Potemkin Lawsuit

30 06 2017



A group of 10 Republican state attorneys general and one governor are threatening to sue the Trump administration if it does not rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Obama executive action that granted amnesty to more than one million undocumented immigrants.

“We respectfully request that the Secretary of Homeland Security phase out the DACA program,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday.

Not at face value.

The Democrats and the left have made an art of this Potemkin lawfare.  A Democrat White House will on the sly facilitate a lawsuit against itself on a given matter, begging behind the scenes for various liberal and niche interest groups, NGOs, LDFs and local and state governments to sue them.  Then they’ll shop the thing to a sympathetic liberal-Democrat Federal judge. The Democrat Party’s AG/DOJ/SG will mysteriously “bungle” their case, wink wink.  That way, the policy change that all parties involve really want will happen under the “serious” imprimatur of a court order, rather than the result of the exercise of plenary political power, thereby dampening outrage and opposition.

This is how we ended up with the repudiation of the PACE exam for Federal civil service hiring and replacing it with an affirmative action friendly system.  In its final weeks, before Reagan came in, the Carter Administration pulled this trick.  The Pigford Settlement (the fake black “farmers”) also happened the same way, that started in the Clinton Administration.  The Obama Administration did the same with DOMA.

All that I think is happening here is that Trump and Sessions are taking up the same trick.  I think through back channels, they’re begging people to sue them over DACA, and got ten Republican state AGs and one Republican Governor to sign up. Remember, if this thing makes it to SCOTUS, will be a SCOTUS that now has Neil Gorsuch, and, presumably, by the time it gets it, maybe one or two more Trump appointees.

The difference is that the Democrats and the left, as pioneers of this tactic, will certainly know someone else running it when they see it, and therefore, not restrain their outrage machine.


SCOTUS Finds For Trinity Lutheran

26 06 2017


I wrote about it back in April, and today, SCOTUS saw it my way.

The way the majority opinion was written, this is not a ruling that will have a long shadow.  Which means it won’t nail down a specific paradigm on these kinds of establishmentarian-funding questions that exist in the margins of church-state matters.  It is only a decision on this particular case in this particular time in this particular jurisdiction in these particular circumstances.

An Interesting Slant

19 06 2017

Washington, D.C.

Since we’re now in the latter half of June, buckle up and get ready for the barrage of SCOTUS decisions.

Today, we got a unanimous (8-0, Gorsuch was not on the bench for oral arguments so he did not pick a side) decision on the “Slants” case.  Not only does this have ramifications for the Washington Redskins, meaning that there can’t be any official positive-law attempts to force them to change their nickname, it also has a very positive ramification for First Amendment jurisprudence in general.

Good Show, Judge

19 06 2017

Downtown; Forest Park

Judge:  Can’t move the UDC monument until the matter of ownership is resolved?

Which judge?

I’ll give you a hint:  It’s one of my two favorite judges on the 22nd.

More Miller v Alabama Fallout

28 05 2017

Norfolk, Virginia

Lee Boyd Malvo was not yet 18 years old when he and his “playdaddy” used DMV commuters for target practice.

It didn’t occur to me that Miller v Alabama would affect this case.   But now, it has.

However, I think that some level of the Federal judiciary will wind up reaffirming the life sentence, mainly based on the heinousness of the crimes and the constant state of fear that DMV drivers had while the snipings were happening.

Just Dig a Little Deeper

27 04 2017

Birmingham, Alabama

While the new school district would be majority white, it wouldn’t be universally white.  My guess is that it will be in the 20-30% black range, in terms of students.

And that’s the key not only to understanding this story, but why the Federal judge ruled the way she did, in spite of her political snark.

The 20-30% blacks would be middle class or higher, from black parents of middle class or higher income and social status, who want to make sure their kids’ school district is one where it is guaranteed that they’ll go to school with mostly white kids, and no chance of being bused to slum with the black undertow.  They’re the real straw stirring this drink, and they provided political cover for the white parents of the newly formed Gardendale district (“See?  No racism!”), who want the same thing, and also the aforementioned pretext for the judge.

Club of Seven

25 04 2017

Jefferson City

SCOMO’s newest fish.

And he looks like an easy mark for rookie hazing.

Oh yeah, Pat Breckenridge is going to have good time making him swab the floor of the women’s restrooms in the SCOMO building to a spit polish shine.