Judicial reasoning: the 4th Circuit and the Trump travel ban
Paul Mirengoff’s Powerline post on the recent decision of the 4th Circuit to uphold the lower court’s injunction on Trump’s immigration EO is entitled “Trump resisters in robes.”
I think that’s pretty much correct. But I don’t think the judges necessarily think of themselves as naked political operatives although—as a dissenting judge in the case has indicated—the lower court and the affirming majority of the 4th Circuit have stretched the law in an extreme way:
Judge Niemeyer concludes that the district court, whose decision the appeals court upheld, “seriously erred (1) by refusing to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Mandel [Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972); (2) by fabricating a new proposition of law ”” indeed, a new rule ”” that provides for the consideration of campaign statements to recast a later-issued executive order; and by radically extending Supreme Court Establishment Clause precedents.”
When I entered law school many moons ago, I didn’t have much (or actually, any) prior experience reading appellate decisions, an activity that formed the bulk of my assignments in law school. But the activity of reading them taught me that judges are very smart, and very good at finding plausible reasons for reaching the conclusions they wish to reach. The mystery, then and now, is which comes first, the reasoning or the conclusion?
You might say that of course the liberal judges in these EO cases go so far afield from precedent that they are torturing the law to come to exactly the anti-Trump conclusion they desire, and that therefore it’s clear that the conclusion comes first (whether they know it or not). I happen to think that’s true, because these decisions are so egregiously awful and the break with precedent so obvious. However, I doubt the judges sit around consciously thinking that they’re reasoning backwards from their desired conclusions when they are writing their decisions.
No, the human mind can justify and rationalize an awful lot, and I am virtually certain that the majority judges in these cases don’t think they’re doing anything except applying the law properly—applying it to stop a would-be tyrant (in their minds), to be sure, but applying it in an objective and correct manner. Human beings have a remarkable ability to fool themselves in order to come to the conclusions they seek.
Why is this of any importance at all? In other words, who cares what the liberal judges think in terms of how they come to the decisions they make? Well, I find the topic both psychologically and philosophically interesting, although you may not.
One of the reasons it’s easier for liberal judges to stretch the law in this way and justify it to themselves is that they believe in stretching the law, the believe that the law is an expansive and elastic instrument that must move with the times. A conservative judge, on the other hand, who believes (for example) in any of the conservative judicial philosophies such as originalism, strict constructionism, or textualism, has much less leeway and much less ability to justify twisting the law to come to the conclusions he/she desires.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t sometimes occur, even with conservative judges. But it’s less common and certainly more difficult for them to rationalize.
I guess thats why they call us “conservatives”. We dont have floating laws and we believe the word “constitution” means just that, and not “The convenient momentary whim”.
This is the next step up from the trend of Ginsburg, Breyer, et al to look to international law to decide US constitutional issues. When the actual text is not enough to decide matters then we are on a very dangerous path.
We expect federal judges to be intellectually honest and faithful to precedent. This decision is whack. The beginning spelled where the majority was going and it was horrible.
The worst aspect of it is the judicial overreach. Judge Richard Kopf in Lincoln expresses it as judicial restraint.
As usual, it will come down to Tony Kennedy (if he doesn’t retire) as we know how the four liberal hacks will vote.
The constitution is not a suicide pact but if we can’t keep Sharia supremacists out we are doomed. Ask the people of Manchester.
Liberals think they are morally superior and infallible. It also helps if you are the smartest person in the room and went to the right schools. They congratulate themselves at how virtuous they are.
They are so clever at covering up their motives and political biases. Glad the dissents called the majority out. Extreme error by the majority.
Neo’s is a case study in why the movement Leftward is inexorable. Conservatives have little room for slack and BS since they hew to principles. The Left is driven by “Give us an inch, and we’ll take a mile”. Even when, as now, the Left is sidelined, our principled players form circular firing squads, criticizing Trump, downplaying his achievements, even right here.
We need fewer righteous, fewer Sasses.
Will SCOTUS rein in the extralegality and extend the Republic’s life support? If not, it’s one more nail in the Republic’s coffin.
These self-important juveniles in black robes are playing with fire, clueless that fire is hot and more often than not burns those who play with it.
The blood of future innocents will cry out for justice, that those who enabled the slaughter be held accountable.
What cannot continue will not continue. Patience has its limit.
If politicians always had to say what they mean in campaigns or lose in court later if elected couldn’t that be an upside?
If someone says, they’re “spreading the wealth around” and then give a different reason for legislation for instance.
Frankly if all politicians couldn’t just say things to get elected then whatever suits them that would be good.
Am I reading too much into it?
then do whatever suits them
Sadly we have ‘evolved’ from being a nation ruled by laws to become a nation ruled by the whims of men cloaked in judicial robes.
This will not end well.
All I want to hear is there’s a chance for a 9-0 Supreme Court decision throwing these cases out because, if it’s not 9-0, we no longer have a Constitution. The Judiciary can’t really make a decision like this. How many intelligence briefings have the judges on the 4th circuit had? How can you make a decision like this without having an intelligence briefing?
Let’s split up the 9th Circuit and transfer half the judges to the 12th circuit and then fill the vacancies in both courts. That would be a good start there. Then we can work on the 4th Circuit.
What has to change for a judge to give the OK?
George W Bush made a big point of being against nation building in the 2000 presidential campaign. Then he went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these judges have struck these efforts down if suit was brought by some marginally interested party? Did it matter that the whole 9/11 thing happened between the campaign and his actions? If yes then what are the standards that need to be met for the judiciary to allow the executive to act in contrast to his prior statements?
This is insanity.
A few weeks ago, AG Sessions issued a memo to the DOJ stating that the law has to be enforced fairly and consistently. He stated that the prosecutors should charge for the most serious and easily provable offense. And, the prosecutors should disclose all facts that impact sentencing and should seek a reasonable sentence. Documentation of decisions was required as well as approval for variances.
He rescinded all previous policies related to these matters and in a footnote noted that it included two Obama era policies, including one on drug sentencing.
I thought that a review of files must have shown poor documentation and a wide variety in the prosecution of the same crimes. My first reactions was the intelligence leaks, comparing Hillary to that sailor who is prison for taking a picture.
Of course, if you heard about this memo, the press only talked about drug prosecutions, going for the maximum sentence, and the “great policy” of the Obama DOJ. But, there is an opportunity for vast differences in prosecution and sentencing depending on the state.
While Congress critters were complaining about the change, I did not hear one person suggest that perhaps the law and the mandatory sentencing guidelines should be changed.
I read about one city (Denver?) that has changed some city sentencing rules for domestic violence to under a year. The purpose was to prevent illegal aliens from being deported.
It will be interesting to see if an American citizen of any race ends up with a stiffer sentence than an illegal for the exact same crime.
I had an excellent law school professor who would encourage students to see cases resolved first by the question: who should decide? Study of the 4th circuit visa restriction case would have begun with this issue: is it appropriate for an appellate court to open its doors with such a low threshold to challenge any POTUS policy declaration. The decision implies that apparently the 4th circuit knows how to implement immigration policy better than the executive.
.
This harkens back to the deluded courts of the 70s and 80s who deigned to overrule parents on what schools children would attend, and how many miles they would travel to get there. As long as you cloak yourself in an apparent effort to make right a perception of discrimination, you can get away with profound endangerments and never have to account for how the harms far outweigh the illusory benefit.
Mark30339:
See this.
Frog:
…our principled players form circular firing squads, criticizing Trump, downplaying his achievements, even right here.
Most of us are not downplaying his achievements which include excellent appointments, executive orders that carry out his promises, a welcome shift in foreign policy, and the ability to connect to the average guy. While we lambaste him for his shortcomings, you guys do the opposite and excuse anything he does no matter how asinine and ultimately damaging to the conservative cause.
When it comes to Trump you’ve become a chorus of blind, mute, and deaf monkeys.
http://www.greenwichworkshop.com/images/gallery/images/Prints/Gustafson/SG00088lg.jpg
Strike chorus and substitute gaggle, since mute monkeys can’t sing.
Obama carried out an elective war against oil rich Libya, backed an extrajudicial trial and summary abortion of its sovereign government, then forced redistributive population change of the survivors. Catastrophic, really.
He did the same in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Ukraine, etc. In the majority, he targeted national Muslim regimes, notably secular governments. Ukraine seems to have been targeted in collusion with Germany, in part for its natural and man-made resources (e.g. nuclear technology), but also in retribution to Russia’s intervention in Obama’s peace through elective war initiative (a la South Africa, Serbia). Perhaps that’s why Merkel is obliged to aid and abed the coverup of the collateral damage from Obama’s elective wars, and why so many judges and special interests, foreign and domestic, are eager to spread the pro-native… actually, anti-immigrant narrative, election influence, etc. Seems kind of bigoted.
This all started with Obama criticizing Americans as bitter clingers. Followed by stoking fear, weaponizing government agencies, and replacing Planned Americans in an effort to disenfranchise the People and our Posterity. Premature evacuation that led to the creation of Islamic State. The judges seem to be cater to this prejudice and the anti-nativism and [class] diversity that motivated his/their actions.
Hate Loves Abortion
The Other Chuck,
I’m with you. People who point out Trump’s mistakes and welcome his successes are not part of a circular firing squad. I would actually put members of the avid Trumpsters into this camp. Frog seems to have it in for Ben Sasse. Does this mean that we should denounce everything Sasse said in The Vanishing American Adult? Does it mean that anyone with greater knowledge in a specific area should be written off? I prefer to hear all sides on an issue and hope that our leaders, including Trump, can use that info to come to good decisions.
“One of the reasons it’s easier for liberal judges to stretch the law in this way and justify it to themselves is that they believe in stretching the law, the believe that the law is an expansive and elastic instrument that must move with the times.” – Neo
We have a long history where it wasn’t just liberal judges that stretched the laws.
We are fortunate, today, to have some judges on the SCOTUS who hue closer to the original text. Changes should be legislatively driven.
As vacancies come up over the next several years, hope trump appoints conservative judges for SCOTUS and the lower courts (no guarantees with him, though he likes to play to his base – so seems incentivized to do so).
In the meantime, it looks like it will eventually be up to SCOTUS – one of the benefits of getting to appoint Gorsuch.
@Mark – some great points.
But, had Roberts voted differently (i.e. with less “deference” to the legislative branch) on obamacare, could the left have made making similar arguments about that?
From an Old Man out here in the Texas Hill Country a ways out West of San Antonio my perspective might be a bit different from some others. First things is there is the way things should be in our nation and then there is the way things are in our nation and they are not the same. No matter how you tilt your head and squint your eyes about half of the this crap makes no sense at all. But that’s the way it is.
Were you to go back 50 years to May of 1967 when the Hippie Shit was just getting up a bit of steam and told both the lefties and those on the right what passes for laws and regulations today the Hippies, I surmise, would say something like,”Damn we won and there are changes we never even dreamed about.”
At the same time most of the folks would think a person telling the story was plumb fricking crazy because no country would ever make those changes. That is the world we live in and Trump might be making a few shifts back in the right direction but there a judges who will bend, twist and pull stuff out of their backsides fighting those shifts all the way.
While I am chagrined at the actions of the liberals I am also miffed at the inaction of those elected as conservatives. I am surprised at some of the good things Trump has done but I am coming to the conclusion that he is a neophyte in a contest where Obama was a grand master.
So I am glad I live out here where most of the folks think kind of like I do and those that don’t are polite when we discuss the current situation. That is my two cents worth on this lovely Sunday morning.
About “circular firing squads, criticizing Trump, downplaying his achievements”
What is our role as citizens? To merely be cheerleaders for our “team”?
Does loading up with the already several positive comments here wrt trump add anything?
Does piling on with how the left, the msm, the dems are unfair and hypocritical increases the value of the conversation we have here?
.
There are some here, despite what they say they are appalled at the left for, are willing to play the very same game in order to “Win!”.
Yet, we live in a democracy, essentially.
There is only ONE way to consistently win, without destroying our institutions.
Consistently convince a large majority that our ideas are right.
.
What makes us think that if we blindly cheer trump on that people will trust what we have to say?
By doing so we are just creating more examples for the left to point to and use against us (that same playbook is appalling to most people).
Do we really need to be helping them make THEIR case?
.
Without critical feedback, bad behavior continues.
Are we really all okay with all trump does, or do we want him to change some things?
Will cheer-leading, and remaining silent on them, get us those changes we want?
trump and the GOP are NOT going to respond much from the hype and hysteria from the left.
But they likely will respond to our concerns, if we were to step back from the fear that our criticisms would somehow automatically hand dems a “win”.
.
Our country needs some BIG changes.
Those changes need to be lasting.
trump hasn’t built much trust, or credibility beyond his base, and therefore hasn’t gained much support.
Our current trajectory with trump is not likely to leave us with lasting changes (assuming he drives them successfully, and that he is pursuing the right kinds of changes – issues for another discussion).
Big Maq @9:15. Good point. The first Obamacare case was precisely about Who Should Decide. Had the Congress sufficiently exceeded its authority to require reining in by the Court? James Madison certainly would have said that the interstate commerce clause did not authorize Congress to dictate virtually all terms of operation for the nation’s health insurance market or to order all Americans to make purchases there. John Roberts thought he knew better and fudged the decision by saying the law was within Congress’s taxing authority — he’s literally keeping a straight face and telling health insurers that their mountain of new rules are just tax regulations. Delusion reigns.
Neo @12:13am. I really admire the body of work saved here in your blog — and your nimble access to it. You do amazing work and keep doing it every day.
“trump hasn’t built much trust, or credibility beyond his base, and therefore hasn’t gained much support.”
I think the furious response of Democrats to losing an election they assumed was theirs is driving a lot of the national reaction. The left is certain he will be impeached. The right is pushed to defend their right to elect who they choose. This is not a healthy atmosphere and a lot of it is not Trump’s fault.
“This is not a healthy atmosphere and a lot of it is not Trump’s fault.” – Mike K
Agree.
But, also think that one of the main jobs of POTUS is to build support for his agenda – publicly, and within Congress.
However, we’ve seen trump not just be at the center of and subject to the left’s hyper controversies, trump has had his own hand in propelling, creating, or maintaining them – almost entirely unnecessarily.
We can debate why that is, or if it is a smart thing to do, but it is.
Sad, because I think trump is onto something with using twitter to go beyond the msm, and with his staff changing up the briefings to include non-traditional media outlets, broadening their avenues to the public.
That can all be leveraged for more good and focus on his agenda.
Big Maq:
Trump should build support and consensus with those who (violently, screaming “Fuck Trump”) oppose him? How is that done, exactly, without caving in?
The shepherd follows the sheep, not the other way ’round?
Neo writes:
“No, the human mind can justify and rationalize an awful lot, and I am virtually certain that the majority judges in these cases don’t think they’re doing anything except applying the law properly–applying it to stop a would-be tyrant (in their minds), to be sure, but applying it in an objective and correct manner. Human beings have a remarkable ability to fool themselves in order to come to the conclusions they seek. ”
This is a perfect example of half the truism:
“Conservatives think leftists are misguided …”
The other half is, of course,
“… leftists think conservatives are evil.”
Borrowing Neo’s Carnack hat (you have to be of my and (I think) Neo’s vintage to understand what that means) here is how I read the mind of the lawyers in black robes on the 4th circuit
“We have to stop these evil bastards by any means necessary. If it means abrogating my oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the law as written by Congress so be it. Anything to stop the stupid voters who selected conservatives from having their way.”
Whatever was on their mind, the action of the courts that have spoken so far on this issue amounts to a takeover of the US government by these same lawyers in black robes (I will not call them judges since that word has some good connotations).
The question is what happens when some government agency stands up to this coup. For example, if the state of Texas bans the murdering of children through abortions and the Supremes strike that down and Texas bans them anyway will a President Trump or President Kamala Harris call out the 101st Airborne to force them to allow the abortions and turn this cold civil war to a hot one? (See the article by Angelo Codevilla in the CRB). Will the US military fire on the Texas National Guard when they oppose them?
I hope it does not come to this but if the alternative is to live under a tyranny then a hot civil war is necessary.
Skeptic
Now both sides think the other is evil. And both sides one about each other. And now more and more on the right are beginning to predict (and call for) a hot civil war. Because “tyranny”.
Elect good people, build the case for conservative ideas. Play the long game.
A hot civil war would be an unmitigated disaster.
“Trump should build support and consensus with those who (violently, screaming “Fuck Trump”) oppose him? How is that done, exactly, without caving in?”
What percentage of people who didn’t vote for Trump, do you suppose, are hard leftists? Do you have hard data?
This is another lie peddled by many Trump supporters that Trump’s style of building enmity and antagonism is the only one that will work because the other side simply can’t be reasoned with anymore, are all Marxists, or etc.
“And both sides *lie* about each other.”
I really do need to start proofreading my posts…
skeptic:
Delete “President Trump” and you have it right.
We are in mortal peril.
Which is why the ever-righteous must wake from their slumber.
As to Sen. Sasse, he needs to apply “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” in the world’s Greatest Deliberative Body”. By opposing and bad-mouthing Trump he provides comfort to the enemy, the Schumers. He still acts like what he was, president of an obscure small college, an autocrat; often wrong, but never in doubt.
Obviously Trump is not always right in what he says and what he does. Who says so? But how do we on this blog like the alternative, the Fuck Trump Resistance?
Fish or cut bait.
“What percentage of people who didn’t vote for Trump, do you suppose, are hard leftists? Do you have hard data?”
I don’t think they are all hard leftists but they follow the narrative. I have avery intelligent daughter who is a lefty. Art world and all that. Her mother asked her one question about Trump a couple of months ago. She said, “Oh, he’ll be impeached !”
No discussion. No reasoning about how this might happen.
It’s like talking about the weather. They have no doubt. She is actually reasonable about some things. She was all upset a couple of years ago about some Texas school district requiring creation taught with evolution. I asked her which is more important, Reading and Math or Evolution for sixth grade kids? She agreed reading and math.
The problem with a civil war other than the obvious massive blood spilling, is the oceans are a lot smaller now.
In that, all our foes can get here in days and take sides or otherwise make monkey business. Probably just arm the losing side and keep it going.
“Trump should build support and consensus with those who (violently, screaming “Fuck Trump”) oppose him? How is that done, exactly, without caving in?” – Frog
Does a climber start with Mount Everest first?
Take a close look at businesses you most admire. Inspect how they market. Are they advertising to everyone all at once?
It may look like they do, but the very successful ones spend much time and money figuring out who their target is and how best to reach them.
As Bill mentioned above, if you were to put everyone on a left vs right gradient, there are plenty of people between us and the “F*ck Trump” crowd.
We don’t need to win EVERYBODY over. We just need better than 50% consistently – better to shoot for 60%+ to leave some buffer margin.
All I know is that if trump’s action and tweets don’t stay on message, and serve only bring cheers from his current supporters, he’s not ever going to get those folks between us and the FU crowd.
Given his campaign rhetoric about what he could do, I’m not seeing it yet.
@groundhog 8:39pm – astute point.
“James Madison certainly would have said that the interstate commerce clause did not authorize Congress to dictate virtually all terms of operation for the nation’s health insurance market or to order all Americans to make purchases there.” – Mark
Again, another good point. Agree. Thanks.
@Mike K – my condolences, as that has got to hurt, as we tend to think we have the most ability to swing our own children.
I recall Thomas Sowell somewhere saying that whenever his children took a left position and wanted to debate him, he asked them to read up on the two top conservative thinkers on the topic, understand their arguments, and then come back to him. He found, too often, they were only getting one side of the story, and, at best, a strawman for the other.
Not sure this helps at this point, but it struck me as an interesting approach at the time.
It also shows that even such a lion of thought as he does not have a perfect hold of his own children’s minds. Sometimes, one’s own children might be the hardest, there is so much else going on in the relationship.
Naivete.
The Eff Trump crowd is driving the Dem bus.
Their Big Lies are incessantly repeated by themselves, echoed in the leftist media. Soft liberals, though soft, still vote for the bad dogs.
We do not have any reserves. Our troops are all on the front lines. We have traitors amongst us, like the leakers of supposedly classified information (which may be fictional, but is still reported as classified fact).
We have disunity in our ranks to boot. See Paul Ryan and the unremitting neverTrumpers on top of his squishiness. Need I say more?
Not a way to win. And please forget about a long campaign of incremental change. That is totally unrealistic. Might have been OK in 1952, but way too late now.
Frog,
So we’re still in that darn Flight 93 scenario?
Bill,
Flight 93 is an apt analogy.
Dems have done and will do their best to cause harm, you to be included.
Sarcastic references to that “darn Flight 93 scenario” are actually rather revolting. It did occur, and people were murdered by adherents of the (ahem) “religion” of peace.
I do not hope to persuade others of my views. I merely state them. As do people like Geoffrey Britain, with whom I agree 100%.
I was referring to the article written by Decius. He compared a presidential election to flight 93, and helped convince people that pulling the lever for Donald Trump was the only way to avoid the end of the Republic. That’s a dishonorable appropriation if the memory of those brave passengers
The issue I have is the calls for civil war, for putting our enemies up against the wall and shooting them, etc.
And why these calls? Because your insurance premiums have gone up and the culture wars (which are upstream of politics and even the SC) are being lost. So let’s kill everyone in a freaking civil war.
Let’s declare unquestioned allegiance to our new god-king Donald Trump.
Thats the most un-conservative attitude on earth. That’s what Obama supporters suggested regarding their light worker. I expected better of conservatives.
Making decisions in a panic (drummed up by the propagandists on the right) is the worst way to move forward
Hey, I didn’t vote for him but I naively believed the pledges by all the “nose-holders” that they would hold his feet to the fire. Praise him when he does well, oppose him when he does poorly.
Now many of the “nose-holders” seem to be preaching that we all fall in line unquestioningly behind Trump because (once again) if we don’t “all is lost”.
Not me. Putting all your hopes in a politician is the quickest route to disappointment. Jettisonning all your principles for political “wins” is a really bad investment.
@Frog – so, you advocate doing away with democracy, as it is “way too late now”?
Since 1952 is your marker for the ideal, you also condemn the Reagan era as irrelevant, as the ascendancy of conservatism was completely lost by then anyway?
If so, seems to be back to the “burn in all down” and start over kind of argument.
Well, sort of fits with the “line the left up and shoot them” idea of yours, I guess.
“I do not hope to persuade others of my views. I merely state them.” – Frog
Don’t believe that for a NY second.
If this is all for your own consumption and self pleasure, there is a word for that.
Bill,
You seem to insist on misreading and misprepresenting.
Say you, “The issue I have is the calls for civil war, for putting our enemies up against the wall and shooting them, etc. And why these calls? Because your insurance premiums have gone up and the culture wars (which are upstream of politics and even the SC) are being lost. So let’s kill everyone in a freaking civil war.”
No one here has called for a civil war. But some of us see it coming in reaction to the Left as it becomes more and more oppressive.
Have you asked yourself why the culture wars are being lost. Because of the Left and its saints, Alinsky and Gramsci, or not? Do you endorse Political Correctness and the continuing degradation of the USA? Turning Memorial Day into nothing more than a hot dog and burger pigout?
Are you a global citizen, a man without need of a country?
“No one here has called for a civil war.
OK, I’m pretty sure it was you (if not you I apologize) on an earlier post who thought it would be a good idea to line our enemies up against a wall and shoot them.
Lots of people are certainly predicting a civil war, saying we’re already in a war, etc. In that mental environment, no extreme is too crazy.
Regarding your follow up questions – think what you will. But one of my main concerns about Trumpism is the rise of Alinky tactics on the right. I hate that. If hating Alinsky tactics somehow makes me a globalist, well, again, think what you will.
Bill,
Regarding my follow-up questions, you choose not to respond.
Who said hating Alinsky tactics makes you a globalist? Not me.
How do you propose to defeat Alinsky tactics? They are extremely effective. Are you one of those who propose that adopting the adversary’s tactics yields moral equivalence? Are you therefore a pacifist?
“I am virtually certain that the majority judges in these cases don’t think they’re doing anything except applying the law properly”
My suspicion is a bit closer to commenter “skeptic’s” opinion than Neo’s. However, for argument’s sake, let’s say Neo’s statement is exactly correct. Since the enbanc decision is comprised of 15 judge’s thoughts, a sub-majority number of them think they are doing something other than “applying the law properly.” Let that sink in.
These are judges with an immense amount of power, that is really primarily limited by traditional judicial rules circumscribing acceptable behavior. But what if there are say 5 on the 4th circuit court that don’t feel circumscribed by traditional rules or the proper application of law.
I read a summary of a study on the human behavior of cheating. The test situation was a group involved in an academic exam. The study showed that cheating was exceptionally low until the whole group was informed of a few individuals who had successfully cheated and gotten away with it. Then many others followed suit.
Extrapolating, how many crooked judges can our system tolerate?
__________
Speaking of “traditional rules” of jurisprudence, I have read that enbanc rulings were once rampant decades ago, and then were dramatically reduced by some new informal rule limiting the allowed situations for an enbanc hearing.
The Peruta case in the 9th circuit got me interested in this, since the 3 judge decision was overturned by the subsequent enbanc hearing. I don’t know the details on any of the above, but it doesn’t seem like any limiting rules are being followed now.
“How do you propose to defeat Alinsky tactics? They are extremely effective. Are you one of those who propose that adopting the adversary’s tactics yields moral equivalence? Are you therefore a pacifist?”
We’ll, I always thought conservative ideas were just better, and so we didn’t have to resort to Alinky tactics. Plus I thought conservatives had a moral center and rejected ends justify the means philosophy.
We’re now in extreme-land, where if you rejects Trump’s isolationism and his screw NATO, screw Europe approach (our allies over there got the message loud and clear) you’re a “globalist” who doesn’t even believe in Memorial day.
I’m realistic about the effectiveness of Internet comments conversation. I have no doubt you are a good man who loves his country and we probably agree on a lot of things. You can have the last word. Peace.
Bill,
Thank you.
To your rejoinder about my fears of Alinskyism, quote, “I always thought conservative ideas were just better, and so we didn’t have to resort to Alinsky tactics. Plus I thought conservatives had a moral center and rejected ends justify the means philosophy,”
I give you my last word: Today’s (May 29) postings in full by Neo, with Alinsky on rampant display.
Si vis pacem, para bellum, or, if you want peace, prepare for war. That is the way to the peace we both seek.
Liz Says:
May 27th, 2017 at 9:36 pm
I read about one city (Denver?) that has changed some city sentencing rules for domestic violence to under a year. The purpose was to prevent illegal aliens from being deported.
It will be interesting to see if an American citizen of any race ends up with a stiffer sentence than an illegal for the exact same crime.
* *
Yes, it is Denver (fast approaching the same Leftist status as the Republic of Boulder).
In re sentencing of citizens v. illegals, I don’t know, but Victor Davis Hanson chronicles the indisputable fact that illegals in California are not even being charged with the violations that would have citizens fined and jailed.
FWIW, I think the tipping point of most non-partisan low-information Americans about immigration came with the realization that the Left was bending over backward to give illegals essentially MORE rights than citizens enjoyed in some areas.
So, the rationale of the Fourth Circuit is the same as the Hawaiian judge and the 9th Circuit Court? to wit:
“If a Lefty, Democrat, or Progressive official did this same thing, it would be fine; but –judicially speaking, as a SWORN official of the court, dedicated to upholding The Law Of The Land without fear or favor– I/we have determined that because Donald Trump did it, it’s flat-squish illegal and against every principle of Our Glorious Constitution. (Why do you cretins on the Right NOT understand this perfectly-clear Legal Precedent?)”