants a special law that privileges her group. How fortunate that hating on white men would be no problem under her law. The University of Hawaii is not exactly at the pinnacle of American legal thought either.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Yes I read that but I don’t understand why you think it’s improbable that we will get at least five openly anti-white justices on the court within the next few decades. Look at the demographic and ideological changes occurring and projected to occur, then fast forward another generation to when the bulk of today’s SJWs are old enough to become nominated to federal courts. Matsuda is already old like the Wise Latina. Their views are even more common among younger people than among their own fossilizing generation. Your optimism is unwarranted. I’m sorry.

  59. @Evan McLaren
    I heard Constitutional scholar John Eastman make the analogy: if a police officer declines to pull you over for traveling five miles per hour over the speed limit, he's exercising discretion in that particular instance, not granting lawful status to your speeding.

    So yesterday I posed the question to my classmates and law professor, and online to immigration advocate @mkolken: Can the executive grant "lawful presence," and consequent eligibility for Social Security and other benefits, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

    I haven't gotten a clear answer.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I am not a lawyer, though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, but a cop not giving someone a ticket and Obama granting legal status are completely different things. The cops action is passive; he is exercising discretion about enforcing the speed limit. Obama’s action is active; he is granting status and privileges without any legal authority.

    But, hey, he enforced his version of GM’s bankruptcy, opened an embassy in Cuba, etc. despite laws to the contrary. He has boasted, “I have a phone and a pen” and has used them to do what he wants, knowing that Congress would never dare even murmur the word impeachment.

    • Replies: @Evan McLaren
    @Jim Don Bob

    That they are completely different things is the point of the analogy.

  60. @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    The PDF references Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against "historically marginalized populations."

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob, @William Badwhite

    As Jesse Jackson once famously said, “Blacks can’t be racist because they don’t have any power”.

  61. @Ed
    @Diversity Heretic

    "I wonder if contrived cases result, at least in part, from the Supreme Court’s refusal to give advisory opinions."

    I think the reason is exactly this.

    Lots of countries have followed the US in creating their version of a Supreme Court (its usually called something different) that rules on constitutional questions. However as later adopters they tend to make some improvements, and one of them is often allowing for advisory opinions. I remember from my comparative politics text that this is certainly the case in France and most likely true elsewhere. And you only see these sorts of contrived cases in the US.

    The potential for a workaround exists in the US, by way of Congress at the federal level issuing an advisory opinion by both Houses passing a resolution stating this is how some provision of federal law or the federal constitution should be interpreted. State legislatures could do the same for state laws and state constitutions, though not for federal laws. Courts will almost always respect that. The federal Supreme Court in its history has actually struck down very few federal laws, what it tends to go after are state laws and federal and state executive branch actions. Unless such a resolution is really, egregiously, ridiculously wrong they will respect that, and even ignoring a really wrong resolution would raise the question of how other parts of the government should treat some of the more ridiculous Supreme Court decisions.

    The natural born qualification for the presidency, as you noted, is something that really calls out for an advisory opinion, but it is also something that could definitely be handled by a Congressional resolution. But Senators that have been asked about this keep dodging the question.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The Supreme Court also looks at the “legislative history” of a law for clues about what the drafter’s meant – what was said in debate on the floor of Congress, in committee reports, etc.

    If Congress really wants to clarify a law, they can pass another law rather than just a resolution and that law will overrule any Supreme Court ruling regarding the interpretation of the statute except if the ruling was based on Constitutional grounds and not the words of the statute. But in practice, it is often difficult to get new legislation passed so Supreme Court rulings, even questionable ones, end up being the law for many decades. And the Supreme Court is reluctant to overrule its own past rulings, though it does now and then. Not to mention that the Supreme Court can always invent some Constitutional dimension (the “right of privacy” ) so that nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can overrule them.

    Even in Constitutional matters, Congress has a lot of discretion – the Constitution specifies a patent system and a bankruptcy system and a system of naturalization but the legislation is what puts flesh on the bones outlined in the Constitution. They can’t completely contradict the Constitution but they can do quite a bit around the margins. So for example the Constitution says that patents and copyrights are for “limited Times” but don’t say how long that is, so copyright (thanks to Disney and the MPAA and deep thinker Sonny Bono) has gone from a couple of decades to over a century (while the duration of patents hasn’t changed much at all).

  62. @Jack D
    @Ed

    The factors that you mention are certainly important, but there is also a "tipping point" phenomenon when it comes to desegregation. Once any institution/area/thing becomes roughly 30% minority, the rest of the whites flee and then it becomes almost 100% minority. This was the rationale for the "black a block" thing that they did in Oak Park, IL that Steve has mentioned.

    So, for example you could compare mass transit in two roughly comparable cities - say Philadelphia and Boston. With its higher % of whites and lots of college students, white people continued to use the T in Boston along with minorities, but in Philadelphia the city transit system (not the suburban trains) "tipped" and most white people avoid it for the most part. Oil prices, car ownership, yadda, yadda were all more or less the same in both cities but the differing racial demographics caused a different outcome.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    I grew up in Philadelphia in the 1980s and 1990s during the Section 8 nonsense that destroyed vast areas of the City. I think the regional rail lines are the way they are relative to Boston for several reasons – white residents of Philadelphia were more proportionately blue collar workers, with a relative few white collar and office workers, and therefore they didn’t need to collect in one general area of the City to earn their daily bread. Until maybe 10-15 or so years ago, Center City Philadelphia closed at or before 5, and there just wasn’t much activity. Parking wasn’t as scarce as it is now. There just weren’t too many good reasons to regularly visit Center City for business or pleasure. As a kid it was maybe a once a year thing to visit the Liberty Bell, blankly stare at the Constitution for the requisite time to please a teacher, maybe the Betsey Ross house or one of the Museums with a program appealing to children.

    All of this seems to have changed with massive gentrification precipitated by a reduction in violent crime since the mid 1990s and a concerted plan on the part of some movers and shakers to aggressively and proactively police the area around City Hall radiating outward to encourage commercial activity and residency by higher income (viz, white) people. Now plenty of white people ride regional rail to work in Center City, while the elevated system is still viewed as a potential no go zone.

    It’s going to be interesting to see whether the Ferguson Effect (buried lede – shooting victims up 44% over last year http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160419_Philly_s_bloody_weekend_the_latest_in_a_violent_first_quarter_of_year.html ) will reverse this trend.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas

    So far it is mostly blacks just killing other blacks - these stories never get beyond one day items on page 12 of the local newspaper. And not only are these incidents racially isolated (so far) they are also geographically isolated to certain neighborhoods. You could walk thru Rittenhouse Square forever and not see anything like this. At this point, people have billions of $ tied up in real estate and it would take a lot to send them fleeing again.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    , @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    This is off topic, but on Philadelphia, I'll out myself as one of the white relatively high status people gentrifying Center City. I moved here a couple of years ago. I also visited Philadelphia in the 1980s as a child and do remember Center City as an empty place that you went to to see the historical sites.

    I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1970s and 1980s. Long term residents of Philadelphia won't like this, but when people in New York ask me "what is Philadelphia like? Its like Brooklyn, right?", I have to agree with them. The gentrification in Center City reminds me alot of the gentrification of the neighborhoods around downtown Brooklyn, in good and bad ways. I also remember when Brooklyn was considered to be crime ridden, somewhat lower class, in decline from years from past glories, also with a large Black population (larger as a % than at present) and lots of no-go neighborhoods. However, the greater proximity to Manhattan makes a difference.

    I have gotten the impression that the Black neighborhoods in Philly, in the northern and western parts of the city, are more crime ridden and impoverished than their Brooklyn counterparts, but its a matter of degree.

    However, in New York, there were people who stayed away from the subways, but they always retained a substantial white ridership, even when all the cars were covered with graffiti. Things seem to have been different elsewhere. Maybe the subways are too useful in New York. But I used to take one of the Els here, and then a bus, to work (reverse commute), and have ridden on both lines and actually have not noticed any absence of white riders, so I think things have changed.

    Also, in all cities much of mass transit serves working class or poorer neighborhoods where there is really no reason to go to them, regardless of crime, if you don't live there. The industries which were once there have left and there are no jobs or civic amenities. That seems to be true of northern and northeast Philly.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Jack D

    , @Big Bill
    @Alec Leamas

    From your link:


    "We have to start framing violence as a public health crisis," he said. "We need to deal with the unacknowledged and undiagnosed trauma that exists in our communities."
     
    Translation: "Get more [white] federal and state money for more ghetto programs, hire more [black] administrators and secretaries and social workers, and rent local [ghetto] office space."
  63. @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D

    I grew up in Philadelphia in the 1980s and 1990s during the Section 8 nonsense that destroyed vast areas of the City. I think the regional rail lines are the way they are relative to Boston for several reasons - white residents of Philadelphia were more proportionately blue collar workers, with a relative few white collar and office workers, and therefore they didn't need to collect in one general area of the City to earn their daily bread. Until maybe 10-15 or so years ago, Center City Philadelphia closed at or before 5, and there just wasn't much activity. Parking wasn't as scarce as it is now. There just weren't too many good reasons to regularly visit Center City for business or pleasure. As a kid it was maybe a once a year thing to visit the Liberty Bell, blankly stare at the Constitution for the requisite time to please a teacher, maybe the Betsey Ross house or one of the Museums with a program appealing to children.

    All of this seems to have changed with massive gentrification precipitated by a reduction in violent crime since the mid 1990s and a concerted plan on the part of some movers and shakers to aggressively and proactively police the area around City Hall radiating outward to encourage commercial activity and residency by higher income (viz, white) people. Now plenty of white people ride regional rail to work in Center City, while the elevated system is still viewed as a potential no go zone.

    It's going to be interesting to see whether the Ferguson Effect (buried lede - shooting victims up 44% over last year http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160419_Philly_s_bloody_weekend_the_latest_in_a_violent_first_quarter_of_year.html ) will reverse this trend.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed, @Big Bill

    So far it is mostly blacks just killing other blacks – these stories never get beyond one day items on page 12 of the local newspaper. And not only are these incidents racially isolated (so far) they are also geographically isolated to certain neighborhoods. You could walk thru Rittenhouse Square forever and not see anything like this. At this point, people have billions of $ tied up in real estate and it would take a lot to send them fleeing again.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D

    This is true to a certain point but when shootings rise less police resources are available to tackle other serious crimes and nuisances. Quality of life declines precipitously, and at a certain point people decide the trouble isn't worth it. The inevitable discovery of a few blonde female college graduates in dumpsters has a way of making the point.

    So much of the real estate investment is focused on the rental market, whether as apartments or townhomes/condos. Those populations are more mobile than that of my neighborhood in Northeast Philadelphia, which was originally solidly middle class. The Ferguson effect, which could be the tip of the iceberg if Hillary or Bernie get the opportunity to reverse the status quo of the 1994 VCCLEA could change a lot of minds. It doesn't happen at once, but is rather a death spiral over time.

  64. Ed says:
    @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D

    I grew up in Philadelphia in the 1980s and 1990s during the Section 8 nonsense that destroyed vast areas of the City. I think the regional rail lines are the way they are relative to Boston for several reasons - white residents of Philadelphia were more proportionately blue collar workers, with a relative few white collar and office workers, and therefore they didn't need to collect in one general area of the City to earn their daily bread. Until maybe 10-15 or so years ago, Center City Philadelphia closed at or before 5, and there just wasn't much activity. Parking wasn't as scarce as it is now. There just weren't too many good reasons to regularly visit Center City for business or pleasure. As a kid it was maybe a once a year thing to visit the Liberty Bell, blankly stare at the Constitution for the requisite time to please a teacher, maybe the Betsey Ross house or one of the Museums with a program appealing to children.

    All of this seems to have changed with massive gentrification precipitated by a reduction in violent crime since the mid 1990s and a concerted plan on the part of some movers and shakers to aggressively and proactively police the area around City Hall radiating outward to encourage commercial activity and residency by higher income (viz, white) people. Now plenty of white people ride regional rail to work in Center City, while the elevated system is still viewed as a potential no go zone.

    It's going to be interesting to see whether the Ferguson Effect (buried lede - shooting victims up 44% over last year http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160419_Philly_s_bloody_weekend_the_latest_in_a_violent_first_quarter_of_year.html ) will reverse this trend.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed, @Big Bill

    This is off topic, but on Philadelphia, I’ll out myself as one of the white relatively high status people gentrifying Center City. I moved here a couple of years ago. I also visited Philadelphia in the 1980s as a child and do remember Center City as an empty place that you went to to see the historical sites.

    I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1970s and 1980s. Long term residents of Philadelphia won’t like this, but when people in New York ask me “what is Philadelphia like? Its like Brooklyn, right?”, I have to agree with them. The gentrification in Center City reminds me alot of the gentrification of the neighborhoods around downtown Brooklyn, in good and bad ways. I also remember when Brooklyn was considered to be crime ridden, somewhat lower class, in decline from years from past glories, also with a large Black population (larger as a % than at present) and lots of no-go neighborhoods. However, the greater proximity to Manhattan makes a difference.

    I have gotten the impression that the Black neighborhoods in Philly, in the northern and western parts of the city, are more crime ridden and impoverished than their Brooklyn counterparts, but its a matter of degree.

    However, in New York, there were people who stayed away from the subways, but they always retained a substantial white ridership, even when all the cars were covered with graffiti. Things seem to have been different elsewhere. Maybe the subways are too useful in New York. But I used to take one of the Els here, and then a bus, to work (reverse commute), and have ridden on both lines and actually have not noticed any absence of white riders, so I think things have changed.

    Also, in all cities much of mass transit serves working class or poorer neighborhoods where there is really no reason to go to them, regardless of crime, if you don’t live there. The industries which were once there have left and there are no jobs or civic amenities. That seems to be true of northern and northeast Philly.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Ed

    The City and County of Philadelphia used to be considered so categorically unfriendly to business, so Plaintiff-friendly, and so crime ridden that much if not most of area commerce was conducted right on the suburban side of the County line. For example, you'd drive west on City Line Avenue and the Montgomery County side was entirely ridden with offices and restaurants and all manner of commercial activity, while the City side had nothing. Middle class whites often made a reverse commute - from their neighborhoods to a suburban place of business and back. That makes commuting by car much more convenient and fast. That has sort have always been the case with Northeast Philadelphia (wherein at one point in the 1980s there was proposed a plan to secede from Philadelphia due in large part to the disparity between taxes collected and City services rendered).

    I find the gentrification a bit strange. It's also homogenizing long existing neighborhoods.

    , @Jack D
    @Ed

    I don't think Philadelphia sank quite to the depths of Brooklyn after Brooklyn became part of NYC. It retained its own cultural and other institutions such as a world class symphony, important art museum, Ivy League universities, med schools, hospitals, some corporate HQs, zoo, etc. Brooklyn was pretty much stripped of all that stuff (Brooklyn Museum is a grand building but the collections are not all that important, there were big hospitals but nobody who had a choice would go to them). Brooklyn's civic energy was sucked into the giant black hole of Manhattan. That went on to a certain extent in Phila, but being further away the gravitational effect was not as great.

    But there were some similarities - the gentrified areas had shrunk to a few small prime park front or waterfront neighborhoods and the inner ring was surrounded by slums, with working class whites found at the far extremes. They were both hurt by the post-war deindustrialization of the Northeast. Both had vast black populations. The downtown core where the courthouses, etc. were located became ghost towns after dark. Etc.

  65. @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    This is off topic, but on Philadelphia, I'll out myself as one of the white relatively high status people gentrifying Center City. I moved here a couple of years ago. I also visited Philadelphia in the 1980s as a child and do remember Center City as an empty place that you went to to see the historical sites.

    I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1970s and 1980s. Long term residents of Philadelphia won't like this, but when people in New York ask me "what is Philadelphia like? Its like Brooklyn, right?", I have to agree with them. The gentrification in Center City reminds me alot of the gentrification of the neighborhoods around downtown Brooklyn, in good and bad ways. I also remember when Brooklyn was considered to be crime ridden, somewhat lower class, in decline from years from past glories, also with a large Black population (larger as a % than at present) and lots of no-go neighborhoods. However, the greater proximity to Manhattan makes a difference.

    I have gotten the impression that the Black neighborhoods in Philly, in the northern and western parts of the city, are more crime ridden and impoverished than their Brooklyn counterparts, but its a matter of degree.

    However, in New York, there were people who stayed away from the subways, but they always retained a substantial white ridership, even when all the cars were covered with graffiti. Things seem to have been different elsewhere. Maybe the subways are too useful in New York. But I used to take one of the Els here, and then a bus, to work (reverse commute), and have ridden on both lines and actually have not noticed any absence of white riders, so I think things have changed.

    Also, in all cities much of mass transit serves working class or poorer neighborhoods where there is really no reason to go to them, regardless of crime, if you don't live there. The industries which were once there have left and there are no jobs or civic amenities. That seems to be true of northern and northeast Philly.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Jack D

    The City and County of Philadelphia used to be considered so categorically unfriendly to business, so Plaintiff-friendly, and so crime ridden that much if not most of area commerce was conducted right on the suburban side of the County line. For example, you’d drive west on City Line Avenue and the Montgomery County side was entirely ridden with offices and restaurants and all manner of commercial activity, while the City side had nothing. Middle class whites often made a reverse commute – from their neighborhoods to a suburban place of business and back. That makes commuting by car much more convenient and fast. That has sort have always been the case with Northeast Philadelphia (wherein at one point in the 1980s there was proposed a plan to secede from Philadelphia due in large part to the disparity between taxes collected and City services rendered).

    I find the gentrification a bit strange. It’s also homogenizing long existing neighborhoods.

  66. @Jack D
    @Alec Leamas

    So far it is mostly blacks just killing other blacks - these stories never get beyond one day items on page 12 of the local newspaper. And not only are these incidents racially isolated (so far) they are also geographically isolated to certain neighborhoods. You could walk thru Rittenhouse Square forever and not see anything like this. At this point, people have billions of $ tied up in real estate and it would take a lot to send them fleeing again.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    This is true to a certain point but when shootings rise less police resources are available to tackle other serious crimes and nuisances. Quality of life declines precipitously, and at a certain point people decide the trouble isn’t worth it. The inevitable discovery of a few blonde female college graduates in dumpsters has a way of making the point.

    So much of the real estate investment is focused on the rental market, whether as apartments or townhomes/condos. Those populations are more mobile than that of my neighborhood in Northeast Philadelphia, which was originally solidly middle class. The Ferguson effect, which could be the tip of the iceberg if Hillary or Bernie get the opportunity to reverse the status quo of the 1994 VCCLEA could change a lot of minds. It doesn’t happen at once, but is rather a death spiral over time.

  67. @Jim Don Bob
    @Evan McLaren

    I am not a lawyer, though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once, but a cop not giving someone a ticket and Obama granting legal status are completely different things. The cops action is passive; he is exercising discretion about enforcing the speed limit. Obama's action is active; he is granting status and privileges without any legal authority.

    But, hey, he enforced his version of GM's bankruptcy, opened an embassy in Cuba, etc. despite laws to the contrary. He has boasted, "I have a phone and a pen" and has used them to do what he wants, knowing that Congress would never dare even murmur the word impeachment.

    Replies: @Evan McLaren

    That they are completely different things is the point of the analogy.

  68. @Ed
    @Alec Leamas

    This is off topic, but on Philadelphia, I'll out myself as one of the white relatively high status people gentrifying Center City. I moved here a couple of years ago. I also visited Philadelphia in the 1980s as a child and do remember Center City as an empty place that you went to to see the historical sites.

    I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1970s and 1980s. Long term residents of Philadelphia won't like this, but when people in New York ask me "what is Philadelphia like? Its like Brooklyn, right?", I have to agree with them. The gentrification in Center City reminds me alot of the gentrification of the neighborhoods around downtown Brooklyn, in good and bad ways. I also remember when Brooklyn was considered to be crime ridden, somewhat lower class, in decline from years from past glories, also with a large Black population (larger as a % than at present) and lots of no-go neighborhoods. However, the greater proximity to Manhattan makes a difference.

    I have gotten the impression that the Black neighborhoods in Philly, in the northern and western parts of the city, are more crime ridden and impoverished than their Brooklyn counterparts, but its a matter of degree.

    However, in New York, there were people who stayed away from the subways, but they always retained a substantial white ridership, even when all the cars were covered with graffiti. Things seem to have been different elsewhere. Maybe the subways are too useful in New York. But I used to take one of the Els here, and then a bus, to work (reverse commute), and have ridden on both lines and actually have not noticed any absence of white riders, so I think things have changed.

    Also, in all cities much of mass transit serves working class or poorer neighborhoods where there is really no reason to go to them, regardless of crime, if you don't live there. The industries which were once there have left and there are no jobs or civic amenities. That seems to be true of northern and northeast Philly.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas, @Jack D

    I don’t think Philadelphia sank quite to the depths of Brooklyn after Brooklyn became part of NYC. It retained its own cultural and other institutions such as a world class symphony, important art museum, Ivy League universities, med schools, hospitals, some corporate HQs, zoo, etc. Brooklyn was pretty much stripped of all that stuff (Brooklyn Museum is a grand building but the collections are not all that important, there were big hospitals but nobody who had a choice would go to them). Brooklyn’s civic energy was sucked into the giant black hole of Manhattan. That went on to a certain extent in Phila, but being further away the gravitational effect was not as great.

    But there were some similarities – the gentrified areas had shrunk to a few small prime park front or waterfront neighborhoods and the inner ring was surrounded by slums, with working class whites found at the far extremes. They were both hurt by the post-war deindustrialization of the Northeast. Both had vast black populations. The downtown core where the courthouses, etc. were located became ghost towns after dark. Etc.

  69. @Desiderius
    1. They want to rule the world.

    2. The world is "diverse."

    3. Therefore, our country must be diverse, so our rule doesn't look ickily racist.

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “2. The world is “diverse.”

    Most countries in the world are racially homogeneous. How much racial diversity is there in Senegal for example? How many White and other Nonblack people live there?

  70. @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    The PDF references Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against "historically marginalized populations."

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob, @William Badwhite

    “Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against “historically marginalized populations.”

    I find Asians complaining about racism, discrimination, oppression, etc to be extremely offensive. It is an act of overt hostility to founding stock Americans.

    Nobody forced them to come to this country. For the most part, they’ve been treated extremely well. Calling themselves “historically marginalized” is a form of aggression and stealing. Matsuda should feel free to return to her ancestral homeland.

    Btw, one of the reasons Roosevelt ordered some “Japanese-Americans” interned during WW2 was because not a small number of them were collaborating with Japan, doing things such as reporting which ships left west coast ports and when. We knew this because we had broken the MAGIC codes. Yes I’m sure numerous among them were loyal and innocent, however the usual nonsense that the internments were due to “hysteria” is nonsense. Also, it wasn’t all “Japanese-Americans”, it was only those living in certain designated zones, mostly around major ports.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @William Badwhite

    Norm Mineta was the Secretary of Transportation after 9/11. On September 21, 2001, Mineta sent a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from practicing racial profiling; or subjecting Middle Eastern or Muslim passengers to a heightened degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He stated that it was illegal for the airlines to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion. Subsequently, administrative enforcement actions were brought against three different airlines based on alleged contraventions of these rules, resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements. He showed his intention "absolutely not" to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision "was the right thing (and) constitutional", based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had "lost the most basic human rights" by being discriminated against and interned during the Pacific War. [Wikipedia]

    So the next time your grandma gets selected for "random screening", you can thank FDR for locking up little Norm.

    I'm surprised that Wikipedia still refers to the war as the Pacific War. The correct terminology would be the War for the Re-Unification of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

    Replies: @William BadWhite

  71. @William Badwhite
    @AndrewR

    "Mari Matsuda, the first female of Asian descent to become tenured law profedsor in the US. It is she who has called for hate speech laws to only apply to speech against “historically marginalized populations.”

    I find Asians complaining about racism, discrimination, oppression, etc to be extremely offensive. It is an act of overt hostility to founding stock Americans.

    Nobody forced them to come to this country. For the most part, they've been treated extremely well. Calling themselves "historically marginalized" is a form of aggression and stealing. Matsuda should feel free to return to her ancestral homeland.

    Btw, one of the reasons Roosevelt ordered some "Japanese-Americans" interned during WW2 was because not a small number of them were collaborating with Japan, doing things such as reporting which ships left west coast ports and when. We knew this because we had broken the MAGIC codes. Yes I'm sure numerous among them were loyal and innocent, however the usual nonsense that the internments were due to "hysteria" is nonsense. Also, it wasn't all "Japanese-Americans", it was only those living in certain designated zones, mostly around major ports.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Norm Mineta was the Secretary of Transportation after 9/11. On September 21, 2001, Mineta sent a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from practicing racial profiling; or subjecting Middle Eastern or Muslim passengers to a heightened degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He stated that it was illegal for the airlines to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion. Subsequently, administrative enforcement actions were brought against three different airlines based on alleged contraventions of these rules, resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements. He showed his intention “absolutely not” to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision “was the right thing (and) constitutional”, based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had “lost the most basic human rights” by being discriminated against and interned during the Pacific War. [Wikipedia]

    So the next time your grandma gets selected for “random screening”, you can thank FDR for locking up little Norm.

    I’m surprised that Wikipedia still refers to the war as the Pacific War. The correct terminology would be the War for the Re-Unification of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @William BadWhite
    @Jack D

    " He showed his intention “absolutely not” to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision “was the right thing (and) constitutional”, based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had “lost the most basic human rights”.

    Poor Norm struggles with the concept of "constitutional". Otherwise, this makes sense: Some Japanese-Americans collaborate with their homeland at a time in the war where it was unclear we'd win (the internments took place before the Battle of Midway which pretty much ended it for the Japanese) and the evil FDR reacts in a fairly humane way by moving them away from the coasts where they couldn't...you know, collaborate. This act by FDR should by all means drive U.S. policy going forward because...Norm's feelings are important.

    After Midway when the Japanese lost four carriers, their ability to project power went to pretty much nil, they couldn't do much more than act as a speed bump to American advances. Midway ending the Japanese naval threat to anything east of Hawaii (really anything east of the central Pacific) somehow proves that there were no Japanese-Americans collaborating on the west coast and therefore RACISM.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  72. @Ed
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    This is a really interesting argument (basically that white Americans won't use integrated mass transit, so striking down segregation ruined mass transit). However, there are powerful alternative explanations for the US adopting the car as its primary means of transit.

    Basically making the car the primary means of transit for Americans made alot of sense in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. At the time, the US was the main oil producer in the world by a large margin, like Saudi Arabia (which is just now installing mass transit) has been over the past few decades. Population was growing more than in European, meaning lots of new neighborhoods had to be created, and there was plenty of space to spread out. The US also had the strongest car manufacturing industry in the world. There is more in this vein, but all of this is sufficient to explain a preference for using cars.

    People didn't anticipate how much the population would grow -especially as the growth has mainly come from post-1964 immigration- and therefore how bad traffic would get. Good estimates on how much oil there really was to exploit didn't start coming out until the 1960s, similar with pollution, and there are people who still think there is plenty of oil left and burning the stuff doesn't really damage the environment.

    What crime and other fall-outs of desegregation may have done was to keep the US from switching back to mass transit in the 1970s, when more evidence started coming out about the costs of relying so heavily on cars.

    The rest of the world also switched to cars and dismantled much of their passenger rail about the same time. The process was in fact more complete in South American and South Africa. You can argue in the case of places like Brazil and South Africa that they had the same racial issues to deal with as the US, but in South Africa the trains would have been segregated in the 1950s and 1960s and remained segregated until about 1990.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad

    Ed, terrific thoughtful posts by both you and Mr. Antimarxist. You guys covered the ground well.

    Let me throw in the other–admittedly super-obvious–factor. Cars are really a huge leap forward in freedom, utility and privacy. With public transit you have to go where and when they want to take you. It’s just a huge, huge leap forward to be to just saddle up when you want and drive *directly* there yourself. And you get to do it … privately. In you space, with your friends or your junk–no one else peering in at what you’re doing. (Cars were obviously a big part of changing sexual-mores.)

    People used to be confined by localism. Even if you had something cool nearby–the beach, mountains, a lake, the woods. You had to either saddle up the horse, or hitch it to a wagon. Or you could go only where some railroad had decided to offer tourist service. Whereas, if the spirit had moved me today … “hot day … lemme go down to Mt.Rainier”, i could have tossed a cooler in the car and hit the road. (Hmm, maybe a quick jaunt this evening to Snoqualmie Falls with AnotherMom?)

    Whenever income rises in a developing country–even nations that are blessedly undiverse–people jump at the chance to get a car once they can afford it. The freedom boost is so powerful … everyone wants it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Yes, everyone secretly wants to be American.

    In reality, once you discount for a couple of outlier city states (Monaco, San Marino), the US tops the world in vehicles per capita with around 800 vehicles for every 1,000 people. Japan, Germany and most EU countries run at around 600 vehicles per thousand, which is significantly but not shockingly lower. That these other countries lack America's wide open spaces is probably a factor but even Canada, despite its enormous size, is not as car mad as the US - most of the population is concentrated in a few big cities with excellent mass transit. Also "vehicle" could be a motor scooter or a Kei car or something a lot smaller than a 3 row SUV.

    If you live in a city with really intensive mass transit (which means just about no city in the US except maybe NY) it's really a pleasure to hop on the subway and pay less than you would have pay for a cup of coffee and zip under the city streets in no time and not have to deal with parking and traffic and all the headaches of a 2 ton steel monkey on your back that owns you as much as you own it. Now, where the transit really sucks, you would have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hands, but the pleasure of living in a city with an intensive mass transit system is unbeatable.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

  73. @AnotherDad
    @Ed

    Ed, terrific thoughtful posts by both you and Mr. Antimarxist. You guys covered the ground well.

    Let me throw in the other--admittedly super-obvious--factor. Cars are really a huge leap forward in freedom, utility and privacy. With public transit you have to go where and when they want to take you. It's just a huge, huge leap forward to be to just saddle up when you want and drive *directly* there yourself. And you get to do it ... privately. In you space, with your friends or your junk--no one else peering in at what you're doing. (Cars were obviously a big part of changing sexual-mores.)

    People used to be confined by localism. Even if you had something cool nearby--the beach, mountains, a lake, the woods. You had to either saddle up the horse, or hitch it to a wagon. Or you could go only where some railroad had decided to offer tourist service. Whereas, if the spirit had moved me today ... "hot day ... lemme go down to Mt.Rainier", i could have tossed a cooler in the car and hit the road. (Hmm, maybe a quick jaunt this evening to Snoqualmie Falls with AnotherMom?)

    Whenever income rises in a developing country--even nations that are blessedly undiverse--people jump at the chance to get a car once they can afford it. The freedom boost is so powerful ... everyone wants it.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Yes, everyone secretly wants to be American.

    In reality, once you discount for a couple of outlier city states (Monaco, San Marino), the US tops the world in vehicles per capita with around 800 vehicles for every 1,000 people. Japan, Germany and most EU countries run at around 600 vehicles per thousand, which is significantly but not shockingly lower. That these other countries lack America’s wide open spaces is probably a factor but even Canada, despite its enormous size, is not as car mad as the US – most of the population is concentrated in a few big cities with excellent mass transit. Also “vehicle” could be a motor scooter or a Kei car or something a lot smaller than a 3 row SUV.

    If you live in a city with really intensive mass transit (which means just about no city in the US except maybe NY) it’s really a pleasure to hop on the subway and pay less than you would have pay for a cup of coffee and zip under the city streets in no time and not have to deal with parking and traffic and all the headaches of a 2 ton steel monkey on your back that owns you as much as you own it. Now, where the transit really sucks, you would have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hands, but the pleasure of living in a city with an intensive mass transit system is unbeatable.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Jack D


    If you live in a city with really intensive mass transit (which means just about no city in the US except maybe NY) it’s really a pleasure to hop on the subway and pay less than you would have pay for a cup of coffee and zip under the city streets in no time and not have to deal with parking and traffic and all the headaches of a 2 ton steel monkey on your back that owns you as much as you own it. Now, where the transit really sucks, you would have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hands, but the pleasure of living in a city with an intensive mass transit system is unbeatable.

     

    Exellent observations. My experience living for many years in Hong Kong -- which has perhaps the best mass transit anywhere -- is just about the same. It's a great feeling getting around so quickly and smoothly (and yes, cheaply!), often without the need even to carry an umbrella on a rainy day, since your home and destination are both connected to subway stations via tunnels and covered walkways, while the cars up on the streets rot in traffic jams . . . .
  74. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Yes, everyone secretly wants to be American.

    In reality, once you discount for a couple of outlier city states (Monaco, San Marino), the US tops the world in vehicles per capita with around 800 vehicles for every 1,000 people. Japan, Germany and most EU countries run at around 600 vehicles per thousand, which is significantly but not shockingly lower. That these other countries lack America's wide open spaces is probably a factor but even Canada, despite its enormous size, is not as car mad as the US - most of the population is concentrated in a few big cities with excellent mass transit. Also "vehicle" could be a motor scooter or a Kei car or something a lot smaller than a 3 row SUV.

    If you live in a city with really intensive mass transit (which means just about no city in the US except maybe NY) it's really a pleasure to hop on the subway and pay less than you would have pay for a cup of coffee and zip under the city streets in no time and not have to deal with parking and traffic and all the headaches of a 2 ton steel monkey on your back that owns you as much as you own it. Now, where the transit really sucks, you would have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hands, but the pleasure of living in a city with an intensive mass transit system is unbeatable.

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    If you live in a city with really intensive mass transit (which means just about no city in the US except maybe NY) it’s really a pleasure to hop on the subway and pay less than you would have pay for a cup of coffee and zip under the city streets in no time and not have to deal with parking and traffic and all the headaches of a 2 ton steel monkey on your back that owns you as much as you own it. Now, where the transit really sucks, you would have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hands, but the pleasure of living in a city with an intensive mass transit system is unbeatable.

    Exellent observations. My experience living for many years in Hong Kong — which has perhaps the best mass transit anywhere — is just about the same. It’s a great feeling getting around so quickly and smoothly (and yes, cheaply!), often without the need even to carry an umbrella on a rainy day, since your home and destination are both connected to subway stations via tunnels and covered walkways, while the cars up on the streets rot in traffic jams . . . .

  75. @Alec Leamas
    @Ed

    The way to remove old and archaic statutes is to repeal them via the political process. Considering the volume of new laws, a law to repeal an old law that no one abides or likes should be rather easy.

    N.B., I believe that the anti-sodomy statute used by activists to create a Constitutional right to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was little or never enforced, but there are indications that its local enforcement in that case was a contrivance to create the test case with which to invalidate state anti-sodomy laws and pave the way for the most holy institution of Ghey Marriage. Discovery of the contrivance would arguably have provided grounds for the case to be dismissed as nonjusticiable for want of an actual controversy, so of course no media investigation was undertaken.

    Replies: @Ed, @Diversity Heretic, @Big Bill

    This “ginning up” of a case is standard operating procedure by progressive legal activists. Oftentimes activists will look for years for the perfect victim, the perfect set of facts, to challenge the law. Rosa Parks was carefully selected and groomed to be the perfect bus boycott lady. Roe (of Roe v. Wade) was carefully selected as the close-to-perfect victim to challenge the abortion laws.

    This careful selection of victims and facts lets one steer the law over a period of decades by nibbling at the edge of the legal fabric on issue after successive issue until many interlocking precedents are established.

    Pity that conservative activists don’t fund organizations to do the same thing.

  76. @Alec Leamas
    @Jack D

    I grew up in Philadelphia in the 1980s and 1990s during the Section 8 nonsense that destroyed vast areas of the City. I think the regional rail lines are the way they are relative to Boston for several reasons - white residents of Philadelphia were more proportionately blue collar workers, with a relative few white collar and office workers, and therefore they didn't need to collect in one general area of the City to earn their daily bread. Until maybe 10-15 or so years ago, Center City Philadelphia closed at or before 5, and there just wasn't much activity. Parking wasn't as scarce as it is now. There just weren't too many good reasons to regularly visit Center City for business or pleasure. As a kid it was maybe a once a year thing to visit the Liberty Bell, blankly stare at the Constitution for the requisite time to please a teacher, maybe the Betsey Ross house or one of the Museums with a program appealing to children.

    All of this seems to have changed with massive gentrification precipitated by a reduction in violent crime since the mid 1990s and a concerted plan on the part of some movers and shakers to aggressively and proactively police the area around City Hall radiating outward to encourage commercial activity and residency by higher income (viz, white) people. Now plenty of white people ride regional rail to work in Center City, while the elevated system is still viewed as a potential no go zone.

    It's going to be interesting to see whether the Ferguson Effect (buried lede - shooting victims up 44% over last year http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160419_Philly_s_bloody_weekend_the_latest_in_a_violent_first_quarter_of_year.html ) will reverse this trend.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Ed, @Big Bill

    From your link:

    “We have to start framing violence as a public health crisis,” he said. “We need to deal with the unacknowledged and undiagnosed trauma that exists in our communities.”

    Translation: “Get more [white] federal and state money for more ghetto programs, hire more [black] administrators and secretaries and social workers, and rent local [ghetto] office space.”

  77. @Jack D
    @William Badwhite

    Norm Mineta was the Secretary of Transportation after 9/11. On September 21, 2001, Mineta sent a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from practicing racial profiling; or subjecting Middle Eastern or Muslim passengers to a heightened degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He stated that it was illegal for the airlines to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin or religion. Subsequently, administrative enforcement actions were brought against three different airlines based on alleged contraventions of these rules, resulting in multimillion-dollar settlements. He showed his intention "absolutely not" to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision "was the right thing (and) constitutional", based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had "lost the most basic human rights" by being discriminated against and interned during the Pacific War. [Wikipedia]

    So the next time your grandma gets selected for "random screening", you can thank FDR for locking up little Norm.

    I'm surprised that Wikipedia still refers to the war as the Pacific War. The correct terminology would be the War for the Re-Unification of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

    Replies: @William BadWhite

    ” He showed his intention “absolutely not” to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision “was the right thing (and) constitutional”, based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had “lost the most basic human rights”.

    Poor Norm struggles with the concept of “constitutional”. Otherwise, this makes sense: Some Japanese-Americans collaborate with their homeland at a time in the war where it was unclear we’d win (the internments took place before the Battle of Midway which pretty much ended it for the Japanese) and the evil FDR reacts in a fairly humane way by moving them away from the coasts where they couldn’t…you know, collaborate. This act by FDR should by all means drive U.S. policy going forward because…Norm’s feelings are important.

    After Midway when the Japanese lost four carriers, their ability to project power went to pretty much nil, they couldn’t do much more than act as a speed bump to American advances. Midway ending the Japanese naval threat to anything east of Hawaii (really anything east of the central Pacific) somehow proves that there were no Japanese-Americans collaborating on the west coast and therefore RACISM.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @William BadWhite

    "the internments took place before the Battle of Midway which pretty much ended it for the Japanese"

    I believe most of the internments of Japanese were ordered before Midway (6/4/42) but carried out afterwards.

    J. Edgar Hoover advised against interning the big Japanese community of Los Angeles -- just move Japanese away from the navy ports in San Diego and Seattle and the FBI could keep an eye on the rest of the West Coast Japanese in their own homes.

  78. @William BadWhite
    @Jack D

    " He showed his intention “absolutely not” to implement racial screenings in reply to the question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes right after 9-11. He later recalled his decision “was the right thing (and) constitutional”, based on his own experience as one of Japanese-Americans, those who had “lost the most basic human rights”.

    Poor Norm struggles with the concept of "constitutional". Otherwise, this makes sense: Some Japanese-Americans collaborate with their homeland at a time in the war where it was unclear we'd win (the internments took place before the Battle of Midway which pretty much ended it for the Japanese) and the evil FDR reacts in a fairly humane way by moving them away from the coasts where they couldn't...you know, collaborate. This act by FDR should by all means drive U.S. policy going forward because...Norm's feelings are important.

    After Midway when the Japanese lost four carriers, their ability to project power went to pretty much nil, they couldn't do much more than act as a speed bump to American advances. Midway ending the Japanese naval threat to anything east of Hawaii (really anything east of the central Pacific) somehow proves that there were no Japanese-Americans collaborating on the west coast and therefore RACISM.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    “the internments took place before the Battle of Midway which pretty much ended it for the Japanese”

    I believe most of the internments of Japanese were ordered before Midway (6/4/42) but carried out afterwards.

    J. Edgar Hoover advised against interning the big Japanese community of Los Angeles — just move Japanese away from the navy ports in San Diego and Seattle and the FBI could keep an eye on the rest of the West Coast Japanese in their own homes.

  79. BTW, Steve, Murray isn’t doing the Worm, but making a lame attempt at the great Curly Howard’s “floor running”:

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS