Fake News Express

26 02 2018

Washington, D.C.

Much of the major media are deliberately misrepresenting what SCOTUS did this morning.  Even Drudge, with a deceptive big bold red headline, as I write this post.

What SCOTUS did NOT do was state that they would NEVER hear the White House’s appeal to a Federal district court judge’s pro-DACA ruling.

What SCOTUS DID decide was that they were not going to take the case DIRECTLY, jumping over the relevant Federal Appellate court (probably the 9th Circus in this case).  The decision this morning openly stated that the White House would have to go through the appellate level first, and then if they won’t win there, appeal to SCOTUS.

Advertisements




We Wuz Kangz, Writ 134 Minutes

16 02 2018

I’m just waiting, and not gleefully so, for the first news story to cross mine eyes about a black either murdering or violently assaulting a white person, because MUH WAKANDA.

It happened after Roots, and Mississippi Burning, and A Time to Kill, and Twelve Years a Slave.  One of our common complaints is that hate crimes enhancements almost always seem to be a single-edged sword that is swung in one direction.  Oddly enough, though, the 1993 Supreme Court decision which green lighted they very concept of bias enhancements, Wisconsin v Mitchell, originated in a black that got all up in his feelings and felt some kind of way after watching Mississippi Burning, and took out his frustration by turning a white teen inside out.  At the time he did it, Wisconsin had a hate crimes provision, and Mr. Mitchell’s lawyers, well, literally, took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Now that I’ve established this, I’m waiting on any trolls or incredulous interlocutors to retort with what I think they will, because I’ve already got the response rearin’da’go.

This thing for awhile had a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  When you can’t get 100% of people to agree that the color of a lemon is yellow.  Yeah, real, fishy.





The Sound of the Furie

16 12 2017

Washington, D.C.

Why Matt Furie has no grounds to prevent any known Alt-Right individuals or groups from using Pepe images.

 





In Blue Blazes

20 11 2017

Downtown

Alright, something really weird is going down here.

Dierker is only one of only two really good judges on the 22nd, the other, Tim Wilson, is by state law ageing out of the bench at the end of the year.  Since Dierker is starting this new gig also on January 1, both of the good judges on the 22nd will no longer be judges as of the same day.

But here’s the bigger WTF:

Kim Gardner (campaign funded by Soros) is giving this job to Robert Dierker (a judge I have openly praised on this medium).

This is about as inexplicable, and probably will last as long, as the Hitler-Stalin Pact, for much the same reason.

I’d put some brain energy into trying to spit out some good theories, but I don’t want my brain to overheat and cause the rest of me to start hurting any more than it is already.  The only thing I can think of without thinking too much is that Tim Wilson was on the Jason Stockley case, and because Stockley opted for a bench trial, Wilson personally decided on and handed down the not guilty verdict.  That might play into Gardner’s decision in some way.  Another possibility is that Gardner wants Dierker out of the 22nd so he doesn’t hear any cases her office brings, but the trouble with that theory is that a Republican Governor now gets to pick Dierker’s (and Wilson’s, too), replacement.





Potemkin Lawsuit

30 06 2017

Austin

DC:

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

Columbia

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.