Comments on: Judicial reasoning: the 4th Circuit and the Trump travel ban

By: A_Nonny_Mouse

A_Nonny_Mouse — Tue, 30 May 2017 19:05:47 +0000

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?)”

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Tue, 30 May 2017 02:03:59 +0000

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.

By: Frog

Frog — Tue, 30 May 2017 00:05:42 +0000

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.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 29 May 2017 20:37:50 +0000

“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.

By: TommyJay

TommyJay — Mon, 29 May 2017 19:42:48 +0000

“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.

By: Frog

Frog — Mon, 29 May 2017 18:13:37 +0000

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?

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 29 May 2017 17:21:43 +0000

“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.

By: Frog

Frog — Mon, 29 May 2017 17:06:52 +0000

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?

By: Big Maq

Big Maq — Mon, 29 May 2017 16:57:32 +0000

“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.

By: Big Maq

Big Maq — Mon, 29 May 2017 16:53:06 +0000

@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.