Casus Belli: 9th Circuit Immigration Order Declares War On President Trump

Update: The fog of war continues. The Ninth Circuit declared war on President Trump, the Executive Branch, and our system of enumerated powers and separation of powers. That is the main lesson from their latest clown ruling on President Trump’s immigration order. Now the Ninth Circus has gone further nuts, if that is possible. There is a new order from the Ninth Circus:

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

In a somewhat rare move, one of the judges on the 9th Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before the entire 9th Circuit bench rather than by just the panel selected from them. It’s not clear if this mean that this judge believes that there is enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt to Trump’s controversial travel ban. Regardless, it is an interesting move, and throws another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between President Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced. [snip]

The court has instructed both Trump’s team and lawyers for the State of Washington and Minnesota to file briefs due by Thursday February 16th, stating whether they believe the motion should be considered en banc. Earlier today, Trump indicated that he did not plan to appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and instead planned to fight the case on the merits in the lower court.

What does this all mean? Is the Ninth Circus afraid of what has been unleashed by it’s mad war against separation of powers and at least one judge is blinking, afraid or concerned by the implications of what the Ninth Circus has done? Or is the fear of President Trump forcing the Ninth Circus to reconsider their craziness? Or is the Ninth Circus afraid that President Trump’s alleged plans to fight the case in the lower court and the court of public opinion and thereby this new order is a way to force President Trump to stay at the appeals level and on to the Supreme Court before Justice Gorsuch appears on the high court?

We won’t speculate as to those questions. But we do know who will win and who will lose: President Trump will win and the Ninth Circuit will lose. Why do we say that with such assuredness? Because President Trump has a lot of cards to play while the Ninth Circuit – with it’s ridiculous ruling which gave standing to non-citizens in other countries and gave legal standing to the complaining states without real grievances – played it’s last hand.

Eventually this all goes to the Supreme Court, unless the Ninth Circus surrenders, and President Trump has the appointment trump hand. The Ninth Circus is in for a world of hurt, possibly including getting smashed to bits, and of course the Congress can always cut the court budget giving the Ninth Circus and the Judicial Branch a good lesson in separation of powers.

What would we like to see happen in our entertainment fantasies? It would be fun if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would reply to the court with a letter saying “listen you dumbass motherf*cker refugees from Barnum & Bailey, you will get an asswhipping ejamacation on separation of powers when we bust up your little clown tent and start to pass legislation with Article III, Section 2 “exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” which strip you of judicial review and then you can chew on your own butts for taking on President Trump before I was in office and he had to fight you alone you jerkoff lunatics, and let me also tell you you goddamned motherfu*king ….”

——————————————————————–

President Trump is no Mae West. Mae, as Flower Belle, is asked by a judge “Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” Mae responds: “No. I’m doing my best to hide it.” President Trump does not hide his contempt for the ridiculous court which presumes to intrude on his Executive Branch prerogatives in violation of the separation of powers.



The Ninth Circus has made it’s ridiculous ruling (full text HERE) on President Trump’s executive order on immigration. As expected, the Ninth Circus of Hell, the Circuit most overturned by the Supreme Court, upheld the district court clown’s temporary restraining order.

As we wrote previously, President Trump will eventually win this battle for the reasons we outlined (um, paging Justice Gorsuch, paging Justice Gorsuch – time to bitch-slap the Ninth Circus clowns!). The good news in all this is that as of today the newly confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions is on the job and ready to help President Trump.

So what happens now? There are essentially two options: Option 1: ask Justice Kennedy for a stay from the TRO, which we suspect Justice Kennedy would grant and then continue to slog it out in the courts until reinforcements arrive to support President Trump in the Supreme Court. Option 2: go full tilt political on this and burn down the liberal Ninth Circuit – holding these leftist loons responsible if their stay of President Trump’s order leads to any harm to this country – and going to the country to denounce the leftist loons.

Big Media has already declared President Trump is on a “collision course” with the left and that includes the leftist loons in the judiciary so this is just sauce for this strong leader. President Trump has a strong case to make to the American people on immigration and the American people agree with President Trump:

Donald Trump’s most controversial executive orders have proved to be his most popular, according to a new poll, suggesting that protests and their attendant media coverage aren’t reliable indicators of what Americans expect of their new president.

Fifty-five per cent of registered voters support Trump’s travel ban affecting seven Muslim-majority countries. The same number approve of his plan to deny federal funds to cities that shield illegal-immigrant criminals from deportation.

The numbers come from a new Morning Consult poll conducted for the Washington, D.C.-area Politico newspaper.

Also winning the approval of an American majority is the president’s demand that bureaucrats freeze new federal regulations until his administration can review them and assess their impacts. That measure has 54-percent approval. [snip]

The remaining eight executive orders in the new poll won support from between 46 and 49 per cent of registered voters.

None of them is ‘under water’ – political-speak for having more disapproval than approval.

It’s not just the American people. The West is uniting behind President Trump’s ideas:

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

There is evidence to suggest that both Trump and these radical right-wing parties reflect an underlying reservoir of public support.

Drawing on a unique, new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we can throw new light on what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries. Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

In our survey, carried out before President Trump’s executive order was announced, respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.

Public opposition to further migration from Muslim states is especially intense in Austria, Poland, Hungary, France and Belgium, despite these countries having very different sized resident Muslim populations. In each of these countries, at least 38% of the sample ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement. With the exception of Poland, these countries have either been at the centre of the refugee crisis or experienced terrorist attacks in recent years. It is also worth noting that in most of these states the radical right is, to varying degrees, entrenched as a political force and is looking to mobilize this angst over Islam into the ballot box, either at elections in 2017 or longer term.

President Trump did not issue a Muslim ban, but it would appear that as a political argument, it is a strong one.

Option 1 or Option 2? With this violation of the separation of powers doctrine, three clowns in the Ninth Circus have opened a war on the executive branch. The notion, as today’s decision states, that Washington state has standing in this suit because some of its students are inconvenienced is an appalling standard. The notion that these judges get to decide, however disguised, on the wisdom of the President’s policy instead of strictly on the law and presidential authority is a casus belli. The Ninth Circus has declared war on President Trump so President Trump is justified if he decides to go all out war as well.

Option 1 or Option 2? Which will President Trump choose? Perhaps a combination of Option 1 and Option 2: a fight in the court system and the court of public opinion? You betcha, in all caps:


Share

274 thoughts on “Casus Belli: 9th Circuit Immigration Order Declares War On President Trump

  1. Trump’s public opinion opening should include this:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fact-free-debate-on-immigration-order/article/2614298

    How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” Robart asked a Justice Department lawyer in court on Feb. 3. When the lawyer said she didn’t know, Robart said, “Let me tell you. The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”

    It turns out the judge, and Nadler, and everybody else repeating the talking point had it wrong. Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.

    So the talking point wasn’t true. And yet at the 9th Circuit oral argument, the judges appeared to believe it was true, and Justice Department lawyer August Flentje didn’t know enough to correct them.

  2. This was not a surprise given the make up of this court. The problem is no real way to expedite this as SCOTUS is vacant and may even decline to hear.

  3. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/9/refugees-entering-us-doubled-rate-ruling-trump-tra/

    77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries

    The State Department has more than doubled the rate of refugees from Iraq, Syria and other suspect countries in the week since a federal judge’s reprieve, in what analysts said appears to be a push to admit as many people as possible before another court puts the program back on ice.
    A staggering 77 percent of the 1,100 refugees let in since Judge James L. Robart’s Feb. 3 order have been from the seven suspect countries. Nearly a third are from Syria alone — a country that Mr. Trump has ordered be banned altogether from the refugee program. Another 21 percent are from Iraq. By contrast, in the two weeks before Judge Robart’s order, just 9 percent of refugees were from Syria and 6 percent were from Iraq.

    “There’s no doubt in my mind they would be doing whatever they could to get people in before something changes because, from their perspective, their motivation is to resettle these folks. It would not be the first time that State Department officials have prioritized facilitating someone’s entry to the United States over security concerns,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.

  4. Wouldn’t Justice Ginsburg have to recuse herself from any case involving Trump due to her biased comments against him during the campaign?

  5. Wouldn’t Justice Ginsburg have to recuse herself from any case involving Trump

    Wouldn’t she have to wake up to do that? 🙂

  6. So what happens now? There are essentially two options: Option 1: ask Justice Kennedy for a stay from the TRO, which we suspect Justice Kennedy would grant and then continue to slog it out in the courts until reinforcements arrive to support President Trump in the Supreme Court. Option 2: go full tilt political on this and burn down the liberal Ninth Circuit – holding these leftist loons responsible if their stay of President Trump’s order leads to any harm to this country – and going to the country to denounce the leftist loons.
    ——-
    Yes. And it may be best to combine the two strategies. Option 2 would go first, and it would serve notice on the leftist loons and rally public support. Present evidence of terrorist infiltration to make this concern real. Accuse them of aiding and abetting this invasion. Then Option 2 going to Kennedy. Kennedy was once a conservative stalwart, but lately he has done some strange things. Therefore, boxing him in as well, therefore, might be the optimal strategy. Under the law of evidence you must lay the foundation, and here to foundation needs to be as specific as possible.

  7. I read that this court has a high rate of turnover at SCOTUS, but even the “average” court’s rate seemed high. It seems like there should be some kind of regular review process, and if you’re getting turned over more often than not, IMO that suggests you don’t know how to do your job, don’t know enough about law – and should be removed.

  8. I don’t understand how or why the State Dept is doubling the so called refugees from the 7 Countries. We have a new SOS and he needs to kick some butt.

  9. Tony Stark
    February 9, 2017 at 8:19 pm
    ——————–
    It is entirely up to the judge to decide if they are biased.

  10. The judge was asking how many people have been killed here by people from those areas, and said there were none. He’s been proven wrong, but even if he hadn’t been, his question immediately begs a second. If someone must have been killed, what’s the number required? Do we have to sacrifice one person in order to protect all? Or 20? Or 1000? How many people must be allowed to be killed before we can take protective action?

  11. The court is operating in la la land. Too many social justice warriors in the court system. Too few constitutionalists. Trump needs to let them know they have assumed the risk. This kind of judicial intransigence takes me back to the Lockner decision. And it takes me back to the time when Roosevelt exerted extreme political pressure on a Supreme Court which was not with the times. I am sure you remember the former Justice Roberts SHV. I only hope that Gorsuch understands why an attack on these progressive antidiluvians is essential. Not sure he does. For him to be gutspilling his objections to Trumps comments to the likes of Blumenthal, a Harvard trained liar and phony, gives me some pause. And to say the same thing to Ben Sasse who is such a Trump hater that the Republican Party in his state censured him, makes me question this further. Those two Trump hating senators will remind him of those comments when he goes before the senate for confirmation.

  12. I’ve read a lot of references to Ginsberg falling asleep in public, at work. I’m really surprised she didn’t retire a year ago so that Obama could replace her. I know that he couldn’t get Scalia replaced with Garland, but I’ve read that this Ginsberg issue isn’t new. If she had retired before the election, she might have gotten her wish of being replaced by another democrat. I guess even SCOTUS assumed the fix would get Hillary in.

  13. at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.
    ——-
    Which proves what I have said from the beginning.

    The justice department prosecutor is no good.

    Blind sided by an obvious question.

    The answer above provides a factual basis for the injunction.

    And the prosecutor never though of it?

  14. That evidence should have been presented to the court by the prosecution because it demonstrates a real need as opposed to a hypothetical one. And you can take that number and multiply it be 10 to get the real number, because most of the infiltrators were never identified. That information, plus proof that ISIS is salting these hordes should have been before the court.

  15. wbboei
    February 9, 2017 at 8:44 pm
    That evidence should have been presented to the court by the prosecution because it demonstrates a real need as opposed to a hypothetical one. And you can take that number and multiply it be 10 to get the real number, because most of the infiltrators were never identified. That information, plus proof that ISIS is salting these hordes should have been before the court.
    __________________________________________–

    I agree. They were trying to travel under some sort of presumption of validity. You can get away with that if the other side isn’t going to seriously challenge it. Obviously not the case here. They should have introduced some simple internal records showing danger from those countries.

  16. OTOH, Kelly can direct that all the immigrants be disembarked in Seattle and provide no freebie funds for them. Since they’re so important for the State of Washington, let them pick up the bill.

  17. jb: the other reason Trump cannot let this issue drop is because he needs to deal with sanctuary cities, and if he accepts a loss here, then he will be foreclosed in dealing with that issue, until the next terrorist attack.

  18. Wbb do you think the Justice attorney blew the case on purpose because he is a hold over from obamas?

    I mean everyone is saying how horrible the Govs presentation was.

  19. blowme0bama
    February 9, 2017 at 8:56 pm

    OTOH, Kelly can direct that all the immigrants be disembarked in Seattle and provide no freebie funds for them. Since they’re so important for the State of Washington, let them pick up the bill.
    ——
    An excellent point. It is the perfect segway into dealing with the sanctuary cities debacle. No federal funds to sanctuary cities, starting here, starting now. That is judo. Putin would approve.

  20. gonzotx
    February 9, 2017 at 9:04 pm
    ———-
    It is possible.

    She was trained under Jennie Durkan.

    Jennie is a lesbian with Catholic education and upbringing.

    I knew her dad, Martin.

    He ran for governor twice and lost.

    She benefitted from his political connections.

  21. Should redpill quite a few of those douche bag lefties out there seeing 10,000 Somalis sitting around Pike’s Market, shitting on the ground, raping Seattleites, destroying tourism $. Yes, lefties need to be culturally enriched with the effects of their high principles they have imposed upon everyone other than themselves.

  22. Martin was so boring he made Mondale look like a live wire.

    Five minutes around him and if you were not yawning then you were fast asleep.

    He is listed in The Physican’s Desk book list of cures for insomnia.

    He died several years ago, and no one could tell, except the corpse started to stink.

  23. Josh ‏@JoshNoneYaBiz 2h2 hours ago

    Pretty pitiful when your party is so sick of losing that you put every single American in danger to see what winning feels like

    9th Circuit

  24. The democratic party has become the party of mob revenge

    I hope every sane American is paying attention
    These people…the whole mob…are going to get us killed…and if left to them one day sharia law will replace our constitution

    Stupid…naive…stupid people
    Cut off your nose to spite your face

  25. S
    February 9, 2017 at 10:12 pm
    The democratic party has become the party of mob revenge

    I hope every sane American is paying attention
    These people…the whole mob…are going to get us killed…and if left to them one day sharia law will replace our constitution
    ————-
    Someone, I can’t remember who…the name escapes me…..once said:

    “What difference does it make!?”

    there must be someone on this blog who can help me remember who that was.

  26. NeverTrump Republican Bill Kristol:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/bill-kristol-says-lazy-white-working-class-should-be-replaced-by-new-americans/

    Bill Kristol Says ‘Lazy’ White Working Class Should Be Replaced By ‘New Americans’

    Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol said Tuesday afternoon that the white working class should be replaced by immigrants as they have become “decadent, lazy” and “spoiled.”

    Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” Kristol told author Charles Murray during an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute titled “It Came Apart: What’s Next for a Fractured Culture.” Murray recently wrote a book, entitled “Coming Apart,” which focuses on the cultural separation between the wealthiest and most educated white Americans and the poorest and least educated white Americans.

    Before delving into his theory about replacing the white working class, Kristol said that he hopes “this thing isn’t being videotaped or ever shown anywhere. Whatever tiny, pathetic future I have is going to totally collapse.”

    The event was filmed by AEI, but as of press time is marked “unlisted” on the think tank’s YouTube channel, so that it doesn’t come up in search results.

    “You can make a case that America has been great because every — I think John Adams said this — basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled — whatever,” Kristol said.

    “Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th century,” he added.

    Wonder if he says the same thing about replacing Jews in Israel with Arabs?

  27. It should be very clear to everyone with a brain that NeverTrumpers like Kristol, the Democrats and leftist judges are wholly bent on destroying the country.

  28. As we wrote, Trump eventually prevails. Time magazine says the same:

    http://time.com/4664998/chuck-schumer-president-donald-trump/

    There are risks in playing the obstruction game. Stop popular parts of Trump’s agenda for too long and too persistently, and the party’s support can plummet. Play ball with Trump, and Schumer risks a rebellion on his left. Making matters worse is a procedural hair ball as arcane as the Senate itself: getting almost anything significant through the Senate takes 60 votes. Republicans have only 52. If Schumer tries to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Mitch McConnell could trigger the “nuclear option” and change the rules to allow the nominee to pass with only 51 votes. As could any future court nominees, however far outside the mainstream.

    In other words, resistance may be inevitable. But it might also be futile. And it may even prove counterproductive to Democrats’ hopes of winning back a majority anytime soon.

  29. Womens’ March? What passes for “feminism” these days:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/fifty-shades-darker-973720

    ‘Fifty Shades Darker’: Film Review

    “Darker”? James Foley’s Fifty Shades Darker, the second big-screen outing adapting E.L. James’s best-selling S&M fairy tale, goes rather in the other direction, replacing most of the first installment’s talk of master/servant dynamics and contractually delineated sex play with more lovey-dovey hoohah than most self-respecting rom-coms are willing to deliver. Taking the series over from Sam Taylor-Johnson, whose Fifty Shades of Grey earned jeers alongside its $570 million worldwide haul in 2015, Foley has the job of introducing some external threats to the unlikely coupling of Dakota Johnson’s Anastasia Steele and Jamie Dornan’s Christian Grey. But he and screenwriter Niall Leonard can hardly milk enough novelty out of these new villains to win back fans who felt burned by the first film. A concluding installment is already en route; expect diminishing returns every Valentine’s Day.

    As the story begins, Anastasia has left Christian after an experience in his sex dungeon that, she felt, showed her the depths of meanness hidden within his S&M practice. (News flash: Man who gets off on making women submit to him has issues.) She has found a job at a publishing house, where a new authority figure (Eric Johnson’s Jack Hyde) hardly hides his sexual interest in her. But nobody compares to Christian, who has soon begged his way to a second chance and — ah, how the tables turn! — told Ana he wants a real relationship, with no NDAs or dietary guidelines binding her.

    Which essentially drains Fifty Shades of whatever claim it had to the outre, however badly that claim was staked in James’ books and the first film. This time, when there’s spanking to be done, it’s at Ana’s request — and not because doors have opened in her psyche and she feels a disturbing need to submit, but because, duh, it feels good.

    Leonard and Foley offer enough semi-naked sex scenes here to prove that quantity is no substitute for chemistry. Both leads are attractive and look good without clothes, but the roteness of their bulge-flexing intimacies is such that when, near the film’s end, the movie showed off Mr. Dornan’s physique in a gym scene, women at Wednesday’s preview screening were openly laughing at the contrivance.

    There was a lot of snickering at that screening, in fact, though some scenes inexplicably slid by without mockery. Where were the guffaws when Ana described cunnilingus as “kinky f––ery,” as if it weren’t an integral part of modern-day, plain-vanilla lovemaking? Where were the scornful hoots when Christian, in response to Ana’s comment, “I didn’t know you had a place in Aspen,” quipped “I have a lot of places”? Especially in this Trumpian era, can we not at last openly mock such one-percenter smugness?

    But of course, the desire to be swept away by Prince Bucksalot is more central to the Fifty Shades brand than any curiosity about non-mainstream sexual gratification. Darker hardly hides this, and gets into trouble when it pretends not to care about Christian Grey’s riches. How can the filmmakers keep a straight face when they have Anastasia complaining about Christian’s desire to “own” her and then, barely two scenes later, show her agog at a closet full of designer gowns and lingerie? Blindfolds and tasteful wrist restraints are just this year’s superficial twist on the Cinderella story. Fifty Shades may take pains not to let Anastasia actually accept anything as gauche as cash for the body she hands over so willingly to her prince, as Julia Roberts did in Pretty Woman. But it’s hard to pretend this represents any meaningful step toward a future feminists can be proud of.

    Real feminists know “Nasty woman” is not a compliment.

  30. U.S. Senate has just confirmed Tom Price to head the Health and Human Services Department. Good riddance ObamaCare.

    The Trump team is finally beginning to take shape. The big players are now getting confirmed.

  31. “The Trump team is finally beginning to take shape.”

    Kinda like the Allied preparations in Britain for the Normandy invasion to take back Western Europe from the real Nazis.

  32. I keep hearing that HSA are very big in the new and improved Trumpcare. I have no love for them. They are shifting the cost of healthcare back to the people and probably cover primarily catastrophic with a few “freebies” thrown in like a yearly mammogram, physical, Pap smear, etc.

    People will not go to the Dr if they have to pay nearly all costs, you find this in polices with huge deductables. If you only have so much money, you’re going to eat and pay for gas.

    In reality , since we don’t seem to be able to put the genie back in the bottle and have not for profit healthcare again, a single payer Medicare policy that all people could biy into with subsides for the very poor and disabled would be ideal in my mind.
    And we have to get millions off of BS disability. Just about anyone can get it if they get a lawyer, tell them their depressed or an alcoholic and bam, free medical care and $900 dollars a month for a lifetime. I personally know so many people who are scamming the system. Be they patients or relatives. It’s amazing how people can live on a small amount but then they get subsidies housing, food stamps, free phones…

    I would love to see this scam really dealt with. Years ago in Texas they dealt with Workmens Comp and now the compensation is limited. We don’t have the high multimillion dollar suites like we use to. It was out of control. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be compensated fairly, but the legal fees were bankrupting Drs, companies, real cash cow. I use to work at a pain clinic, not a opiate palace, but a wonderful clinic where we got people off all opiates, were walking 2 miles a day doing weights, swimming, etc for 3 weeks. They would come in on wheelchairs, crutches, braces of all sorts but leave doing so well, but you couldn’t get them back to work because of the settlements they would get from Workmens comp.

    It was a real eye opener.

  33. Before delving into his theory about replacing the white working class, Kristol said that he hopes “this thing isn’t being videotaped or ever shown anywhere. Whatever tiny, pathetic future I have is going to totally collapse.”
    ————
    When Romeo believed Juliet was dead and drank the poison I was sad.

    When Juliette awakened, found Romeo dead and stabbed herself with his dagger, I was despondent.

    But when that arrogant little prick Bill Kristol said

    I hope this is not recorded

    And immediately thereafter

    Committed hari kari on video

    I cannot tell a lie

    I was not sad

    Much less despondent sad

    I was giddy and ecstatic

    Send in the hearse

  34. Someone, maybe it was you jb, asked me whether Gorsuch is another Souter. Judging by his legal opinions, Gorsuch is an ideological conservative, whereas Souter was an unknown. The problem with Gorsuch is different. He threw Trump under the bus with Trump’s enemies. Therefore, he lacks courage. Therefore what we are left with is a judge who is conservative but lacks backbone. And who does that remind you of? Why Chief Justice Roberts of course.
    —————-

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

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

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

    Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.

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

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

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

    These episodes reveal much about America 2017.

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

    Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

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

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

    And such conduct is becoming common on campuses today.

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

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

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

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

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

    VIDEOGorsuch ‘honored and humbled’ to be Trump’s SCOTUS pick

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

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

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

    What do YOU think? What should be Trump’s No. 1 priority? Sound off in today’s WND poll!

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/trump-must-break-judicial-power/#Yh11td5phz5BYPTI.99

  35. Just when you think the lefties can’t get any dumber or bring any more opprobrium on their heads, the Google/Microsoft Circuit of Appeals grants themselves national security and immigration powers. When do they start getting national security briefings? And will they just waive the security and background checks on themselves because statutes don’t matter? They are elite and omniscient apparently. And they can read minds of political candidates too and by god they better watch what they say in case they offend some ancient or radical judge in San Francisco while he is watching television while changing his socks.

    Judges are only as powerful as they are respected. They are only as respected as they are fair. And they are fair if they are smart. Creating what is arguably new judicial theories on the fly because they are pissy that their social class’s choice was rejected by voters for president is not smart. This group might want to remember who pays their salaries and it is not the Great Caliph of Poobah. Or Mexico for that matter but it is a real possibility that may happen if California/Left Coast secedes (or gleefully jettisoned by the rest of the country) into LaLaLand.

    The lefty apparatchik pre-Sessions DOJ sending a tongue tied slow wit to defend the executive branch balance of power may not have been such a good idea either. They may have just sawed off their own leg. Again they are showed to be bungling but highly credentialed powder puffs and lackeys. Lawfare is going to be the tool of the globalist left since elections, parliamentary maneuvering, and fake news have failed. Every judge in this country should be terrified. Your unearned respect granted by the people by virtue of your office will be gone. Cause and effect. The left doesn’t understand it and in blind fury will destroy it. What a stupid way to destroy your own institution. And our civilization.

  36. I don’t like Gorsuch. He sounds and acts like a whiny worm. Bitching, tittering and ass licking that creep and liar Blumenthal (also a scummy lawyer) should get him yanked for the SC pick. That POS Blumenthal is NOT going to vote for him so why the apple polishing? Does Gorsuch have NO judgement or basic schoolyard instincts? Yank the overrated lump.

  37. The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) is one of many ‘think tanks’ which ponder and comment upon political decisions, national views and relations between Sovereign States. They are liberal and cosmopolitan in outlook (perhaps too liberal, sometimes), but their views and research are amongst those considered to be at least 22 carat proof.

    They recently undertook a ten nation survey to establish, as far as can be ascertained by polling methods, those Nations views on Muslim Immigration within those States. The results are, to anyone who thinks as ’conservatives’ generally do, truly fascinating from a viewpoint of how far distant from the ‘progressive; liberal’ viewpoints so prevalent within the MSM lickspittles who publish their twisted views, and who also denigrate ANYONE who disagrees with their collective agenda.

    The proposal under discussion, asked days before Trumps ban on migration from only seven mainly Muslim countries: and asked of the ten thousand respondents from ten European Nations was both simple, and direct. It proposed ‘‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’.

    Chatham House’s own opinion was, to a conservative mind, explanatory of their own philosophies; they stated ‘Our results are striking and sobering’. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

    I have posted a couple of times using my favourite expression concerning our militant Islamic friends; viz. The Fifth Column, and I see from the survey’s results that I am by no means alone. And I hope that the readership will, once again, note that the organisations reporting the results of this survey, or at least mentioning the same; definitely do not include such worthies such as the BBC or the Guardian. I do so wonder why!

    https://mikecunningham.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/survey-to-be-renamed-why-not-keep-them-out/

  38. TerryDo
    February 9, 2017 at 10:48 pm
    Outris I think it was Hillary Clinton who said “At this point, what difference does it make?”
    ——
    Why yes……yes it was 😄 /s. A reminder to current and future generations.

  39. gonzotx
    February 10, 2017 at 3:07 am

    As often happens, I agree with you. We had HSA for a few years thru my husband’s employer. Its basically catastrophic health care. You get a discounted rate for treatment but have to pay everything out of pocket. Its a good way to keep people from going to the Dr. unless they are desperate or flush with cash, though not much worse than Ocare, just lower premiums.

    JB- a thought for you. The Muslim Brotherhood may be the non-violent political arm of Islamism, but make no mistake, they believe in establishing a caliphate worldwide and having everyone live under sharia law. Their culture is anti American, anti democratic, anti woman, gay etc. Obama gave them an office in the White House. Hillary’s closet aid has strong muslim brotherhood ties. Especially as Jews, we escaped a devastating future when Hillary was defeated. EVERY country with a RISING Muslim population has GROWING anti Semitism. Why do you think this can’t happen here? We Jews are a shrinking minority.

    As for the 9th circuit, this is a frightening trend which must be stopped. Whatever side of the political spectrum you fall on, when the US is no longer a nation of laws, then we all are in deep trouble. Whose rights will be ignored next? When the rule of law is not followed, whether on immigration or Presidential power, we are all at risk. My great grandparents immigrated in the 1880s. They left a country where Jews did not have equal rights and could not own land. They travelled for a year to come here because they knew that the LAW guaranteed them EQUAL rights. No matter how imperfect the administration of our constitutional rights, what they represent is vital to all of our futures.

  40. Maybe we’re talking about different things – ? But what I call my HSA (health savings account) is through my job (I also have insurance through them). If you choose to have an HSA, you decide how much you want to do – what you think you may spend during the year (on copayments, fancier eyeglasses than your insurance covers, over the counter medications, anything medical you may want that may not be covered by insurance).

    They take money out of each paycheck to pay for it. Then I just save my receipts and fax them in, and that amount of money is direct deposited in my checking account. You can do it periodically during the year, or all at once at the end. The benefit is that the money is taken out of your check pre-taxes, so you save money on not paying those extra taxes. The caution is that if you *don’t* spend as much as you projected, you lose that money at the end of the year.

  41. What I mean about the taxes is – your jobs deducts the money for the HSA before they figure out what amount of taxes you owe in that paycheck. That way, the income you are taxed on is less than if you didn’t have an HSA, so you pay fewer taxes.

  42. It’s OK if you have an employer who is depositing money in the acct but its no good for those who have to buy their own insurance.

  43. wbboei
    February 10, 2017 at 4:40 am
    Someone, maybe it was you jb, asked me whether Gorsuch is another Souter. Judging by his legal opinions, Gorsuch is an ideological conservative, whereas Souter was an unknown. The problem with Gorsuch is different. He threw Trump under the bus with Trump’s enemies. Therefore, he lacks courage. Therefore what we are left with is a judge who is conservative but lacks backbone. And who does that remind you of? Why Chief Justice Roberts of course.
    —————-

    Yikes. After reading Buchanan’s article, I’m beginning to think you’re right.

    So what does Trump do? I don’t think he can withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination. Maybe throw him to the Dems in the Senate, while looking for another, braver judge to nominate?

  44. I totally agree with you Mormaer:

    “I don’t like Gorsuch. He sounds and acts like a whiny worm. Bitching, tittering and ass licking that creep and liar Blumenthal (also a scummy lawyer) should get him yanked for the SC pick. That POS Blumenthal is NOT going to vote for him so why the apple polishing? Does Gorsuch have NO judgement or basic schoolyard instincts? Yank the overrated lump.”

    and Pat Buchanan:

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

    What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia.”

  45. So what does Trump do? I don’t think he can withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination. Maybe throw him to the Dems in the Senate, while looking for another, braver judge to nominate?
    ——
    Machiavelli would hope the crybaby is not confirmed, so Trump can launch a vicious counter attack. No nuclear option to save him. After all, this is not a nuclear situation, and we must respect the high mindness of our colleagues across the aisle. By the way, that is also the way Baron Von Rothschilde would play it. He says he is deeply honored to be nominated and then turns right around and throws the man who appointed him under the bus. To whom, then, is he deeply honored? Schumer? Can you imagine how Scalia would have answered that question by Schumer. With humor, not tears. This jamoke is an empty suit, in my opinion. No balls. And, just you wait until the senate confirmation hearings. How many more times will he throw the man who appointed him under the bus. The answer is, as many times as he has to to be confirmed. And then he and Roberts can be tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

  46. In case I have been too subtle, too nuanced in my comments, let me be explicit. He is a coward. And how will a coward react when he is asked to decide the legality of the temporary ban? What will he say when the NYT says this decision will be the litmus test of the new Justice, whether he is a man of the law, or just a partisan hack. We know how poor John Roberts, with his booming voice at the innaugeration reacted under those circumstances. First he panicked, according to the law clerks. Then he folded like a cheap watch. And then Podesta laughed about how he wilted when they put a little pressure on him, as disclosed by wiki leaks. Since they cannot ask him about a pending case, the dims will dwell on how he feels about a president who calls an incompetent judge a so called judge. This weak man better brush up his Shakespeare, or better yet, his knowledge of history with comparisons to FDR and Andrew Jackson, if he believes the errant courts are immune from attack by the president when they leave the nation at risk. Will he have the balls to do that. Will he finesse this attack the way he did not when he was confronted with that question by two senators, and three times denied the savior of this nation before the cock crowed? Sadly, I doubt it.

  47. The best answer is Gorsuch could have given when confronted with an obvious question he was not prepared for was this:

    Senator, I have studied your resume with a deep sense of admiration (time out I have to vomit). But in that long list of impressive accomplishments which have made the world a better place (excuse me I feel a bout of diareia coming on) do I find an entry that you have sat as a trial judge or an appellate judge. The difference between you and me is I have. And if you look at things from a judicial perspective, the President’s comments are not off the chart, and I hope you know that. Nor are they unprecedented if you look at the full sweep of American history. In particular, I call your attention to the stormy relationship which existed between the president and the court during the tenures of Andrew Jackson, and FDR, both of whom were democrats. Furthermore, we decide cases, whatever we decide affect not only the immediate litigants, but it has ripple effects across society, even though we tell ourselves we are simply deciding the case before us. Thus, it is only natural that people affected by our decisions would lash out against us, rather than go quietly into the night. We must not discount their reaction, if we do that, we become a bevy of Platonic guardians which is not our role. (At this point Shumer is climbing the wall, wondering when this blizzard of words he does not want to hear will end.) Unlike you, we do not stand for election, and we hold our tenure for life and good behavior. If it were me, I would grant the President the latitute to say what he feels needs to be said, and I would resist the urge to get too puffy about it. As judges, we are still human beings, therefore, it is always possible that we could be wrong. By contrast, when you are wrong Senator Schumer, which is most of the time, your constituents can throw you out of office. That is all he would have to have said to make sure his own words are not used against him. One thing is for certain, Schumer would find nothing in it to use as ammunition against Trump

  48. Lest we be too deferential to the justice system, one need only remember the telling exchange between the Rogan and the prosecutor:

    Rogan, who has not burdened himself by perusing the case law, claims that non citizens will suffer irreparable harm if they are delayed in entering the country, and ignores the far greater irreparable harm to American citizens who are likely to be killed because we do not know who is coming into this country.

    Rogan then asks how many people have been killed by these these waves of immigrants entering this country, the prosecutor says I dont know, and Rogan shouts triumphantly, none. If the prosecutor was prepared for that obvious question, should have said, with all do respect your honor, the country has been lucky so far that no one has been killed, but there have been numerous arrests, etc which had the potential to result in death. The question is not how many killed to date, but how many will be killed in the future if we do not take special measures now to protect the American People. I believe your honor is aware of the fact that ISIS is in the process of invading this country, and the FBI director has testified before congress that under the current program there is no way we can vet them. Consequently, the irreparable harms suffered by non citizens being delayed in entry, it potentially burndensome, but is as nothing compared to the far greater, and far more irreparable harm that American citizens will suffer if you leave the door to our country wide open.

    Sloppy legal work and poor judging. Let us hope that does not prove to be a lethal combination.

  49. Now,what would Rogan say to that? He would get puffy and say don’t put this one on me. And then in the heat of the moment he would say some things that he would probably regret. This gets to what I said a couple days ago, if the Judge will not go your way when your way is the right way, then you must structure your comments and presentation to box him in. Too often, these judges want to be celebrities too, or they are running for higher office. That is the problem.

  50. gonzotx
    February 10, 2017 at 12:37 pm
    So if Gorsuch is another Roberts how does that change things in the long game ?

    Is Admins hypothesis still true?
    ——–
    The hypothesis is still true.

    I see him tinkering around the edges of the EO, not invalidating it.

    Where I worry about him is when the sanctuary cities are the issue.

    That is where we need the moral strength of a man like Scalia.

    That is where Roberts is most likely to fold.

  51. I haven’t read every word above…

    but isn’t the bottom line that Gorsuch is supposed to be an “orginalist” or constitutionist…

    and if so, isn’t the fact that the President being granted the power as commander in chief to protect the country and the fact that the constitution gives the president the power on who to allow into the country mean that Gorsuch will rule on the side of the President and the constitution and if (and when) on the court, we will probably get a 5-4 ruling in favor of DT

    so whether he said something either “cowardly” or “good cop/bad cop” (and/or to ingratiate himself to dims) …isn’t the bottom line that Gorsuch will go with the constitution on this one and support Donald…

  52. What have leftists come to? Did you hear how DeVos went to visit a school in Washington D.C. and was confronted by protestors? She was shoved, shouted at and chased to her car. I’m sure she had an escort but they did not let her enter the school parking lot let alone the school. They’ve gotten so utterly horrible and I hope they lose even more seats in 2018.

  53. Yolanda
    February 10, 2017 at 2:08 pm
    What have leftists come to? Did you hear how DeVos went to visit a school in Washington D.C. and was confronted by protestors? She was shoved, shouted at and chased to her car. I’m sure she had an escort but they did not let her enter the school parking lot let alone the school. They’ve gotten so utterly horrible and I hope they lose even more seats in 2018.
    ——–
    Time for the Law and Order Candidate to initiate some law and order.

  54. I agree with almost 100% of your post and stated years ago she needed to get rid of Huma. It probably cost her the election.

  55. wbboei
    February 10, 2017 at 11:45 am
    Will he finesse this attack the way he did not when he was confronted with that question by two senators, and three times denied the savior of this nation before the cock crowed? Sadly, I doubt it.
    —–
    Perhaps there is a chance he will follow Peter’s example to its moral conclusion and repent? Sadly, I doubt that, too.

  56. Lol, Huma was the LEAST of hillarys problems and she lost because she was a lying, manipulative, untrustworthy, criminal who sold America out to the highest bidder and America voted for Donald J Trump.

  57. Gonzo, you asked me yesterday whether assistant US attorney who was trained by a social justice warrior former US Attorney threw the case, because it was so poorly presented. That has been known to happen, even to judges like Marvin Manton of the 2nd circuit court of appeals, who then went to jail for it. But it is certainly not the norm, and most of the time, the problem the top district attorney or the US attorney has is preventing subordinates from becoming so focused on winning that they lose sight of what is just. Prosecutors have a lot of latitude re. whether to file, what to charge, how to sentence etc. Therefore, I am very reluctant to say that this was done consciously. On the other hand, there is something that the famous San Francisco defense lawyer said, which is probably implicated here to some extent: you can bribe only one man in a hundred with gold, and the other 99 with the love of public approval.

    But the real problem here lies with the US Attorney. Knowing that this would be a high profile case, the questions he or she should be asking are can we win, is the legal authority on point sound, how good is our evidence, and do I have the right attorney handling the case, or do I need to get someone else. Due diligence on those points would require calling that attorny into your office, and asking him or her the following questions.

    1. Are you prepared?

    2. How strong is our case legally?

    3. How strong is our evidence?

    4. How do you feel about this executive order personally?

    5. Since it is unpopular in these here parts, how will taking this case affect you personally when we prevail?

    6. Do you have anything you want to tell me before I turn you loose?

  58. For release at 1:30 p.m. EST

    Daniel K. Tarullo submitted his resignation Friday as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, effective on or around April 5, 2017. He has been a member of the Board since January 28, 2009.

    “Dan led the Fed’s work to craft a new framework for ensuring the safety and soundness of our financial system following the financial crisis and made invaluable contributions across the entire range of the Fed’s responsibilities,” Chair Janet L. Yellen said. “My colleagues and I will truly miss his deep expertise, impeccable judgment, wise insight, and strategic counsel.”

    https://t.co/6bU7io9FY5

  59. @lorac
    There are different types of setups for HSAs. You can actually get one where the amount left in the HSA rolls into the next year as well as having some of it invested. When (if you are able to retire) you retire you can also use it as a secondary to pay the 20% that Medicare doesn’t cover.

  60. S
    February 10, 2017 at 1:58 pm
    I haven’t read every word above…

    but isn’t the bottom line that Gorsuch is supposed to be an “orginalist” or constitutionist
    ——–
    Lets hope so.

    But lets not forget that Earl Warren was a law and order attorney general before Dwight do nothing Eisenhower appointed him to the court. Likewise, Roberts was thought to be a conservative stalwart before he had to rule on Obamacare. The critical factor is character–or the lack thereof. That is what is implicated in his responses to Schumer and Blewme.

  61. Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies

    By Newt Gingrich and Allen Guelzo

    Presidents Trump and Lincoln and Managing the Bureaucracies
    President Trump will soon discover that federal bureaucrats are far more hostile, destructive, and obstructionist than federal judges.

    Ninety-five percent of federal bureaucrats’ donations were for Clinton (99 percent at the State Department, 97 percent at the Department of Justice), so it is clear there will be continuing resistance to President Trump’s policies.

    And the intense hostility of the Left will encourage these pro-Clinton bureaucrats to feel noble about undermining and betraying the president.

    Eventually, President Trump will be faced with a choice: either dramatically shrink his goals and accommodate the Left or learn from Abraham Lincoln and force bold, deep change on the bureaucracy.

    Once he took office, Lincoln fired almost 80 percent of federal employees. This aggressiveness enabled him to replace pro-secession bureaucrats, who would have ensured the North lost the war, with pro-Union enthusiasts who helped him win.

    Allen Guelzo, a Henry R. Luce professor of the Civil War era and the director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College, has written on Lincoln’s experience. The Trump team should meet with Guelzo. He writes:

    “Until the 1883 Pendleton Act every federal office-holder – from cabinet secretaries to postmasters – could be removed without cause or explanation by the president. And since federal appointments generally paid better than their private-sector equivalents, competition for these jobs was intense, and tended to be handed out as compensation for political services. In the 19th century, political parties did not command huge campaign chests of their own; political operatives worked largely in the expectation that their time and services would be paid-for by appointment to political office. That, in turn, meant that presidents guarded their appointment powers jealously, since dangling the prospect of federal jobs was the surest way of guaranteeing the loyalty of a political party’s ground-game.

    “Lincoln was fully as willing to work the patronage lever when he became president. Lincoln’s White House staffer, William O. Stoddard, remembered that Lincoln hired and fired federal office-holders with dizzying energy. ‘I doubt if ever before there was so general displacement as at the beginning of Mr. Lincoln’s term.’ Partly, this was because patronage appointments remained the principal means of securing political loyalty. But it was also a matter of ‘draining the swamp.’ Lincoln, as the first Republican – and first anti-slavery – president, came to Washington after six decades of almost-uninterrupted Democratic dominance of the executive branch. Successive Democratic presidents, from Thomas Jefferson to James Buchanan, had stocked federal offices with pro-slavery Southern appointees who would not shrink from sabotaging the presidency of Lincoln, ‘the Black Republican.’

    “As Stoddard explained, ‘the departments fairly swarmed with the family dependents and connections of the Southern political magnates who then, for so long a time, had controlled the dominant party.’ John Floyd, a Virginian who had been Secretary of War under Lincoln’s predecessor, had actually arranged to ship artillery and munitions to Southern arsenals before leaving office in the expectation that these could then be seized by Southern secessionists. But the possibility of betrayal from within was not limited to Southern Democratic appointees. ‘Many of the men from the North were strong Southern sympathizers,’ Stoddard explained, ‘and so accustomed were they to consider their offices their property that even avowed secessionists considered themselves bitterly injured when required to make way for more loyal men.’

    “So, once in office in 1861, Lincoln did not hesitate to purge the executive branch of anything which hinted at disloyalty. Of the 1,520 executive branch positions immediately under Lincoln’s oversight, Lincoln fired 1,195 of their occupants, which amounted to ‘the most sweeping removal of federal officeholders in the country’s history up to that time.’ Lincoln especially ‘liked to provide for his friends, who were often remembered gratefully for services given him in his early struggles in life,’ wrote Noah Brooks, who was himself in line to receive a White House appointment at the time of Lincoln’s death. ‘Sometimes he would ‘break the slate,’ as he called it, of those who were making up a list of appointments, that he might insert the name of some old acquaintance who had befriended him in days when friends were few.’

    “Lincoln also cast a keen eye on patronage appointments which were technically under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General. In August, 1861, Lincoln notified James Pollock, the director of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, to find a job for an Illinois political operative at the mint. When Pollock hesitated, Lincoln tartly wrote to him:

    My dear Sir, You must make a job of it, and provide a place for the bearer of this, Elias Wampole. Make a job of it with the Collector, and have it done. You can do it for me, and you must. Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN
    “As Emanuel Hertz wrote in The Wizardry of Lincoln’s Political Appointments and Party Management, ‘Lincoln never abdicated his power of appointing and filing the appointive position in his administration. He had no general almoner or dispenser of patronage. He looked into every appointment himself and no matter how low were the fortunes of war he was always read to consider the strengthening of the party in one place or another by judicious distribution of patronage.’”

    Within a month or two it will be clear that large elements of the federal bureaucracy are dedicated leftists who believe it is their duty to stop the Trump Administration and destroy it if possible.

    The challenge to President Trump and his team is going to be real and unavoidable.

    Your Friend,
    Newt

  62. Fake News:

    Sidney Blumenthal taken in by Fred Trump campaign ads that appear to be fake

    A pair of racially charged videos that purport to be campaign ads created for Donald Trump’s father in 1969 appear to be well-produced hoaxes, according to a POLITICO review of YouTube records and those of the group that posted them.

    Long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal referenced the videos in a recent essay about Trump published in the London Review of Books:

    In 1969, Fred Trump plotted to run for mayor of New York against John Lindsay, a silk-stocking liberal Republican. [snip] He made two test television commercials. One of them, called ‘Dope Man’, featured a drug-addled black youth wandering the streets. ‘With four more years of John Lindsay,’ the narrator intoned, ‘he will be coming to your neighbourhood soon.’ The ad flashed to the anxious faces of two well-dressed white women. ‘Vote for Fred Trump. He’s for us.’ The other commercial, ‘Real New Yorkers’, showed scenes of ‘real’ people from across the city, all of them white. Fred Trump, the narrator said, ‘is a real New Yorker too’. In the end he didn’t run, but his campaign themes were bequeathed to his son.”

    But the videos were not actually created by Fred Trump’s campaign, because the campaign never existed. Terry Golway, a senior editor at POLITICO who has written extensively about the history of New York City politics, said that he cannot recall Fred Trump ever being mentioned as a potential candidate to run against Lindsay in 1969. [snip]

    The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, who writes the paper’s “Fact Check” column, also shared the videos on Twitter, before later deleting the tweets.

    Glenn Kessler is the “fact checker at the Post, but he does not fact check his own Tweets. Fake News.

  63. Admin: the ninth circuit decision if fatally flawed. They totally ignored the governing statute which empowers the president to exclude illegal aliens. And they gave dispositive weight to statements made on the campaign trail as opposed to the actual terms of the policy. They are guilty of judicial malpractice. I do not know whether an application has been made for a hearing in banc. If it were me I would say that three judge panel had their bite at the apple, and the American cannot find safety or protection in the Ninth Circuit. I said it from the beginning, get this case to FISA.
    ———–
    It’s not that any single one of their findings in the travel-ban case violates the principle of Nolite umquam ire plenus nona circuit,it’s the totality of the thing. For starters, here is what the relevant statute says:

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

    As Ben Wittes notes:

    Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

    This is like the pope changing a major part of Church doctrine without referencing the Bible or a film critic writing a book about mob movies without mentioning The Godfather.

    Then there’s the claim that states have standing to challenge this executive order because they have state schools where students or faculty may be affected, thus depriving them of the ability to provide an enriching educational experience. How does this new standard work? Universities would be affected by a draft or a war, can they challenge those policies because it would affect their students? The president, I gather, can order a naval blockade around the United States. That might interrupt some U-Dub student’s planned semester at sea. Shall the commander-in-chief call to make sure he’s not interfering with anyone’s plan to take a few easy courses by day and smoke a lot of hash by night?

    The fancy lawyer guys I’ve talked to think the most egregious thing in the ruling is that the judges are concerned about the “potential due process rights” of illegal aliens. This calls to mind Socrates’ famous query: “Huh?”

    The executive order is only aimed at people trying to enter the country. If you are an illegal immigrant already here, it has no bearing on you. If you are an illegal immigrant trying to enter or re-enter the United States — illegally! — what are these due-process rights you’re talking about?

    But I think the craziest part of the ruling is the idea that a president’s campaign statements have legal weight and could violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This is battier than Bruce Wayne’s home office. Every cliché-spewing poli-sci major and pundit for the last 17,000 years (give or take) has noted that politicians say one thing when campaigning and another thing when in office. Even Mario Cuomo — that savant at casting banal observations as seemingly brilliant insights — said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose (Donald Trump changed that to we campaign in limericks and govern in tweets).

    Whatever you think of Trump’s original call for a Muslim ban the whole point is that Trump did the right thing. He talked to his advisors and they said, “You can’t do that.” So he said, “Okay, what can we do?” And they came up with this executive order. It was shoddily done and on the merits isn’t nearly as vital to American national security as he claims. But that’s my point. He did something vastly less ambitious because the demands of governing required it. The judges responded, in effect, “We don’t care. We’re still going to punish you for it.”

    David French is exactly right when he says this ruling is a Pandora’s Box. Where does this retromingent line of legal reasoning end? Barack Obama insisted he would fundamentally transform America and suggested he’d make the oceans recede. Could some judge reviewing an EPA regulation have said, “But the president said . . . ” about that? This is taking the rigorous rules of Twitter logic and putting them into law.

    The judges took a sloppily rolled out — but ultimately legal — executive order and used it to set potential precedents that, if left standing, will have calamitous repercussions.

    If one thinks of the courts as a political institution with collective interests, the smartest thing the Ninth Circuit could have done is say something along the lines of “this is stupid but constitutional.” If they really think Trump is the monster the “resistance” Left thinks he is, they’ll need more, not less, credibility in the days to come. But, much like the mainstream media, they’ve decided that crying wolf from Day One is the preferable way to go. And that’s why they went Plenus nona circuit.

  64. I think the entire ninth circuit court of appeals and judge roam’n through the gloamin’ rogan need to go back to law school. Their failure to deal with the enabling statute is a jaw dropper.

  65. An old friend of mine, an army sergeant and messhall chef used to say bullshit rules the world.

    He was half right.

    The other half is sheer incompetence.

    Incompetence of the kind we see from the Ninth Circuit.

    I expect that the professors at Berkley are whispering to each about this.

    The challenge with that opinion they have is how to turn shit into apple butter.

  66. wbboei

    February 10, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    S
    ******************************

    I hear you Wbboei…

    there are so many long knives out for DT who knows who he can really trust

    thank goodness Donald is a warrior and does not shrink in the face of adversity

    …gotta love that about this man…nerves of steel…

  67. Update: The fog of war continues. The Ninth Circuit declared war on President Trump, the Executive Branch, and our system of enumerated powers and separation of powers. That is the main lesson from their latest clown ruling on President Trump’s immigration order. Now the Ninth Circus has gone further nuts, if that is possible. There is a new order from the Ninth Circus:

    BREAKING: 9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

    In a somewhat rare move, one of the judges on the 9th Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before the entire 9th Circuit bench rather than by just the panel selected from them. It’s not clear if this mean that this judge believes that there is enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt to Trump’s controversial travel ban. Regardless, it is an interesting move, and throws another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between President Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced. [snip]

    The court has instructed both Trump’s team and lawyers for the State of Washington and Minnesota to file briefs due by Thursday February 16th, stating whether they believe the motion should be considered en banc. Earlier today, Trump indicated that he did not plan to appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and instead planned to fight the case on the merits in the lower court.

    What does this all mean? Is the Ninth Circus afraid of what has been unleashed by it’s mad war against separation of powers and at least one judge is blinking, afraid or concerned by the implications of what the Ninth Circus has done? Or is the fear of President Trump forcing the Ninth Circus to reconsider their craziness? Or is the Ninth Circus afraid that President Trump’s alleged plans to fight the case in the lower court and the court of public opinion and thereby this new order is a way to force President Trump to stay at the appeals level and on to the Supreme Court before Justice Gorsuch appears on the high court?

    We won’t speculate as to those questions. But we do know who will win and who will lose: President Trump will win and the Ninth Circuit will lose. Why do we say that with such assuredness? Because President Trump has a lot of cards to play while the Ninth Circuit – with it’s ridiculous ruling which gave standing to non-citizens in other countries and gave legal standing to the complaining states without real grievances – played it’s last hand.

    Eventually this all goes to the Supreme Court, unless the Ninth Circus surrenders, and President Trump has the appointment trump hand. The Ninth Circus is in for a world of hurt, possibly including getting smashed to bits, and of course the Congress can always cut the court budget giving the Ninth Circus and the Judicial Branch a good lesson in separation of powers.

    What would we like to see happen in our entertainment fantasies? It would be fun if Attorney General Jeff Sessions would reply to the court with a letter saying “listen you dumbass motherf*cker refugees from Barnum & Bailey, you will get an asswhipping ejamacation on separation of powers when we bust up your little clown tent and start to pass legislation with Article III, Section 2 “exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” which strip you of judicial review and then you can chew on your own butts for taking on President Trump before I was in office and he had to fight you alone you jerkoff lunatics, and let me also tell you you goddamned motherfu*king ….”

    ——————————————————————–

  68. why don’t the so called women from the women’s march…and Hillary and “the future is women” speak out against this…the brutality against women…and Sharia Law…

    not one peep…instead they go after an independent woman and mother of 3 and her business, Ivanka Trump…

    such useless hypocrites…Hillary is a hypocritical paper tiger…instead they wrap the flag of the USA around their heads and deface it…idiots…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4210986/Woman-lashed-brutal-Sharia-law-s-traditional-punishment.html

  69. Trump is here in Palm Beach again this weekend with the Japanese Prime Minister. In his personal Versailles. I work about 3 miles from Maralago, but a world away. The weather is quite nice here now.

  70. mcnorman – thanks for additional info. I wish I had the kind that rolled over – I’m trying to scrounge up receipts for the last couple hundred dollars to get reimbursed lol

  71. Lu – I heard that the Japanese PM met with Trump before he was president and happened to say that he’d love to golf with him in Florida – so that’s why they officially met in DC, then flew down to FL, to play golf together lol Sounds like a good start! I guess Trump has two golf courses down there? Because they said they weren’t sure which one they would play at, because one was having a tournament.

  72. I have so much respect for this woman – I have all her books

    —————-

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‏@Ayaan 49m49 minutes ago

    Van Jones: How can liberals dig out?

    Answer: Drop the Identity Politics! It is a losing game. Liberty is about individuals not groups.

  73. TheLastRefuge ‏@TheLastRefuge2 40m40 minutes ago

    Anyone else notice how the MSM term “Muslim ban” has changed to “travel ban” ever since the polls of support for Trump surfaced?

  74. Mormaer
    February 10, 2017 at 10:01 pm
    So the Ninth wants and needs a do-over? Through bad luck and karma they picked the three dumbest judges. LOL.
    ———-
    I would find some way to avoid it.

    I want that flawed opinion by judge Rogan (he just thinks his name is Robart) and that three stooges to go to the Supreme Court just the way it is. It is flawed on its face, and is a fine example of the work which comes out of the Ninth Circuit. A rehearing would give them an opportunity to uphold the injunction while curing those defects. I believe that is why they want a full hearing and the parties to file briefs. I would tell them that the Administration will be modifying the language in light of the failure of the Ninth Circuit to protect the American People, therefore the issue now before the court is moot, and no briefs will be submitted. I would also ask the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the FISA court. The only risk you run in not submitting briefs is the possibility that they would issue a default judgment. And I am not enough of an expert in federal court practice to know whether that default would only apply to the particular executive order, or to the right itself. So this is all just speculation. But one way or the other, Trump needs to break the power of the courts to undermine his agenda, and it is clear to me that this is what is happening now. If this legal result is not legal then it can only be political.

  75. We won’t speculate as to those questions. But we do know who will win and who will lose: President Trump will win and the Ninth Circuit will lose. Why do we say that with such assuredness? Because President Trump has a lot of cards to play while the Ninth Circuit – with it’s ridiculous ruling which gave standing to non-citizens in other countries and gave legal standing to the complaining states without real grievances – played it’s last hand.
    ———–
    Agreed. Trump needs to play this in such a way that the public demands that the ninth circuit be broken up. Let them twist in the wind with their bad decision, and then get their asses handed to them when the Supreme Court finally rules. Liberals have been using the Ninth Circuit as a way around congress for 50 years, to get things voters would never ever approve. Part the project of draining the swamp is minimizing the power of the social justice warriors in black robes–like our little buddy rogan, for whom the ignornati are holding candlelight masses.

  76. It is more important for Trump to win and the ninth circuit to lose, than it is for Trump to win before the ninth circuit en banc. The swamp must be drained.

  77. And here’s a graduate student who doesn’t understand the concept of free speech. We were always taught if there is speech you don’t agree with, the answer is MORE speech, not restricted speech. I guess they’ve redefined free speech for our youth lol

  78. here is the bio on the judge who wants a rehearing.

    he is from Montana, and appears to be a leftist

    he was appointed by WJC and was considered to fill the position of John Paul Stevens who was another leftist.

    this sheds some light on his motives for pressing for a rehearing

    it is probably not to reverse the decision, but the uphold the decision while curing the defects.

    if it had been Judge Kosinki I would not be suspicious.

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

  79. Maybe the Ninth Circuit will intrude on this too, even though it is another country:

    http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-reaches-deal-with-german-states-on-faster-migrant-deportations/a-37470199

    Merkel reaches deal with German states on faster migrant deportations

    Merkel and state leaders agreed to a plan to quickly deport rejected asylum-seekers. Although deportations are a state matter, the federal government made it clear it wants to play a bigger role.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with the premiers of Germany’s 16 states in Berlin on Thursday and agreed to a plan that will speed up the deportation process for migrants denied asylum.

    One of the main tenets of the 16-point plan concerns a central coordination center in Berlin that would include representatives from each state. Additionally, the plan calls for federal deportation centers to be set up near airports to facilitate collective deportations.

    “We have agreed that a repatriation center, where all responsible authorities are present – which to some extent already exists – should be constructed under federal authority in Potsdam,” said Volker Bouffier, the state premier of Hesse.

    The plan would also make it easier to deport migrants who have been deemed as threats, and increase incentives for “voluntary returns,” where migrants receive money if they choose to leave Germany before receiving a final ruling on their asylum application.

    “We are placing a strong emphasis on voluntary returns,” Merkel said late on Thursday. “We know, however, that nobody will volunteer to return to their home country if there isn’t also a forced deportation scheme in place.” [snip]

    The number of rejections is increasing, therefore, we need to do more for repatriations and deportations,” de Maiziere said on German public broadcaster ARD’s Moregenmagazin program. [snip]

    Merkel has been facing pressure to overhaul Germany’s security structure ahead of the national election in September and in light of a truck attack on a Berlin Christmas market in December. The main suspect in the attack was rejected asylum-seeker Anis Amri who couldn’t be deported as Tunisia did not initially recognize him as a citizen.

    September executions, er elections, focus the mind.

    Germany should deport the Anis Amri types to Seattle/California and get them spacious houses next to where Ninth Circuit district and appellate judges live.

  80. Thomas’s nomination had been briefly held up by Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, who wanted the nominations of Thomas and A. Wallace Tashima delayed until the passage of a bill to split the Ninth Circuit into two circuits.[
    ——-
    I knew Conrad Burns and he was a character. Lots of stories. He referred to Missoula, home of the University of Montana, as the people republic of Missoula. This bill to split the Ninth Circuit was introduced in the 1990s. There was a lot of talk about it, in Montana, Idaho etc. but nothing ever materialized.

  81. The plan would also make it easier to deport migrants who have been deemed as threats,
    ———–
    I am nonplussed. Why would Merkel want to deport these people. So they get a little carried away. Who cares. If we don’t report it it does not exist. They are part of the rich tapestry that she is building for the future, and Bill Kristol is all for it

  82. September executions, er elections, focus the mind.
    ———-
    Nothing so fixates the mind as the imminent prospect of being hanged.

  83. Wbboei, “Judge Thomas is the en banc coordinator for the Ninth Circuit.”

    According to our quick glance at FRAP, Judge Thomas as the en banc coordinator would issue the order. https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm

    This does not necessarily mean Judge Thomas is the judge who wants the rehearing. He could be, but is there any reliable testimony Thomas is the one who asked for the rehearing?

    See Section II for the rules in the Ninth Circus on sua sponte orders for rehearing:

    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Guide.pdf

  84. @lorac
    I understand. If it is any consolation, many of the insurance people are in a holding pattern because everything is so volatile right now. I’ve heard that there is an impetus toward more HSA plans now. Thanks to Barry who totally trashed healthcare we are unknown waters now. I’ve seen physicians who have higher premiums than the rent on their facilities…punishment for keeping PPO and POS plans. The goal is to force people into the HMOs so that they don’t cry too much when we go single payor. I’m not kidding.

  85. This does not necessarily mean Judge Thomas is the judge who wants the rehearing. He could be, but is there any reliable testimony Thomas is the one who asked for the rehearing?
    ———-
    No, it was simply an assumption on my part. Federal court practice, and more specifically internal court rules are a specialty onto themselves. If it is not the chief judge, then they are probably keeping the identity of the judge who wants a rehearing private so people like me will not read too much into it. If I can find out, I will report it.

    Some legal experts contend that it is unlikely that a majority of judges (most of whom were appointed by Democrats) would agree to rehear the case in banc. But if the opinion is fatally flawed, because it does not deal with the statute which gives the power to the president, those democrat jurists may seize this opportunity to cure those defects before it goes up on appeal.

  86. @wbboei

    those democrat jurists may seize this opportunity to cure those defects before it goes up on appeal.

    Let’s hope so. This buffoonery is out of control.

  87. Admin: the other thing I do not like about this sua sponte request for a rehearing en banc by an unidentified judge, apart from my own speculation as to his motives, and the opportunity to cure the defects in the original decision so it is more defensible on appeal, is the fact which I see on page 5 of the court rules you posted, which state that the review process is completely opaque, and there are no time limits. All the while the injunction stays in place, since it is nationwide in scope, hence the nation is vulnerable.

    Majority of En Banc Process is Internal

    Most of the Ninth Circuit en banc procedure occurs internally. The only times the parties
    are notified is when the Court requests responsive or simultaneous briefs. While the General
    Orders provide the rules the Court must follow when considering to rehear a case en banc, the
    exact status of the case’s consideration is mostly unknown to the public and can only be
    speculated on with rough estimates.

  88. I live extremely close to Morikami Park which the Prime Minister of Japan’s wife will be visiting tomorrow. The weather has been gorgeous and it should be a great weekend.
    As an aside, when I was in HS we lived in WPB and were poor. I had several friends from “Twin Lakes” who lived on Palm Beach and often past what was then the Post Estate. Trump’s winter White House has brought a lot of excitement to Palm beach and the surrounding areas.

  89. Trump’s not going to be smoking any peace pipe with Senator Warren anytime soon.🤣

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319060-trump-taunts-dems-for-letting-pocahontas-warren-become-face-of

    Report: Trump taunts Dems for letting ‘Pocahontas’ Warren become ‘face of your party’

    President Trump reportedly mocked Democrats in a meeting with senators this week for allowing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) become the face of their party.

    “Pocahontas is now the face of your party,” Trump said in the meeting, sources told CNN.

    Trump frequently called Warren “Pocahontas” as an insult on the campaign trail, mocking her for previously talking about having a distant Native American ancestry.

    Warren has been one of Trump’s fiercest critics and often bashed him while she campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) inadvertently created a rallying cry for supporters of Warren earlier this week when he rebuked her on the Senate floor for a speech against now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, after which the Senate voted to temporarily bar her from speaking.

    As Democrats held the Senate floor overnight to protest Sessions’s nomination for attorney general, Warren quoted a 1986 letter that the late Coretta Scott King, a civil rights activist and wife of Martin Luther King Jr., wrote opposing Sessions’s nomination for a federal judgeship at the time.

    McConnell interrupted Warren, saying she had impugned another senator and violated an arcane Senate rule.
    “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted,” he said.

    The Senate voted 49-43 along party lines to prevent Warren from speaking on the Senate floor for the remainder of debate on Sessions’s nomination.

  90. Admin: Alex Jones @ 1:25 says Rence Previus is a leaker, he is putting out the word that Trump is wandering around lost, Trump is looking for a new chief of staff, and Rence will be gone in three weeks. Time will tell if that is true.

  91. This Tapper clown is not a deplorable. A leftist like him cannot possibly be a deplorable. He and his fellow leftists are despicables. In that so called interview with Kelly Anne, he loses it completely. In the interview with the SEAL who made the movie Tappers stupidity and big mouth damned near got him killed. His wimpish persona would be putty in the hands of the SEAL which are registered as deadly weapons. It would be fun to see Tapper get the shit out of him, and when he reached for a gun to defend himself we could tell him that in light of his opposition to the Second Amendment, all we can offer is a sling shot.

  92. Tapper is whining whining whining about the critiscm of CNN by the White House. Trump has really got those rattlers rattled. He is going around the world telling ever foreign leader how rotten they are. And they are. I think he needs to do more of it. NOBODY cares what rich little yuppie Tapper cares about or that he is outraged. He is the spoiled brat that other kids beat up on the playground. How can anyone identify with him. I think Trump should step it up, keep kicking the shit out of CNN til hell won’t have it anymore. And there should be no more interivews with that anti American network. That interview should be the last one with them for the next eight years. They are 100% corrupt and the reason they are getty nasty like Tapper did with Kelly ann is because finally their intimidation game they have played with other republicans does not work with Trump, and by attacking him for not reporting on terrorism he is forcing them to talk about terrorism.

  93. Buffet says a chimp flipping a coin enough times would be right 50% of the time.

    Whereas the Ninth Circus gets reversed 80% of the time, which means they are right 20% of the time.

    To even the odds, Trump needs to appoint more chimps and avoid like the plague more social justice warriors.

    Like Rogan, who is under the mistaken impression that his name is Robart.

    Rogan who is now the toast of the town here. until the next attack at which time Rogan will in fact be toast/

  94. The Ninth wants another bite at the apple. Not to reverse it but to clean it up. The criticism is stinging professionally because it so pointed, universal and true. The hearing itself was juvenile and hectoring. And simply WRONG. The decision is dopey and third rate. Three legal lightweight judges (one older than dirt and the other two simply elite dummies) have embarrassed the other judges and possibly judges across the country who they have cost in respect and status. Seeing articles everywhere about their incompetence being called into discussion with their enormous reversal rate is not something they want bandied about. The layman looks at an 80+% reversal (failure) rate and thinks I would be fired if I couldn’t do ANYTHING right more often than that so why are they still there? It is a failure branch of the judicial system that needs busting up. Send some of them to Idaho boonies or to freeze in Alaska. Apparatchiks always congregate in the socially primo locales like San Francisco.

    Sessions should tell them no thanks to further brief submissions. And the DOJ wants to pull out this mess when they need an example of what not to do. The Ninth needs to own it. A new EO with a ready test case with a state who wants migrants and terrorists checked in a friendlier circuit, like the Fifth, might show them that the other side can judge shop too.

  95. who is Alex Jones that he has the inside information? I’ll believe the Reince Priebus story when I hear he’s been fired.

  96. Now that Trump has made the 9th Circuit bomb itself, can he still go back and take it to the Supreme Court? Or is it just better to issue a new order?

  97. lorac
    February 10, 2017 at 10:17 pm
    ———————–
    Yes he has two in Palm Beach County. I have been to them for work related things. One time I had to drive a van there and was terrified as I tend to bump into things in large vehicles and the roads were lined with vehicle that cost more than my house.

    The elite are not nice when you ding their vehicles.

  98. Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‏@Ayaan 14h14 hours ago

    Bill Maher is right: the new religion in town that is anti-women, gay, Jew, Christian, Atheist is ISLAM. Liberals should call it out!

  99. Mormaer
    February 11, 2017 at 5:55 am
    The Ninth wants another bite at the apple. Not to reverse it but to clean it up. The criticism is stinging professionally because it so pointed, universal and true. The hearing itself was juvenile and hectoring. And simply WRONG. The decision is dopey and third rate. Three legal lightweight judges (one older than dirt and the other two simply elite dummies) have embarrassed the other judges and possibly judges across the country who they have cost in respect and status. Seeing articles everywhere about their incompetence being called into discussion with their enormous reversal rate is not something they want bandied about. The layman looks at an 80+% reversal (failure) rate and thinks I would be fired if I couldn’t do ANYTHING right more often than that so why are they still there? It is a failure branch of the judicial system that needs busting up. Send some of them to Idaho boonies or to freeze in Alaska. Apparatchiks always congregate in the socially primo locales like San Francisco.
    Sessions should tell them no thanks to further brief submissions. And the DOJ wants to pull out this mess when they need an example of what not to do. The Ninth needs to own it. A new EO with a ready test case with a state who wants migrants and terrorists checked in a friendlier circuit, like the Fifth, might show them that the other side can judge shop too.
    _____________________________________________

    That was my first cynical take on the sua sponte request for en banc – they wanted to clean it up, not reverse it. The 3 Judge Panel decision was SLOPPY.

  100. Rep. Steven Smith Retweeted
    Trump Fans Only ‏@TrumpFansOnly 1h1 hour ago

    Nov 1991 NY Daily News article reports #DonaldTrump getting out of his limo to stop a man who was savagely beating another man with a bat

    ————

    There’s a photo of the newspaper article in the tweet, but I don’t know how to bring it over…

  101. When I saw the pleadings I noticed my analysis was flawed in at least on material respect. Therefore, I offer this confession of incompetence. If only Obama, Tapper, Holder, and their ilk would follow suit.

    More specifically, I assumed that the attorney general’s office, and its local representative which would be the US Attorney for the Western District of Washington represented the Trump administration. Consequently, wondered whether the sub par legal representation we saw in the hearing could be attributable to either bias or incompetence in that office, given the fact that thirty days ago it was in enemy hands, and many of those minions being civil servants who voted over 90% for Clinton.

    But they were not involved in the case. Why not? Because in this case, the government stood in the position of defendant, rather than the position of plaintiff. If the government had been the plaintiff, that is to say the moving party, then the Attorney General’s Office would be the legal representative. But in this case, the government was being sued by the State of Washington, which is now in the hands of my old high school classmate as governor, who is as much of an idiot now as he was then, and of course the ACLU. Consequently the legal representation was through the Solicitor General’s office.

    The president has yet to pick a Solicitor General, and one of the attorneys on a short list has withdrawn his name. Big media would have us believe that this is because he has an aversion to Trump, and that would clearly be Mr. Tap Toes position at CNN. But it turns out that the real reason is he does not want to subject himself to the circus maximus of the confirmation process. That is understandable. What is fortuitous about this however is it opens the door for KellyAnns husband to be considered for that role. I am sure he is well qualified, and I am equally sure his heart is in the right place.

    The Solicitor Generals Office is well known to that segment of the bar who practices consitutional law. The most prominent one in recent years was Ted Olsen, a prominent Los Angeles Attorney. His wife Barbara was in the airplane that crashed on 911, and he was on the cell phone with her when that happened. When Bush vs Gore went to the Supreme Court, he represented Bush, and prevailed over Gore’s attorney David Boise who had previously won the big anti trust case against Microsoft.

  102. The above analysis sheds some light on why the legal presentation was so poor. The solicitor generals office IS still in enemy hands and will remain there until such time as the new solicitor general is appointed and confirmed. In the old days, it was possible to say this about our institutions. From one administration to the next they adhere to their core mission. That is naive. And to those who contend otherwise, I have a two word answer: Lois Lerner.

  103. What we wrote about in 2009 has come to be generally understood. But it has taken the public a long long long time to catch up. There is a door III here, namely, a wet works operation like Podesta talked about in re. Scalia, in the wiki leaks email. He has a very competent security force around him. However, a SEAL team could do the job and drop his body over the ocean next to Bin Laden. This would be perfectly legal and morally sound. But I do not favor it. What I favor is a public trial, so people have a better understanding of who and how is dividing the country, in order to destroy it, his perverse agenda, and who in the media (Moyers, Brokaw, inter alia) and who in Congress (McCain, Graham, and Ryan) he owns. In the final analysis, this comes down to a battle of the titans between Trump the Nationalist, and Soros the Globalist. An assassination of Soros, which is door III, would deny the information the American People need to unite this country. Thus, the takedown of Soros, quite possibly by Sessions is a matter of the highest priority.
    ———–

    Soros is the most dangerous man in America and an acknowledged global menace, a man with sufficient influence, as Press for Truth observes, to render him “above and beyond the state.” Indeed, the man who reminisces fondly of his youth in Nazi-occupied Hungary when he participated in the looting of Jewish homes without subsequent remorse is, to put it bluntly, quintessentially evil. More recently, the irony of Soros denouncing Trump at the Davos World Economic Forum as an impostor, a con man and a would-be dictator is palpable. Trump of course is none of these. These epithets apply more precisely to Soros himself (and, no less specifically, to his protégé Barack Obama.)

    There are only two ways of dealing with the malignance that is George Soros.

    1. Given the extent of Soros’ activities in funding violence and causing social upheaval, he is liable, as Vadum suggests, to the “criminal and civil provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), state racketeering statutes, and class-action lawsuits.” These provisions “could be used to end Soros’s long-running scheme to interfere with the civil rights of Americans and fundamentally transform the country.” Additionally, we may ask whether Trump will declare George Soros a national security threat, a move, according to some sources, that Trump may be contemplating. Such is the domestic-based option.

    2. Given his fiscal intrigues and interference in the affairs of foreign countries, Soros may be liable under certain circumstances to extradition. It is unclear whether the case could be transferred to Interpol, but should Trump, for example, sign an extradition treaty with Russia as part of a policy to seek warmer relations with Putin under the auspices of pursuing mutual interests, Soros could conceivably find himself in Moscow to answer charges as — once again — a threat to national security. Though it has its downsides, it is a strategy to be considered. Gadfly columnist Erik Rush argues that Soros “has used his billions to institutionalize sedition on a variety of fronts” and “could easily be stripped of his citizenship on any number of grounds and unceremoniously deposited back on Hungarian soil if our leaders found sufficient vertebral fortitude to initiate the requisite proceedings.” I am not sure about the “easily” or the feasibility of the legal process Rush envisages. There is speculation that Trump will use Obama’s 2014 Executive Order (13660), titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” to declare Soros a threat to national security. Such is the foreign-based option.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/09/what-to-do-about-george-soros/

  104. I believe that a prosecution of Soros is far more important than a prosecution of the Clintons.

    Soros is the puss pocket of evil that must be dealt with.

    We need to take a hard look at his entire organization.

    There may be other indictables.

    Including his bon vivant son, who is the party animal of Manhattan.

  105. Admin – The Daily Caller had an article about that fake Fred Trump is a racist YouTube video and that he ran for mayor against John Lindsay. Alyssa Katz from the New York Daily News tweeted: “Careful, folks. There’s no record of a Fred Trump mayoral exploration in the NY Daily News archive and the video’s provenance is unproven.” Then when Daily Caller sent an email to the people who posted the YouTube videos inquiring if they were real, the videos disappeared from YouTube. FAKE news from Hillary supporters trying to paint Fred Trump as a racist.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/10/hillary-supporters-and-liberal-reporters-spread-hoax-video-of-racist-fred-trump-campaign-ad-video/#ixzz4YPNQ71DE”

  106. Not to be disrespectful to one of the great religions of the world, which at times looks like a wood choppers ball, let me simply say that the seductive pull of this ideology is hard for pajama boys to resist:

  107. Alex says that in the wake of the adverse ruling by the Rogan the Imperious and the dingbat choir of the Ninth Circus, State Department bureaucrats have, without informing Trump or Tillson, DOUBLED the flow of refugees from those seven failed states that are a petrie dish for terrorism. Obviously, they are part of the executive branch. Obviously, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Obviously, this action is in direct contradiction to the Presidents position which has not been decided on the merits. It therefore follows that every State Department Bureacrat who had anything to do with this precipitous move against the president should be thanked for their years of service, and must be kicked in the ass so hard their teeth chatter and then shown the door. Just who the fuck do they think they are. They need to be made an example of for other bureacrats who are similarly inclined to tunnel under on the president, that this is a capital crime.

  108. Our friend Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted and convicted the blind sheik for terrorism in the 1990s, and therefore knows a little more about the subject than say that pot bellied little punk Todd, or that yuppy scumbag Tapper, offers an alternative approach to the exclusion of terrorists. It is fine as far as it goes, and it would probably pass judicial muster, in a reasonable court, not the imperious Rogan or the delusional Ninth Circuit who gets reversed 80% of the time. It relies on visual imaging tied to the internet. The problem is it works, if at all, only if the bad guys are already in the data base. Too often, and particularly with the seven states in question, little or no such data exists. It is reasonable to assume that terrorists are already here, thanks to the largesse of messiah Obama. In that case, you should assume that they have been identified and are being watched by responsible security officials, which would not include Clapper or Brennan who were aiders and abettors. Let us hope that they do not lose track of them, like they prior to 911, as I told you about before.

    The government must vet aliens for sharia-supremacist ideology. ‘Do you think Islam needs reform?” Wouldn’t it be interesting, wouldn’t it get us to the crux of the immigration debate, if our best news anchors — I’m looking at you, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier — would put that question to every major politician in Washington? Instead, the press is asking not just the wrong question but one that utterly misses the point, namely: “How many terrorist attacks have been committed by immigrants from this handful of Muslim-majority countries?” It is the same wrong question posed by the imperious federal judge in Seattle who suspended President Trump’s temporary travel ban on aliens from those countries — seven of them. It is the same wrong question that animated the incorrigible Ninth Circuit appeals court in upholding this suspension — and intimating along the way that Trump, and by implication all who fear for the future of our country, are anti-Muslim bigots crusading against religious liberty (the Ninth Circuit being notoriously selective when it comes to protecting religious traditions). (snip)

    slam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism (or, if you prefer, “radical Islam”), is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. To fashion an immigration policy that serves our vital national security interests without violating our commitment to religious liberty, we must be able to exclude sharia supremacists while admitting Muslims who reject sharia supremacism and would be loyal to the Constitution. Islam must reform so that this totalitarian political ideology, sharia supremacism, is expressly severable from Islam’s truly religious tenets. Second, sharia supremacists are acting on a “voluntary apartheid” strategy of gradual conquest. You needn’t take my word for it. Influential sharia supremacists encourage Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa to integrate into Western societies without assimilating Western culture. The renowned Muslim Brotherhood jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who vows that “Islam will conquer Europe, conquer America,” urges Muslim migrants to demand the right to live in accordance with sharia. Turkey’s sharia-supremacist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, admonishes that pressuring Muslims to assimilate is “a crime against humanity.” The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim governments that purports to speak as a quasi-caliphate, promulgated its “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam” in 1990 — precisely because what the United Nations in 1948 presumptuously called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is neither “universal” nor suitable to a sharia culture.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444823/national-security-immigration-muslims-screen-sharia-supremacism-islam-ideology-religion

  109. HuffPo’s position on Sharia Law is that its just hunkie dorie and only a bigot would object. They speak thought a Muslim Attorney who tells us that we have nothing to fear but ourselves.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/09/huffpo-columnist-lies-downplays-sharia-law-make-acceptable/

    Others have a somewhat different view. They rely on the plain meaning of the religious text and the way it is practice. We need to understand what these tenets are because the are coming here. And as we see in Europe, when the do, the set up their own legal system and the civil government of the country gives in. Here then are the tenets.

    http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

    The reason I was interested was because I was trying to find out whether a Muslim would face death under Sharia Law if he asserted on a state department questionaire that he has rejected Sharia Law and was a peaceful Muslim, when in fact he was a soldier of the caliphate, favored by Rogan. No answer have I found yet.

    If he can safely lie about it, then the question alone an effective deterrent.

  110. Here is an interesting article about those people who were supposed to go die.

    To Die or To Reject?
    by Jeffrey P. Snider in Currencies, Economy, Federal Reserve/Monetary Policy, Markets Tags: barbarians, they really don’t know what they are doing


    We may not have advanced degrees, but we don’t need them to know exactly who it was that has been incompetent. If the Great “Recession” wasn’t a recession, and that is now the general consensus, admitted publicly or not, it’s not my fault for being a little more than upset about it, and directing that ire at those who for years said it was, and more than that said first it wasn’t ever even possible.

  111. I found the text, in case you do not want to watch the video.

    I do not know who Annie is, but she sounds a lot like Patty4Hill who worked in China, and published two major pieces in the comment section which were provided similar examples of deep insight on what is going on.
    ————-
    Reader “Annie” comments on Social Justice Warriors:

    For years I’ve seen too many comments along the lines of “SJWs will get out in the real world and they won’t be able to handle it! They’re dumb but they’re in for a rude awakening.”

    No, they are not. SJWism is the logical result of neoliberalism. As such, they will reinforce the globalist, imperialist Empire. The power of the meritocratic society gives our untitled aristocrats a belief in the rightness of their rule through the power of the resume and college credentialing. It’s kind of like being Born Again, except there’s not even the ghost of a belief in Sin to keep them in check. And there’s nothing like Confession, except making a list of grievances.

    There’s a reason they’ve attached themselves to identity politics and gender ideology as opposed to climate change. They can jet to Southeast Asia for a semester, volunteer in South America for a year, travel to Turkey twice a year, and never think twice about their carbon footprint. They dine out more than any generation ever has, but they vote the right away and never think about warehouses or trucking lines. One fights climate change through the government, not through one’s personal choices.

    SJWs are consolidating power. They’re the children of neoliberal boomers and they stand to inherit their parent’s and grandparent’s wealth & power. They criticize the faces of that power while embracing the underlying premises. Now it will be Science & Rationality that will rule, not Protestant Capitalists, and so they are justified.

    It’s an enormous mistake to think they are going to grow up and accept things. I know too many of them who are all grown up, and they pride themselves on being “allies” even if they are not out smashing things. They are the Obama bureaucrats still in their jobs, the lawyers in California mid-level institutions, the doctors, the foreign correspondents. They are revolutionaries, but the revolution strangely keeps all wealthy urbanites like themselves in their Real Simple lifestyles. It’s a revolution forced upon the lower classes that gets corporations to signal their alliance and promises a future of material abundance for those willing to partake in the dream of creating a plastic humanity. The colleges are at the center of this revolution for a reason: they give the credentials. If the SJWs ever start rejecting the college system, then we’ll know something has changed.

    The good news is that if you never liked Empire, you get to keep the moral high ground by opposing the boujee SJWs. Their self-righteousness is a farce. This is the toxic rot of meritocracy: we are watching the scions of the upper middle class and wealthy justify their rule to themselves, and us, through a progressive, statist politics which leaves the poor rotting on drugs, jobless, hopeless, fatherless. They don’t even know the consequences of the policies they promote because they only know these stories on paper, or while gentrifying a neighborhood.

    It almost makes you long for an aristocracy where the power was an accident of birth, where there were reciprocal obligations. Interesting that the gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater than in the global meritocracy. They believe they actually have earned the right to tell the lower middle class why they were replaceable, or the poor why they should be grateful to be forced to stay in their failing schools. I, too, fear where this will lead.

  112. From the above: They believe they actually have earned the right to tell the lower middle class why they were replaceable,
    ——–
    Correct me if I am wrong. But isn’t that exactly what Bill Kristol did yesterday. If so, then he merely said what others in his class are thinking.

  113. lol

    ——————

    Squarehead • 4 days ago

    I saw a great meme of trudeau the other day. It was a picture of him that said
    “Obama, now available in vanilla”.

  114. Wow looking at a certain blog! The total disdain for these people for ANY opinion other than their own is totally astonishing! They resort to the racists and stupid people attacks! I am so sick of their rhetortic

  115. Connecting the dots:

    So, in case you’ve gotten lost, here’s a recap of the timeline of events:

    Jan 20 – Trump takes office, and DoD officials are expecting him to be more willing to approve dangerous missions
    Jan 26 – Rex Tillerson visits State Department headquarters prior to his confirmation, and either terminates or forces the resignation of many existing State Department personnel
    Jan 29 – The botched Yemen raid is executed, resulting in the death of Navy SEAL Owens
    Feb 1 – Rex Tillerson is confirmed by President Trump as Secretary of State
    Feb 2 – The Awan brothers are terminated on suspicion that they accessed congressional computers without permission

    As Mad World News previously stated,

    “…it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. The firing of the Awan brothers is linked to the Yemen raid where al-Qaeda knew we were coming, and it tragically ended with Navy SEAL Owens being killed in action.”

    http://fmshooter.com/alleged-muslim-spy-ring-rex-tillerson-right-clean-house/

  116. More from the swamp which our Donald is cleaning:

    Philly DA Seth Williams: Brought ‘shame’ to office, won’t run for reelection
    he took no questions and referred only obliquely to an ongoing federal investigation into his personal and political spending. Sources familiar with the progress of that probe said Friday that it was rapidly nearing completion.
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Philadelphia-District-Attorney-Seth-Williams-announcement-Feb-10-2017.html

  117. Until now, three justifications have been proffered by the elites, for their nefarious policy of open borders. You will recall, I am sure, what they are. Lord knows we have heard them often enough. They tell us we need open borders because:

    1. We are a nation of immigrants

    2. They will take the jobs Americans refuse to do

    3. We need a larger population to provide the tax base needed to finance the retirement of baby boomer.

    If you examine these arguments, closely, you realize that none of them makes sense.

    So what is the real game here, we wondered.

    Yes, we wondered alright until Bill Kristol spilled the beans.

    He says we want to replace energy the white middle class who have grown lazy and complacent, with immigrants will to work for cheap wages, work harder, and are just glad to have a job. He claims this is perfectly consistent with our history, when prior generations of working class Americans were replaced by Italians and Irish. He fails to specify however they came here legally.

    That is a phony argument as well, given the fact that millions of high paying American jobs have been transferred overseas. If those jobs were still here, then the white gentile working class might be less lazy. They might even be productive. Again.

    So what we are talking about here, really, is ethic cleansing, by a different means. This will increase unemployment among the white working class, and death panels he supports will finish the job.

    That an American Jew would advocate a policy of ethnic cleansing is to say the least curious. But the main thing here is we now know what the plan of the elites is–for us. For this statement, coming from one of the top people in the uniparty establishment is in the nature of an admission–and a smoking gun.

    It does not take much imagination to see where this train leads: when the time comes that the white working class jobs are taken by the illegal immigrants and those jobs can be automated or taken over by robots that the elites are investing billions in now, they will become the next round of victims.

    So thank you so much Billy Kristol, for illuminating that which was previously obscure. Thank you so much.

  118. After three generations they become lazy and complacent, he says.

    Kristol claims that is true of the white working class.

    But if that is his argument, then the group that is most true of is our elites.

    Annie’s comment which I posted above is directly on point:

    “SJWism is the logical result of neoliberalism. As such, they will reinforce the globalist, imperialist Empire. The power of the meritocratic society gives our untitled aristocrats a belief in the rightness of their rule through the power of the resume and college credentialing. It’s kind of like being Born Again, except there’s not even the ghost of a belief in Sin to keep them in check. And there’s nothing like Confession, except making a list of grievances.

    There’s a reason they’ve attached themselves to identity politics and gender ideology as opposed to climate change. They can jet to Southeast Asia for a semester, volunteer in South America for a year, travel to Turkey twice a year, and never think twice about their carbon footprint. They dine out more than any generation ever has, but they vote the right away and never think about warehouses or trucking lines. One fights climate change through the government, not through one’s personal choices.

    SJWs are consolidating power. They’re the children of neoliberal boomers and they stand to inherit their parent’s and grandparent’s wealth & power. They criticize the faces of that power while embracing the underlying premises. Now it will be Science & Rationality that will rule, not Protestant Capitalists, and so they are justified.”

    Put differently, a fish rots from the head down.

    And make no mistake, these pampered pets are rotten to the core.

  119. Quo valis, the repudiated left? Richard posits that their leadership is decadent, their mission uncertain, and change must happen if they are to survive. The options he sees are i) to become the party of lifestyle (infra, Annie’s comments), ii) to adopt a populist agenda, although for now Donald has pre empted the field, or iii) to adopt a new ideology drawing strong elements of the Muslim religion. For the left, the Muslim religion has a powerful seductive pull, because it preaches blind obedience, suppresses free speech, opposes democracy, and permeates every aspect of daily life. It is in short the perfect vehicle for the totalitarian control which the left has always relished. You may disagree. You may say, no, the left will not adopt a Muslim agenda, because Muslim is a religion. To that I would say the edicts of the left which brook no dissent are no less a religion, but simply a secular one. Bottom line: the left will go Muslim. Odds? 80%.
    ————

    “The base (of the democrat party) is getting ahead of the leaders” is probably Dean’s way of warning senior Democrats of the dangers of “leading from behind”, of watching things get away from them. The two biggest perils are the party will split into ever-more radical factions feeding a demand for revenge from an enraged base; and that old-school leaders like Kaine and Dean will be proven impotent in the face of a counter-liberal juggernaut.

    Both those dangers came measurably closer with the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary. With DeVos’ accession the juggernaut has moved one step closer to investing the key liberal redoubt of education. The core fortress, the upstream of culture and politics — may soon be under siege. It demonstrated, if further proof were needed, the growing inability of the old time Democratic bosses to slow, let alone stop the Deplorable advance. In a sidebar to the DeVos’ story the New York Times sourly noted that Barack Obama was off kite surfing with Richard Branson, fiddling as it were while Rome burned. (snip)

    All over the west, the left is in crisis,” he writes. “It cannot find answers to three urgent problems:

    the disruptive force of globalization,

    the rise of populist nationalism, and-

    the decline of traditional work.” (snip)

    What if time has passed the Left by? What if its future is the past? The frightening question must be faced. One solution says Harris, is for the Left to completely rearchitecture itself, starting with an abanonment of the proletariat by accepting that traditional work no longer exists. Having left the greasy workplace it should become instead a lifestyle party. ” (snip)

    In short, Harris is exhorting the Left is to openly become what George Orwell once disparagingly called fruit juice and sandal faction of socialism.

    If the cranks cannot save the Left but represent the final degenerate phase of Western socialism — what Shakespeare called “a lightning before death” — then what fills the vacuum? Two possibilities suggest themselves. One is that the space formerly occupied by the Left will be taken over by the populists themselves. John Daniel Davidson argues Trump simply took over huge sections of the Democratic party by daring to act on promises the Clintons made for years but never meant.

    The second is that a totally new ideology will rise in the West not just in the United States, perhaps with radical Islamic elements, to fill the void.

    https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2017/02/07/the-longest-nooooo/

  120. Steve Miller. You have seen him before and so have I.

    He did the warm-ups at Trump rallies.

    He impressed me greatly then.

    But there is always that nagging question, isn’t there?

    Can he handle Q&A?

    And how will he respond when he has to think on his feet?

    We know the big media beloved messiah had a hard time with this.

    On those rare occasions where he was given anything other than a soft ball question.

    Uh uh hu, then a long meandering stream of consciousness dissertation.

    One that answered every conceivable question, except the one that was asked.

    And laced with two or more lies, just to stay in practice.

    NONE OF THAT with Steve.

    He is a smooth, articulate, unflappable and effective as any advocate I have seen in any forum.

    Watch–you will like it:

  121. Sorry. The Wanda Jackson video was the one I intended to post to describe the messiah when got more than a little tongue tied.

    This is the one I intended to post. It is state of the art.

  122. This afternoon I’m ruminating through an old OneNOte file. There’s this youtube of Jeff Sessions Oct 2013 – govt shutdown.

    Published on Oct 4, 2013
    “A lot of us are going to donate our pay during this furlough to charity and I will. But I wish our friends would begin to be more concerned for the private sector workers, millions of American workers who will be affected by the Affordable Care Act—hammered by it. Eventually full funding will resume to our government. We know that this furlough will end. But if Obamacare remains in full effect the consequences for American workers is going to be lasting, damaging. So will the consequences to the United States Treasury and our financial condition…”
    http://youtu.be/2gJU-irovV8 AND NOW he’s AG. Just tickles me. He tried hard to get Dems to talk about the impending disaster. And they would not agree to.

  123. Steve lays out the options that Trump has.

    I hope he selects the option that i) keeps the country safe, and ii) makes the 9th circuit the laughing stock of the nation.

    The least desirable option would be to let them tie this thing up for months in an en banc proceeding.

    An appeal to the Supreme Court is premature, because he does not have the crucial fifth vote, yet.

    To issue a new executive order along the lines of what Andy McCarthy proposed is not workable. and would be portrayed as defeat.

    I believe the best avenue is to tell the country that Judge Robart (hereinafter Rogan) has left the door wide open to terrorism, therefore the Administration will proceed on the merits and to hell with any gag order he seeks to impose.

    I want this judge and his superiors to be made to look foolish, to send a message to the judiciary as a whole that there are damned good reasons at times to defer, or to say something is a political issue, or some of the other legal artifices and devices used by courts historically to not decide cases which are best left to the political branches.

  124. What I want to see is a televised trial on the merits. I want the public to see the evidence. I want them to watch this judge make evidentiary rulings that reflect a calculated indifference to the security of this nation. It would be a great civics lesson.

  125. The Ninth Circus must be trying to make up for their cretinous decision with regards to the visa ban from those 7 Muslim countries with this decision about illegal immigrants.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-rejects-immigrants-right-to-a-lawyer-in-expedited-cases-1486509228?mod=e2tw

    Appeals Court Rejects Immigrants’ Right to a Lawyer in Expedited Cases
    Judges uphold deportation of a Mexican immigrant who had argued for right to hire legal counsel

    By Joe Palazzolo

    Immigrants who are caught entering the U.S. illegally have no right to legal representation, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday.

    The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the deportation of a Mexican immigrant who was arrested while crossing into the U.S. in 2012 and returned to his country the following day.

    The ruling, from a three-judge panel, came hours before a different Ninth Circuit panel was set to consider an executive order by President Donald Trump that temporary suspended travel from seven countries and halted the admission of refugees.

    The ruling Tuesday dealt with whether immigrants caught entering the U.S. illegally have due process rights to legal counsel under the Fifth Amendment, an issue separate from those raised in the executive-order challenge.

    Under a 1996 federal law, Customs and Border Protection officers can use a process called “expedited removal” to swiftly deport immigrants who are caught within 100 miles of the border without valid entry documents and who have been in the U.S. fewer than 14 days.

    Immigrants subject to expedited removal receive no hearing, see no judge and have no right to appeal. Nearly half of all removals from the U.S. follow this process, according to the Department of Homeland Security.​

    Rufino Peralta-Sanchez, who was caught by U.S. Border Patrol agents a mile inside the U.S. border, had argued for a right to hire a lawyer to assist him during the removal process.

    Judge Jay Bybee, writing for a 2-1 majority, said allowing lawyers to take part in expedited removals would defeat their purpose, “exponentially increasing the cost to the government as the government must detain the alien, pay for the government’s own representation, pay for the creation of a longer record, and pay for the increased time the immigration officer must spend adjudicating such case.”

    The Trump administration is considering expanding eligibility for expedited removal to include immigrants who have been in the U.S. longer and are arrested farther from the U.S. border.

    Kara Hartzler, who represents Mr. Peralta-Sanchez, said such changes, combined with Tuesday’s ruling, would mean that a vast number of immigrants living in the U.S. could be summarily deported without counsel.

    Judge Harry Pregerson used his dissent to condemn what he called a “flawed” and “cruel” system of expedited removals that can result in the improper deportation of asylum seekers who express a credible fear of persecution back home.

    A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which represented the federal government, declined to comment.

  126. Which brings up the question why the Nine Circus judges persisted on issuing a bad decision.

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/on-trial-five-signs-even-the-ninth-circuit-knows-trump-will-win-in-the-end/

    On Trial: Five Signs Even The Ninth Circuit Knows Trump Will Win Travel Ban Fight In End

    by Robert Barnes | 9:55 am, February 12th, 2017

    As trained appellate attorneys learn, a court’s opinion often gives away “tells” of the court’s own confidence, or absence thereof, in their opinion. Like a poker player at the table, some tells hide a weak hand. And few judicial “hands” are as weak as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion to let the Washington court’s stay on Trump’s immigration order stand.

    Tell #1: When The 9th Circuit Cannot Even Cite The Most Important Law On The Subject

    The Constitution delegated expressly to Congress the right to control immigration. Congress in turn gave broad power over immigration to the President. This statute was the cited basis for Trump’s foreign entry ban on select countries. Guess how many times the 9th Circuit even mentioned this statute? Zero! This shows the 9th Circuit knew they had no answer for the law. Instead, they pretend this key law doesn’t exist. Just reading the law exposes why the 9th Circuit hid it.

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

    Tell #2: When The 9th Circuit Keeps Citing LOSING Opinions As Their Evidence

    The second cue was the 9th Circuit’s novel and unsupported extension of standing to states on behalf of people who are neither residents nor citizens of those states, or of any state! The corollary unprecedented act was saying due process rights extend to foreigners in foreign lands. Every major case on this issue, cited in detail by the Boston federal judge, says no such rights exists. Access to America has always been a privilege, not a right. Instead, the 9th Circuit relies on the losing opinions from a range of cases, called “dissents” or minority “concurring” opinions which are NOT precedent. The 9th Circuit cites these losing opinions over and over, a strong tell they know they hold a bad, losing hand on the law.

    Tell #3: When No One Will Even Sign The 9th Circuit Opinion Under Their Own Name

    No judge would sign this 9th Circuit opinion. Per curiam opinions usually show up in non-controversial cases, not a case like this. When nobody wants to be the author of an opinion like this, it’s a tell that nobody wants to be held responsible for “authoring” this opinion. It really is that bad.

    Tell #4: When The 9th Circuit Fails To Even Address Most of the Cases Cited By The Leading Recent Opinion on the Topic

    A Boston federal judge detailed the 200+ years of precedent supporting Trump’s order. How does the 9th Circuit address these precedents? Ignore almost all of them. In a trial, when you hide from all the other side’s best evidence, it is a sign you know the other side is right.

    Tell #5: When A Fellow 9th Circuit Judge Sua Sponte Says The Decision Needs To Be Undone

    En banc review — where all of the judges of a circuit weigh in — is very rare. Even rarer is a judge, sua sponte, on his own, without either side requesting it, demanding such a review. A judge on the 9th Circuit was bothered by the opinion so badly, they demanded the whole en banc panel review. Some judges on the 9th circuit clearly still value being seen as good jurists, not as politicians playing to the peanut gallery.

    The 9th Circuit opinion reads like a desparate brief from the losing side of an argument where the writer knows the law is against them. An old trial lawyer’s adage goes, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither law nor facts is on your side, pound the table. There was a lot of table pounding by the 9th Circuit, and that may be the biggest tell of all that they know they are wrong on the law, and Trump is right.

  127. This article has a video (lower down in article) of kids (ages 6-10 I think) that ISIS has trained. ISIS put a bunch of handcuffed prisoners in various rooms of a multistory bombed out building, and had the kids go in to find and execute them. It’s graphic, so beware. The point of the article is that even with “child refugees” (actual children, not the 29 y/o ones), we may not be safe.

    http://fmshooter.com/need-take-closer-look-real-refugees-denounce-vetting/

  128. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.” (Rules for Radicals, Rule 13)

    That is why Trump should not submit briefs on the hearing in banc, not appeal it to the Supreme Court and not modify the order. They have issued a bad decision, freeze it, go to the merits, present evidence, and let the public see how irresponsible Rogan and his ninth circus really are, for failing to protect the American People.

  129. Lorac, that video you posted is beyond horrifying. These monsters in the Middle East and Africa mind fu$king these young kids and making them murdering terrorists is a place hell is made of

  130. OT

    Imo…best part of the grammys
    Bruno Mars…he never disappoints

    Tribute to the Bee Gees pretty good too
    Nice to hear some music instead of alot of screaming..and self indulgence

    Pretty tame politically with exception of one big rap blowout
    “We the people” And RESIST RESIST RESIST

    We all get ” we the people” the resistence doesn’t own that

  131. To be fair

    Lady GaGa can do it all…from classics to jazz to national anthem to acting to tonight fronting with Metallica
    Girls got it all going on

  132. Tony Stark
    February 12, 2017 at 4:03 pm
    Here is another rundown of the Ninth’s ruling on that appeal http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2017/02/federal-appeals-court-rules-immigrants-have-no-right-to-lawyer-in-expedited-cases.php
    One of the underlying principals of the 1995 law, and administrative law in general, is there are no appeal rights if you don’t enter the regulatory, administrative or bureaucratic system to begin with. “Jumping the line” without filing any paperwork for permission to enter means zero appellate rights. Administrative law is “agency” law delegated to bureaucrats BEFORE it goes to federal court. Very, very few of these types of “un-constitutional” claims are accepted because it all been litigated to death. Every jail house lawyer has filed reams of them. Adminstrative or regulatory rules are statutory language rewritten into procedure for bureaucrats to implement. So are Executive Orders. The media and immigration “civil rights” lawyers act like every illegal is entitled to a Supreme Court hearing. They aren’t.

    This Ninth circuit order upholds that general principal. All of the baloney about the deportee’s prior status and green card/legal permanent status had been administratively dealt with, was over and done, and under res judicata doctrine closed. It doesn’t matter if a non-citizen has lived in the US almost all of their life if they are felons because that is a fundamental requirement for legal residency or even a visit and that has been litigated and upheld by federal courts. No criminals allowed.

    Now the Ninth’s bizarre “decision” on the EO. This screed is diametrically opposite. Determining that everyone on the earth has legal rights including those not in the immigration system in foreign lands sometimes maybe in the future. The nutty state attorneys, loopy federal Washington state judge, and the three ninnies at the Ninth are confusing apples and oranges. They are forwarding the globalist fraud of universal “human rights” and open borders with US statutory immigration law. The other three judge panel from the same circuit is recognizing that US administrative law, derived from statutory language from Congress and written under the direction of the executive (the President) is based upon precedent and clear statutory, AND CONSTITUTIONAL, authority. EO’s are executive branch administrative regulatory “clarifications” based upon statutory law. The Ninth is contradicting itself. One judge noticed. Now they have to hash this out to not look like idiots wanting to be the International World Court of hokum and baloney.

    Now I’m not a lawyer. But I did write a thesis for my MPA on the administrative law appellate process and spoke in depth to the national head administrative judge (he was a very generous lawyer and informative on his legal specialty) for a federal agency back in the 1970’s. I don’t think the principles have changed since then. And we had business law which had a lot of administrative law topics for my MBA in the early ’80s which included that you have to go through the agencies before you hit the big time and spend a whole lot of money on federal court.

    My point is that the ninnies at the Ninth, immigration and open border advocates, unscrupulous immigration lawyers, lackwits in the media, ignoramuses, and corrupt state attorneys working for major corporations to get them unlimited cheap labor are all wanting to overthrow established common law which is the principle of administrative law which is you have to file your paperwork, exhaust the bureaucratic regulatory process of application and appeals (which the executive branch controls via authority of legislative statute) BEFORE a federal court has any say whatsoever and that say is quite limited. To overthrow this process, the recent EO ruling by the Ninth starts anarchy in the immigration process. And those shitheads in Mexico threatening to overwhelm our courts, bureaucratic processes for application and appeal, will get a 40 year backlog at INS (no one will get a visa) and rubber-stamped dismissals from the federal court clerks. I suspect that the Ninth realized just what a big boo boo and mess they had made after the fact. Now they have to fix it. The other decision lets HHS/INS/Border patrol throw the illegals coming over the border out faster and the ones who have exhausted their appeals (that they didn’t show up for and were still administered as denials). Cause and effect. Progressives/globalists has great difficulty with it.

  133. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/houston-texas/texas/articleComments/Texas-teachers-advising-students-of-immigration-10925569.php
    Teachers telling children to commit perjury to a federal law enforcement officer will get the children in more trouble and deported faster as a felon. Do these idiots understand they are committing a felony too? Conspiracy to defraud I think. And practicing immigration law without a license. The Mexican consulates are doing that too and have no idea what they are doing. The impression they are leaving of course is illegal aliens and their advocates lie a lot which is not going to get them much sympathy from a disgusted public. Hysteria leads to very bad decision making. Lucky Trump.

  134. So why would school teachers, social workers, state and local government employees tell illegal aliens, even children, to lie? Their jobs! If this massive population leaves they don’t have clients to serve, don’t get public tax payer money as salaries, and their enrollment, census population collapses as go “grants” to the state, county, city, school district, etc and the gravy train collapses. Getting money to “serve” illegal aliens beats workin’ a regular job. Illegal immigration has been a growth industry for a couple of decades. Follow the money. And as Jeff Sessions advocates cut off the money. The savings will be YUGE.

  135. “Sanctuary city” is dog whistle politics to employers that they can hire cheap labor, provide no services or benefits, the taxpayers will foot the bill either through local taxes or more commonly through grants of state and federal tax money (cost shifting) to subsidize the needs of the illegal alien population. Sanctuary city to illegals means freebies, lax or no enforcement of immigration laws, and more rights (such as illegal voting, political power, their own representatives in city councils, state legislatures and even Congress and the maybe the expanded courts judges advocating for them) and not having to assimilate. For the illegal enabling pol it means more money, power and clout. Trump and Sessions threaten this system of graft, organized crime, Mexican government infiltrated government structures and a shift in power that demonstrates the gravy train.

  136. Mormaer
    February 13, 2017 at 6:24 am
    ——-
    You have a Masters Degree in Public Administration?

    Please give me your expert opinion on the following hypothetical.

    Do not let the fact that you are not a lawyer detain you.

    It is not a legal opinion I am asking for.

    Of course if you have legal authority on point I would be glad to have it.

    But it is your background in government that is relevant here.

    Here is the fact pattern.

    The current mayor of Seattle Ed Murray is a dyed in the wool progressive.

    He is a gay man, and rode to power with the backing of that group.

    He was born in a used auto town, south of Seattle, i.e. Auburn, little Detroit of the west.

    He held a meeting with department heads two weeks ago in re. illegal immigration.

    He declared Seattle to be a sanctuary city.

    And he claimed that the policy of the Trump administration have put “citizens” at risk.

    He could have said residents, but he accorded them the legal status of citizens, which has constitutional ramification.

    On what meat doth this (little) Caesar feed that he has grown so great?

    And who are the citizens?

    Were they born in this country? No.

    Did they apply for citizenship, and go through the naturalization process? No

    Are they green card holders here lawfully? Apparently not.

    They are in illegal aliens who reside in this municipality.

    And according to this so called Mayor, they are scaaaaaaaaaaaared of being deported.

    His heart goes out to them, because he is not only mayor but a virtuous man.

    Or else a slimy politician cynically trolling for votes, I will say no more about that.

    He claimed that there are one thousand of them working in city government.

    Actually, the number is much higher.

    Therefore, this great man of conscience has decided sua sponte that he will fight Trump to protect these people.

    And to use ALL resources at his disposal, which means tax payer money.

    In addition, he will precipitate a reduction in federal dollars used to subsidize man projects

    Not the least of which is the $180 billion dollar transportation boondoggle which is already in existence.

    Recall of this mayor is not an option.

    A citizen initiative is a possibility, but the local newspaper the Seattle Times

    Supports this idiot mayor and are stark enthusiasts for this sanctuary citizen stuff.

    So much so that they publish stories about the hard cases, and use them to justify broad sweeping policies.

    In public affairs as in law, hard cases make bad policy or law.

    Finally, the current population of Seattle proper is 600k.

    In 10 years, the projected population will be three times that: 1.6 million.

    Cars will no longer be operable–everthing is moving toward mass tansportation (supra)

    Thus, the dog whistle this mayor is sending to illegals across the country is highly problematic.

    Given all that, how would you respond to my idea that property owners withhold a portion of their taxes? Maybe 10%

    Obviously, this is not a situation where a citizen disagrees with a policy. No withholding is justified in that situation.

    On the contrary, this is a situation where a mayor is using public funds to finance an action which does not benefit his constitutents at large, is clearly illegal, and hearkens back to the legal doctrine of the old confederacy.

    Tell me sir: how say ye about all this?

    The Mayor of Seattle, a gay bon vivante public official, who has like the dearly departement Messiah has never had to meet a payroll, or sell a product in the free market because his entire existence has been one long run for high school held a meeting with city department heads two weeks ago concerning the President’s

  137. This is not a case of first impression–this witholding of taxes. Many years ago, the Archbishop of Seattle Raymond Hunthausen witheld 50% of his taxes in protest of defense policy. That is an interesting factoid to me, because I thought sky pilots like him were exempt from taxation but evidently not. The Vatican was not pleased with their little black sheep, because they had an agreement in principle with then president Reagan to extend diplomatic recognition to the Vatican. Suddenly, it became known that Hunthauzen also supported homosexuality, a previously unknown fact, and that was the end of him. The evidence against him was flimsy at best, and consisted of nothing more that the fact that he had given communion to log cabin republican types. But as in any prosecution, the charge rings louder than the denial.

  138. Looks like Trump decided to play along with the Ninth Circus’ request for documents for an en banc review.

    Paperwork just filed by Trump administration indicates it will appeal last week’s adverse ruling in the 9th Circuit Court to larger panel— Chris Snyder (@ChrisSnyderFox) February 13, 2017

  139. gonzotx
    February 13, 2017 at 4:04 pm
    ——————————————
    Who knows what’s going on behind the curtain.

  140. They are after General Flynn and I think Trump needs to stop this BS and put a fork into it. They wont stop there, they want all of them, Kelly, Bannon, Miller, Spicer… all of them
    He would be foolish to give them an inch yet his underlings are not coming to Flynn sid, and neither is Trump. They won’t be happy with a sacrificial lamb and it’s wrong. It will show weakness.
    Im calling BS on this.

  141. The problem is that Congress is led by people who refuse to wield that power against the courts.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/02/does-congress-not-realize-it-has-the-complete-power-to-rein-in-rogue-courts?utm_content=buffer35682&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    Does Congress not realize it has the complete power to rein in rogue courts?

    It became quite apparent after the Supreme Court redefined the building block of all civilization in Obergefell and lower courts began redefining sexuality itself, that nothing the courts do would serve as an inflection point — a moment of catharsis — for the Republican legal establishment. They suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome, seeking the love and approval of the judicial supremacists even as they intellectually decry the runaway courts. Now that the courts have unilaterally redefined our national sovereignty and have essentially mandated that we bring in an unlimited number of Islamist refugees, there is still no inspiration to act among the “right-leaning” legal elites.
    Conservatives would pine to return to the ‘90s-era jurisprudence, predating the redefinition of marriage and the abrogation of our national sovereignty. Yet, even as far back as 1996, Robert Bork warned that the federal judiciary was already broken beyond repair:

    “On the evidence, we must conclude, I think, that this tendency of courts, including the Supreme Court, is the inevitable result of our written Constitution and the power of judicial review. Even in the depths of the Warren Court era some of us thought that the Court’s performance, though profoundly illegitimate, could be brought within the range of the minimally acceptable by logical persuasion or the appointment of more responsible judges, or both. We now know that was an illusion. A Court majority is impervious to arguments about its proper behavior. It seems safe to say that, as our institutional arrangements now stand, the Court can never be made a legitimate element of a basically democratic polity.”

    Over twenty years later, with courts annulling settled law of national sovereignty during a dangerous era of Islamic terrorism, conservatives are still making excuses for the courts. Some conservative legal institutionalists are calling on Trump to rewrite the executive order in order to pass muster with the holy courts, not understanding that the courts have already overlooked five statutes and settled case law in its unprecedented abuse of power. It is quite evident that the federal judiciary will never be made “minimally acceptable by logical persuasion or the appointment of more responsible judges.” It must be reformed wholesale.

    So what can Congress do?

    It starts by actually getting on the playing field and reclaiming the co-equal power of constitutional interpretation that it always held until the mid-twentieth century, as explained by a recent CRS report. It starts by not having Senators like James Lankford, R-Okla. (C, 71%) publicly legitimize the courts as the sole and final arbiter of constitutionality, especially when their rulings explicitly violate the most foundational parts of the Constitution, as well as our laws, history and traditions. It also starts by not having senators like Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. (F, 50%) raise the specter of judicial supremacy by saying that judges, unlike members of the other branches, are beyond reproach.

    Congress’ absolute power over the jurisdiction of the courts

    Once Republican members of the legislative branch of government finally recognize the awesome nature of their power relative to that of the judiciary, they can finally appreciate that, as Madison said, “in republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”

    It is quite shocking how many people involved in politics, including elected conservative politicians, have no clue about the history of the judiciary, the drafting of Article III, and the crafting of the Judiciary Act of 1789. They are unaware of the fact that judicial review was never supposed to morph into judicial supremacy and that to the extent the courts have illegally seized such power, there is a complete remedy that can be used by Congress to restore the proper balance of power. And unlike the judicial concoction of Fourteenth Amendment “rights” to abortion on demand, 20 days of early voting, transgender bathrooms, and endless immigration, this power is actually written in the most express and plenary terms.

    It’s time for Congress to take the political game out of the courts.

    Aside from a few spheres of original jurisdiction granted to the Supreme Court, the rest of the Supreme Court’s purview is “appellate jurisdiction” from cases they receive on appeals from the congressionally-created lower federal courts or from state courts. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

    “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    These are not merely throwaway or vacuous words. This entire clause of the Constitution was deliberately crafted to assuage any concerns about an overbearing judiciary that would not stand for election. During the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, John Marshall — yes that John Marshall of judicial review fame — reassured a skeptical George Mason that the exceptions clause was indeed robust. “These exceptions certainly go as far as the Legislature may think proper, for the interest and liberty of the people.” As I observed in chapter nine of Stolen Sovereignty, “if the definition of marriage, religious liberty, and sovereignty are not “for the interest and liberty of the people” to have that power vested in the elected branch of government, it is difficult to conceive what exactly would qualify as legitimately within the power of Congress.”

    Immigration should be the first issue removed from the Article III courts because they never had jurisdiction over it in the first place. Noting the existence of an uninterrupted stream of settled case law, the court ruled in Shaughnessy v. Mezei that “it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government [related to exclusion of non-citizens at a point of entry].” As Scalia made clear in the 2001 Zadvydas case, Mezei is still settled law. Yet, the courts, with a flick of the wrist have turned it on its head. It’s time for Congress to take the political game out of the courts.

    The “Exceptions Clause” of Art. III Sec. 2 is often referred to as “jurisdiction stripping.” But that term doesn’t fully capture the enormous power this clause grants to Congress. The default is not that the federal judiciary has all the power to adjudicate any case unless Congress actively “strips” them of this authority. Quite the contrary, they only have the power that Congress affirmatively grants them. There can be no greater authority on this matter than Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth, who served as the first Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and is often called “the father of the national judiciary.” Writing an opinion in a 1796 case, Ellsworth authoritatively asserted that “[I]f Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it.” [1]

    Indeed, the fact that the Constitution granted the court jurisdiction only over the subject matter vested in it by the Congress is a clear indication that the judiciary was never meant to be the sole and final arbiter of constitutionality. This point can also be gleaned from the fact that courts may only give their opinion on the constitutionality of a statute in “cases and controversies properly before them,” [2] which was manifestly violated in this case in the Ninth Circuit.

    The lower courts are nothing without Congress

    Given that Congress has ceded so much ground to the courts over the years and given that the Supreme Court is accorded God-like status in this country, I’d advise members of Congress to begin with a more modest approach of stripping the lower courts of jurisdiction over immigration (and eventually other political issues that should be decided by Congress or state legislatures).

    Let’s be clear: The lower federal courts don’t have to exist. Unlike the Supreme Court, whose appellate jurisdiction is granted by Congress, the entire structure of the lower courts is controlled by the legislative branch. If Congress wanted to abolish the lower courts overnight and reroute any litigation into state courts or make plaintiffs directly appeal to the Supreme Court (or any other newly-created panel), they have that authority.

    Our elected representatives in Congress just need to open their eyes.

    In 1812, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts “possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer.” In Sheldon v. Sill (1850), the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress, having the power to establish the courts, must define their respective jurisdictions.” Justice Robert Grier, writing for a unanimous Court, left no ambiguity that “courts created by statute can have no jurisdiction but such as the statute confers.”

    In addition to reclaiming some of their political jurisdiction, Congress can begin punishing wayward circuits, such as the Ninth Circuit, by minimizing its geographical jurisdiction or clipping its wings to issue nation-wide injunctions or have their rulings be used as precedent. Unless Congress uses one of these tools, a liberal district judge in any part of the country can put a nationwide injunction on the most lawful common sense action of Congress or the president, even if it is upheld in other districts.

    The advantage of limiting the jurisdiction of the lower courts on immigration is obvious. At present, the ACLU has the ability to encumber every single deportation or any action protecting American sovereignty in court and soliciting a nationwide injunction from any number of extreme district judges. By removing the lower courts from the process, liberals would have to convince the Supreme Court, which has a limited case load, to accept their cases. While they might win a few victories with the high court, there is a limit to how much damage they can do, given their lack of resources.

    As Mark Levin wrote in his forward to my book, echoing his push for an Article V Convention of the States, “the remedies to most of our problems we face in this era of constitutional crisis lie in the Constitution itself.” The same is true for Article III Sec. 2. As the great Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “[T]he greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” Our elected representatives in Congress just need to open their eyes.

    Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct a typographical error in the headline.

    [1] Justice Marshall of all people made it clear that Congress was exercising its “exceptions and regulations” power in 1789 to limit the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. Durousseau v. United States, 10 US 6 Cranch 307, 314 (1810): “When the first legislature of the union proceeded to carry the third article of the Constitution into effect, it must be understood as intending to execute the power they possessed of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It has not, indeed, made these exceptions in express terms. It has not declared that the appellate power of the Court shall not extend to certain cases, but it has described affirmatively its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negative on the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.” In 1893, the Court observed that “[I]t has been held in an uninterrupted series of decisions that this court exercises appellate jurisdiction only in accordance with the acts of Congress upon that subject.” [Colorado Cent. Consol. Mining Co. v. Turck, 150 US 138, 141 (1893).”

    [2] United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 20–21 (1960).

  142. Perfect:
    Brian Williams, Katy Tur And Wolf Blitzer Attack Daily Caller For Not Asking Trump The Question They Wanted [VIDEO]
    ‘… Immediately following the event, MSNBC’s Brian Williams noted there is “no shortage of tough and fair journalists” in the White House press corps, “but they weren’t called on.”
    “There is no shortage of tough and fair journalists in that room,” Katy Tur agreed. “The ones that we saw that were both tough and fair, that were called on today, came from the Canadian side.”
    Daily Caller.

  143. MSNBC’s Brian Williams noted there is “no shortage of tough and fair journalists
    ———-
    Ly’n Brian is up to his old tricks.

    He wouldn’t know tough and fair if it bit him in the ass.

    Those tough and fair jounalists all wore pink pussy hats when Messiah Obama was in the saddle.

    So please Baron Von Munchausen William try telling us the truth just this once.

    Someone need to ask that pompous lying prick why he is no longer at NBC.

  144. gonzotx
    February 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
    ———–
    I have read his book.

    The Art of the Deal.

    Subtext: he doesn’t eat lamb.

  145. Gonzo, I posted something on this before, but it disappeared.

    Trump has the ability to drag the Ninth Circuit through the mud on this one.

    And they know it.

    Legal scholars on both sides have trashed this decision.

    And the bad reputation of the Ninth Circuit is now being aired to the nation.

    I assume there was some signal here that was sent and received.

    Give us the opportunity to clean up our own mess.

    Otherwise he would have gone the other routes.

    This could also be the advice of Sessions, and for sure the ninny he has appointed to the Supreme Court.

  146. ninny he has appointed to the Supreme Court.
    ———–
    before they passed him the smelling salts, lest he faint.

  147. Wow- ICE seems to be really getting into their jobs, now that they’re allowed to do them. But I read that if you assume 10 million illegals (although many say there are 30-40), they’d have to deport 7,000 a day to get that 10 million out in 4 years.

    ————

    Breaking911 ‏@Breaking911 35m35 minutes ago

    JUST IN: Federal agents nab 23 suspected illegal aliens in a convenience store parking lot in Hamburg, NY; Store owners not connected – WGRZ

  148. gonzotx
    February 13, 2017 at 10:09 pm
    Watch this. Whistle blower from Venezuela, good guy, Syrian terrorists are buying Venezuelan passports
    ——-
    General Kelly has testified that when ISIS overran our diplomatic posts in the Middle East they recoverd thousands of visa forms which they can, and most likely will use, to enter this country. So they are coming, and Judge Robart and the Ninth Circus, oblivious to the impending risk, left the door wide open.

  149. Chris Wallace mentioned that Robart has received death threats.

    As we have seen in the past left wing agitators make false death plan charges so the can blame the other side.

    The chances are 80% that these came from left wing agitators paid for by Soros.

  150. Asked on Sunday’s Face the Nation if illegal immigrants who have not committed any crimes other than illegally entering the country should be worried, White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller replied, “Look, it’s not for me to tell people how to feel or not to feel.”

    “We’re in the process of removing criminal aliens from this country and enforcing immigration laws and keeping the public safe,” he added. “And the bottom line is this — in the calculation between open borders and saving American lives, it is the easiest choice we will ever have to make.”

  151. We will have a civil war in this country.

    Things are not there yet, but within 2 years they probably will be.

    The only way to avoid it is by indicting Soros.

    Show the world the sheer magnitude of his evil.

    And tie the leftist to him.

    Ditto big media, who are joined with Soros.

  152. This week’s World’s Smallest Violin Award goes to Fake News Network CNN — specifically to be shared between Fake Newsman Jake Tapper and Fake Newsman Chris Cuomo, both of whom took whiny umbrage at being called Fake News while purveying Fake News.

    Cuomo, who really needs to eat more brain food, even possibly more brains, said that being called Fake News while purveying Fake News is like being called the N-word. He later apologized, but not enough. He should have added banging his head repeatedly against a wall while saying, “Stupid, stupid, stupid,” over and over again.

    As for (Piss ant) Tapper, he harried and berated a largely conciliatory presidential spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, for almost half an hour about how hard it is out there for a Fake Newsman to always be called a Fake Newsman while being Fake. “When it comes to the Trump administration,” Tapper whined, “I would much rather be covering immigration, I would much rather be covering trade, and I would much rather be covering draining the swamp, and counter-terrorism, but instead, every day, there are these sprays of attack and sprays of falsehoods, coming from the White House. It would be better if they were not coming from the White House — for me and for you.” Anyway, I think that’s what he said, though it was tough to hear him over the screeching of the teensy-tiny little itsty-bitty violin playing in the background throughout.

    The problem is this: CNN — like the New York Times, like the network news departments at NBC and ABC and CBS — is virtually the definition of Fake News, a phrase made up by the left to attack Trump but which blew up in their faces like a trick cigar when it turned out everyone knows what liars they’ve been for the past sixteen years at least.

  153. But if someone were to be monitoring any legacy establishment media outlets throughout the day on Monday, none of those completely legitimate and newsworthy questions that were asked at the White House on Monday were of significance. In fact, the media as a whole has lost the plot—and lost their minds—since Collins, MacCharles, Thuman, and Latendresse did not ask about the Flynn story and instead focused on important and, presumably, newsworthy issues like trade, immigration, refugees, the economy, and national security.

    Many establishment media figures bashed the four reporters for asking the legitimate questions.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/13/media-lose-minds-real-news-questions-trump-trudeau-press-conference/

    ————–

    The article also has the 4 questions asked, and the answers by Trudeau and Trump

  154. On Fox, they’re saying he may have Petreus take the job – he had too many generals, but now that Flynn is gone, Petreus could come on board

  155. I am so sorry to hear Flynn resigned. I don’t think it was the right move and am sorry to hear it.
    Trump is not getting good advise and the sharks will now never stop, the blood is in the water.

    God help us all

  156. They couldn’t even convict Clinton and he was guilty as h*ll. And anyway, it was reportedly just about discussing sanctions, wasn’t it? That’s not Russia controlling our country or our election, as they keep insisting. I heard the transcript of their conversation is actually floating around, but I haven’t seen it. Seems that would be confidential information. But… I think the democrats would look really unhinged, trying to impeach a president who has been in office a few weeks. Well, okay, they already look unhinged. But I suppose Obama could get his posses to riot about it, as I’ve read he has been encouraging them.

  157. I also heard Sally Yates of the fried acting AG was the one who toldnthebWH about the conversation and I am sure she went to the Media.

    Petreus would be a big mistake, already compromised and part of the Clinton cartel.

    I really liked Flynn, he was very loyal, this just doesn’t add up and I am sick to my stomach.

  158. gonzotx
    February 13, 2017 at 11:30 pm
    I am so sorry to hear Flynn resigned. I don’t think it was the right move and am sorry to hear it.
    Trump is not getting good advise and the sharks will now never stop, the blood is in the water.

    God help us all

    *************************************************

    I’m sorry that it turned out that Flynn f**ked himself (and by extension Trump) by lying to Pence, letting Pence go on TV repeating the lie and then having a transcript “leaked” by Trump’s enemies proving that he lied.

    But for the love of all that is holy, you have been absolutely 100% wrong in your predictions re: Trump.

  159. Nigel Farage ‏@Nigel_Farage 13h13 hours ago

    The EU are terrified of @POTUS. He believes in nation state democracy, will circumvent the EU & make his own direct approach.

    ——————

    There is a government official in Britain who was emphasizing last week that they don’t want to let Trump address Parliament. Per Trump officials, they never asked to do that. But Trump said he is going to go and do a rally, as he used to do here. He said (as he did here in US) that he wants to talk to the people.

  160. I was thinking – it could be that Flynn lied to Pence, but I suppose he may not have, too. But once it came out that Flynn really did talk to Russia before he was hired, if someone had to go, it’s less damaging to say that Flynn lied than to say that Pence did (if he did tell the truth to Pence, while Pence was saying there was no Russian discussion).

    I have no idea what the truth is, but once the conversation was discovered, it was clear someone was lying about it, so I think that’s where they found themselves.

    The guy was probably trying to get a jumpstart on his job and was just working hard for free, but of all places to talk to before you’re hired…. Russia is the worst I think, since the left is trying so hard to convince everyone that they are running our government….

  161. The bottom line:

    Flynn is the one senior U.S. intelligence officer with the guts to blow the whistle on a series of catastrophic intelligence and operational failures. The available facts point to the conclusion that elements of the humiliated (and perhaps soon-to-be-unemployed) intelligence community is trying to exact vengeance against a principled and patriotic officer. When the Turkish smear against Flynn came out in November, I smelled a rat. The present affair stinks like a dumpster full of dead rats.

    (From the article lorac posted above)

  162. Venus

    Actually I have not but I am sooo glad that you know everything and are apparently in the inner circle with Trump and his team, how lucky we are! Why even today Kelly Ann was saying Flynn had Trumps support 100%, silly woman, she should have contacted you for the real scoup!

    Truth is we will really never know but we do know the insane left will and do smell blood in the water and now as bad as it has been, it will be worse.

    We will all be waiting with baited breath for your insider reporting.

  163. Wbb, couldn’t agree more but I sure hope you ran your thought process by Venus, she’s in the “know”, you know…

  164. This woman is nuts. She says Milo is a fascist, and she defines it as someone who inspires people to be violent to others. She had just said that she believes people should be violent in order to shut down fascist people, they should do it by any means necessary (but she specifically said violence and Tucker Carlson showed video of her repeatedly punching a guy in the stomach at a protest). So… seems to me she is saying she herself is a fascist! I didn’t catch Carlson calling her out on that point though…

    I like Milo somewhat – I don’t really care for how crass he is and I get a feeling he doesn’t really like women – but he does make good points a lot and he is entertaining in how he gets them across. But it’s amazing all of the negative things she said about him, and she presented it all as fact, and it definitely seems like she doesn’t understand the difference between beliefs and facts. It was kind of scary – she’s a tiny Asian woman but appears to have a lot of hatred inside of her, disguised as someone saving our country from genocidal fascists.

  165. Dave Rubin ‏@RubinReport 1h1 hour ago

    Flynn screwed up and stepped down . Hopefully he’ll be replaced with someone more competent. Looks like the swamp drains both ways.

  166. What few people realize, but I know to be true because of trusted contacts I have, is that apart from Trump himself, Flynn was more responsible for the Trump vehicle than anyone else in the world. Insiders know this, and they know the way to bring down Trump is to first bring down Flynn. Meanwhile, Mike Popeo made an epic mistake by appointing a woman as deputy director who is up to her eyeballs on the murder and mayhem that agency has inflicted on innocent people across the world. Among her many accomplishments she ran on of the black ops prison. Mike Morrell, Brennan and Jame Clapper, who conspired to bring down Trump called her a patriot and a good choice. That should send chills down your back. Not for nothing did James Woosely tell Trump that the CIA is out of control and will destroy the world if it is not reigned in.

  167. To repeat, the guy who had the whammie on the CIA was General Flynn. Without him, and by appointing this woman who is up to her neck in black ops, as the number 2 official in the department is madness. In the end she will betray Trump. That is a given.

  168. So the FBI clears Flynn, but he’s gone…

    Something really fishy wbb. I have heard a lot of talk about Pence being a globalist and we know he is buddy’s with Ryan. I don’t want to sound like I have a tin foil hat on, but …who knows, certainly not I..oh wait, Venus knows, let’s ask her!

  169. Flynn is to be commended for his service to our country and is a true patriot. Nonetheless, it was a risky pick and unfortunately he made a bad decision to not disclose the entire content of his conversations . Trump does not need any distractions to his agenda and this may ultimately help by cutting his loses early. I will say that Trump is facing the most unethical and corrupt media ever. The republicans may have very well have intended to stop Obama from day one(but failed miserably) but never has such a concerted effort to derail a POTUS been seen in modern times. It’s very scary but I think Trump is strong enough to weather this storm. I agree, however, with the poster above regarding him getting better advice. Whether it’s Preibus, Kushner, Bannon, or Kelly Anne, someone has get the message out clearer and understand the way Washington and the beltway pundits play. Name calling will work just so far and Trump will be netter served by a mature, calculated, and rationale way of putting forth his ideas which 1/2 the country agrees with.

  170. Hillel Neuer ‏@HillelNeuer 22 Sep 2016

    No joke: Saudi Arabia is running for the UN Human Rights Council—and their campaign brochure cites the Saudi record on. . . women’s rights.

  171. wbboei
    February 13, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    I think you answered your own questions. Your mayor is a globalist and does not recognize US sovereignty. I doubt he understands what it is as he is just a hireling. All of the “Higher Law” type garbage is UN gobbledygook to break down legal systems which are the foundations of civilization. Roman law civilized Europe, Britain, and the Middle-East and North Africa until Islam took it over and brought anarchy which took it back to pre-history level madness. The “geniuses” of Seattle tech think they want a new system of globalism (no sovereignty but their own and no laws but their own too) but have no realistic idea what they would wind up with. They have to smash what exists currently which is what a useful idiot like your mayor is hired to do.

    The lamentations of illegals won’t come to our police and are “afraid” (a lie) is just a useful, easily remembered, and unprovable excuses. Mexicans and Central Americans don’t like US police because they don’t like rules. They don’t like rules in Mexico and Central America either. They have corrupt and viscous law enforcement (and stupid and lazy) to MAKE them follow some sort of order. It is cultural. And Seattle police kissing their ass is not going to make them into choirboys or law abiding citizens. And globalists want cheap labor and drug impresarios without consciences (Mexican and Central American ethnic aboriginals don’t have them and human life is dirt cheap and human sacrifice is not that far back as is magic which is frequently displayed by cartel crazies) to kill off the current white population. Europe imported Muslims to do this. North American globalist progressives use southern Mexican and Central American murderers and drug cartels. These two nihilists cultures are of similar minds and inclinations and signs of their cooperation are eveyrwhere. An Iranian import is VP of Venezuela. So Iran is helping kill off their natives. Maybe for a new Muslim population in the west?

    “Tech” industries while brilliant in tech ways are ignoramuses and spoiled children in other ways. They would not have developed jack shit if they didn’t have a stable society to work in and that depends totally on a functioning legal system. The Middle East and “Hispania” have neither and thus produce nothing except bananas and oil that just happened to be under their dirt or naturally growing on top of it. No intellectual property, no innovation, no inventions, no literature, a little drum banging wailing music and/or ass shaking, really nothing but chaos and a little farming to export and of course minerals/petroleum. They export raw materials only like coffee beans which are processed and packaged somewhere else. They did figure out how to process drugs however due to mark-up.

    Seattle, like NYC and Houston or LA, wants cheap, disposable labor. Grunt or stoop labor by third world laborers is really cheaper than machines or even animals. H1B’s are code monkeys. These tech impresarios don’t see them as humans and treat them abominably. Your mayor is simply accommodating his bosses. He is a propagandist to give platitudes and excuses for them. And implement it as far as he can. The local population is brainwashed and seduced by cheap labor made meals that they don’t have to prepare themselves, cheap child care, and cheap thrown together houses which will fall apart. They can sit on their asses discussing how kind and virtuous they are. And they see themselves as the superiors of these slave laborers who throw them a bone with virtue signalling and letting them hide out from the cops while they take them over.

    The globalist ninnies like those in the EU and Seattle think it will be one big world and they will control it. It won’t and they won’t. It will be warlords like in Mexico and Central America or ISIS with their own territories and their own “legal” systems. No borders means no laws and no taxes to subsidize their slaves on what is now considered a national system with theft at will. When Rome fell Italy broke up into little territories run by warrior/condottieri “noblemen” who were strongman thugs. Merchants hid from them in the Venice swamps and they had little ships to run for cover and safety. Popes were thugs too. The same in France until some smart guys started taking over other territories and growing. The same in Britain. And Germany. And Spain. And the Middle East.

    I guess Seattle is just a continuation of Obama’s overthrow of our legal system. Like children they want to disobey the law they don’t like and make up new ones. The judge Robart is enabling this, as is the Ninth Circus. I don’t think any of these folks read history. All of the great western kings or leaders were law givers, codifiers and ENFORCERS. Alfred, Hywel Dda of Wales, and Robert the Bruce to Napoleon and even Bismark. If the west coast really wants their own new legal system they have to leave the union and that means leave totally. No money, no military, no fixing damns they neglected or bridges, no law enforcement or air traffic control or border enforcement except to keep THEM out. Civilization (law is what it is) is really all or nothing. I don’t think they understand that they are heading for choosing nothing. If they really want to be a Guatemala in the Dark Ages why should the rest of us stop them if we can fence them off and naval blockade them.

    Under current law the city of Seattle would be fined for employing illegal aliens ILLEGALLY. The city taxpayers would have to pay the fines for their chosen idiots. Not being a good citizen gets expensive very fast. Do the citizens want to pay for their elites law breaking to enrich themselves even more? As for the Ninth Circus, I think they may be having an internal battle over making themselves totally irrelevant. Like Merkel bringing in the migrant mobs too soon and too fast and busting her government and the EU and globalsit baning, the Ninth may have got a little carried away and their dumbest judges went too far too fast and exposed that their game to nullify the US legal code. They don’t seem to understand that an election was just held to ENFORCE laws. They must have missed it.

Comments are closed.