Department of Homeland Security v. New York: A Win for Commonsense

In what may come to be the most important decision out of Washington this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the DHS may enforce the ‘Public Charge’ rule to go into effect. That’s all well and good, but the important part is that Justice Gorsuch really blasted the practice of nationwide injunctions in his concurring opinion. Tyler O’Neil has more at PJ Media.

“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote. […]

“Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III,” he explained.

“It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions,” he wrote.

These nationwide injunctions create confusion and “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”

“The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times. But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues,” the Supreme Court justice insisted.

“There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal. Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide,” Gorsuch explained.

Worse, it is possible that plaintiffs can win “conflicting nationwide injunctions.”

“If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay,” he noted. “And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari.”

And that is the crux of the problem. The executive can not exercise its governance because some US district court judge in some sh*thole district who is beholden to the other party issues a stay to whatever policy it is (and this could easily go either way) and then enjoins it on the entire country.

It’s a method to destroy the rule of law and transfer sovereignty to unelected judges. It is, I think, not only a tyrannical practice but prima facie a case of the judicial wildly overstepping its bounds. One way or another, it must be curtailed, and soon.

Justice Gorsuch is proving to be a stalwart conservative/originalist member of the court, I think.

Brexit Week

So, what is the status of Brexit which will happen on 31 January? To be honest, I think it’s pretty foggy, but it is happening at last. It’s an interim arrangement, but Boris insists it will be finalized by the end of the year. Good, in my opinion, although it should have happened about 3 years ago. Best I’ve seen on it is from Alex Christoforou on The Duran, here’s some of it.

[…]The main significance is this: getting liberal/globalist elites to respect democratic outcomes even if they don’t like them. This is an important precedent.

That is indeed a critically important result.

Despite “Remoaner” hysteria, leaving the EU is not the end of the world either. I’m sure Britain will be able to get on fine outside the EU and indeed both the British and the Continentals have strong incentives to get along. Perhaps Britain will reinvent itself as a global tax haven. After all, Europe’s share of global GDP has been rapidly declining over the past decades.

In fact, it is pretty much the only market in the world that is.

Britain’s departure is a major economic blow to the EU. Brexit will leave a €7.5-billion hole in the EU budget, Britain being the biggest contributors besides the Germans. Britain was one of the EU’s few dynamic major economies (along with Germany and, to a more limited extent, France) and the only one with a semi-serious tech sector. The bloc will be reduced to 450 million inhabitants and will become a distant third in terms of GDP behind China and the United States of America.

Britain is the 5th largest economy in the world, the EU will notice its absence.

Brexit happening seems a good time to recall a farsighted Frenchman who predicted that none of this would work: Charles de Gaulle. President de Gaulle twice vetoed Britain’s candidacy to join the then-European Economic Community (EEC), causing an uproar in Atlanticist circles.

De Gaulle had long thought that the so-called “Europeanists” were not sincere and/or coherent in their claim to be building a strong and independent federal Europe. He said in a May 1962 press conference:

France’s proposals [on Europe] have raised two objections, which incidentally are perfectly contradictory even though they are presented by the same people. . . . These critics tell us: “You want to create a Europe of nations, while we want to create supranational Europe.” As if a simple phrase were sufficient to confound these powerfully established entities that are the nations and the States. And then, these same critics simultaneously tell us: “England has submitted its candidacy to join the [European] Common Market. So long as they are not in, we won’t be able to do anything political.”

And yet, everyone knows that England, as a great State and a nation true to itself, will never consent to being dissolved in some utopian construct.

Prescient words!

Indeed they are, and yes, England has been the driver of Brexit.

Of course, Yes, Minister covered this.

Anyway, Britain’s departure from the European Union opens the way for the Continentals to try, a bit more earnestly, to create a truly sovereign and independent “European Europe.” This is not an absurd ambition. London was in some ways Europe’s only top-tier “global city.” Paris, Berlin, and Brussels really are secondary nodes. There’s a charmingly provincial quality to European politics which must be preserved. While in the Anglosphere Jews and Asians have massively displaced White Gentiles among their cultural and economic elites, the same is not really true in Continental Europe, certainly outside of France. Time will tell.

I think he’s using the British usage of Asians here, from South Asia, not eastern Asia as we usually do in the US. But I think he has a point, and the video at the link makes it stronger.

A New Versailles

From Sgt Mom at Chicago Boyz.

My daughter actually suggested this line of thought; that the current ruling class (or those who think themselves to be so) in the United States are perilously akin to the French nobility – those who were termed the ancient regime, of pre-revolutionary France. The ruling class were gathered together deliberately at Versailles, where all was all as far as the nobles and ruling class were concerned for at least a hundred years.

There, amid the squalid splendors of Versailles, they were gathered together, under the eye of the King, to frivol their lives away, distracted by spectacles and the vicious grasp for and fall from power within a very small realm. Only instead of a vast palace, outbuildings, gardens and minor palaces, our ruling class disports in a slightly larger venue, that of Washington, DC and the surrounding suburbs.

But the airs and graces, the privilege and entitlements, the mind-set of a ruling and a ruled class is plain to see. There is ‘us, the noble and entitled to rule’ and ‘all those grubby, smelly, Walmart-shopping peasants’ out there, beyond the Beltway and the boardrooms, beneath the notice or consideration of the grandees … except when our presence is required, say when there is an election, a war, there are taxes to be paid, or whenever one of the highest ruling nobles need a suitable (and racially/sexually diverse) background crowd for a photo op.

Keep reading (and do not skip the comments, which are excellent).

This is pretty much what we see, isn’t it? As Tucker Carlson says A Ship of Fools, cavorting on deck while ignoring the approaching rocks on the lee shore. It’s the classic vision of an out of touch bubble. Is there a person west of the Hudson and east of Sacramento that really thinks it a good idea to impeach this president? I certainly doubt it, although there may be a few who think they will personally benefit. And you know, they might in the short term. But thy won’t when the whole thing blows up.

Which it will, as anyone who actually paid attention to the whirlwind that Governor Blackface unleashed in Richmond last week. Kipling come to life.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

When you get that sort of response from Americans, especially Americans with jobs and families, obviously enough to even scare the brownshirts of Antifa away, one would be wise to rethink one’s program. But the Dims charge on, full speed ahead. The rocks are there, and the shoal waters no longer completely cover them. There is a reckoning approaching, it is too soon whether it will be at the ballot box, and perhaps the courts, or whether it will be the fourth of the cousin’s wars. If it is, I think it may be the worst of all that bloody sequence.

Sgt Mom ends admirably…

And that was when things got … interesting. For a certain value of interesting.

 

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

Impeachment and Davos

Senator Cruz pretty much summed up the impeachment effort yesterday when he said (on Twitter)

If you have the facts, you bang the facts.
If you have the law, you bang the law.
If you don’t have either, you bang the table.

Today, we’ve seen a whole lot of table banging. pic.twitter.com/ez6HZtvu7y

In a wide ranging (but mostly economic) speech on Tuesday, at Davos, in what Rush Limbaugh said was one of his finest speeches (I agree), President Trump summed up the first three years of his presidency. Well worth your time, and I note that the audience was doing a very good job of sitting on their hands. Tells you how right the President is. Enjoy

Richmond and Press Bias

So, the Virginia 2d amendment rally was entirely peaceful. No real surprise to anyone but the media. As the Babylon Bee says:

Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone would start some violence at the gun rights rally in Virginia today.

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.

“Nobody has so much as fired a shot. This is an unbelievable tragedy,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter, clearly caught up in the anguish of the moment.

John Hinderaker at PowerLine adds:

Antifa threatened to show up at the rally, and likely would have created violence if it had done so. But for some reason, the group’s leaders changed their minds. Maybe they focused on the fact that the 2x4s, pipes and baseball bats with which they are used to beating up innocent bystanders might not fare so well in this crowd. One young guy who looked suspiciously like a leftist advocated jumping the fence and killing people. The genuine demonstrators denounced him as an “infiltrator”–which I suspect he was–and told him to “get the f*** out.”

No surprise at all in any of that. How did we ever survive without the Babylon Bee though? In a related matter…


David Weinberger at The Federalist has some thought on why the media can not be unbiased. Let’s look.

Americans generally agree that news media should be “objective” and “report the facts.” But as I recently explained, there is no such thing as merely reporting “the facts.”

Consider a simple example. Imagine a drunk driver kills someone. Which facts are relevant to report? Does it matter where the accident occurred? How about the identities of the people involved? Do their backgrounds matter? What about where the driver was coming from and where he was going? Is race important? Should the media report anything about their families’ reactions to the incident?

Ought the details of the vehicle be reported? What if it is later revealed that the brakes were faulty? Does it matter whether the driver is a citizen? What if he is an illegal immigrant? Are there then possible implications for public policy, and if there are, ought they be reported? Furthermore, how much time should news media devote to this matter — a 10-minute news segment, an hour, or possibly even a 24-hour news cycle or more?

Facts alone cannot answer these questions. Discerning which facts to report requires judgment, and judgment requires morality. As the late Leo Strauss observed, “We cannot observe facts without selecting facts, and we must therefore have principles guiding our selection.” Put simply, the notion that facts are completely severable from values — an idea known as the “fact-value distinction” — is untenable, and no news outlet should pretend otherwise.

Lest this be misunderstood, the news media do bear a responsibility to report the facts they select as accurately as possible, but facts do not select themselves. No outlet is therefore free from ideology. Rather than feign objectivity, it would be more responsible for news outlets to drop the pretense altogether and instead invite the best opposing thinkers to debate the issues of the day. In other words, “diversity of ideas,” not “report the facts,” is a more sensible goal for news media.

Keep reading at the link above.

He makes excellent points here, no matter how we try, we cannot be unbiased, the best we can do is admit our bias and try to read around a subject getting several viewpoints. All stories have at least two sides, after all, and most have many more – the world isn’t black and white but a technicolor extravaganza.

You want an example? I looked at probably 20 (or more stories) in the last 24 hours before I selected these two, the very selection, and my comments on them reflect my biases. So does everything else you’ll read today and in the future. Your judgment and discernment are called for to cut through the chaff and find the grain.

It’s actually always been that way, we just had this spell where we thought we could depend on the organized media to do the job for us. We can’t and we never could, we just got lazy. This is a country where people are required to think for themselves, mob tactics are antithetical to self rule.

Stiff That Caught My Eye

Getty Images: Bettmann / U.S. Navy

Yesterday, on Martin Luther King Day, the US Navy announced that one of the new Ford class carriers (CVN), the most powerful ships in the world, will be named for Ship’s Cook Third Class Doris Miller, who won the Navy Cross (personally presented by ADM Nimitz) for his actions at Pearl Harbor and was KIA in 1943. From the Navy’s statement:

This will be the second ship named in honor of Miller, and the first aircraft carrier ever named for an African American. This will also be the first aircraft carrier to be named in honor of a Sailor for actions while serving in the enlisted ranks.…

On Dec. 7, 1941, Miller was collecting laundry on the battleship West Virginia (BB-48), when the attack from Japanese forces commenced. When the alarm for general quarters sounded he headed for his battle station, an anti-aircraft battery magazine, only to discover that torpedo damage had wrecked it. Miller was ordered to the ship’s bridge to aid the mortally wounded commanding officer, and subsequently manned a .50 caliber Browning anti-aircraft machine gun until he ran out of ammunition. Miller then helped move many other injured Sailors as the ship was ordered abandoned due to her own fires and flaming oil floating down from the destroyed Arizona (BB-33). West Virginia lost 150 of its 1,500 person crew.

Miller’s actions during the attack earned him a commendation from then Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, and the Navy Cross, which was presented to him personally by Adm. Chester Nimitz, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at the time.

More at the Daily Wire. Bravo Zulu, Navy!


This is interesting, and like the author, I see no reason to doubt it.

Earlier this week, Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale shared some statistics from Trump’s campaign rally in Wisconsin on Tuesday. They are absolutely staggering. According to Pascale, 57.9% of the 20,395 voters in attendance were either registered Democrats or Independents.

The results from a poll in Ohio were already impressive, with 43% of those present being Democrat/Independent, but the numbers out of Wisconsin are truly mindblowing.

As RedState’s Elizabeth Vaugh writes, “as a conservative, I am overjoyed at these numbers. I take them to mean that this group is looking for an alternative to the current field of candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

That is no reason to relax, of course. It’s still a long time to November.


Have you seen anything about this? Yeah, me neither. Amazing how well the media have managed not to cover this.

%d bloggers like this: