King of the Cascades

If it is unconstitutional to raise his head out of a cannibal’s pot, is a lawful man compelled to keep it there? Most may not realize it, but that question varnished in varying legalese is going to eventually dominate discussions from Main Street to Pennsylvania Avenue.

As the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment grew faint over time, jurists found themselves increasingly unable to even discern the text at all. Thus the robust states’ sovereignty enshrined in those parts eventually became buried under a blizzard of court decisions backed by federal bayonets. This establishing a new rigid demarcation line between state and national authority: states can decide which bird they want on their license plates, with the federal government having jurisdiction beyond.

But the snowdrifts haven’t ceased there. Over time both the executive and judiciary branches have consistently encroached on legislative functions to the point where the pomp of Congress has become largely ceremonial. Real rule entails real political risk. And unable to tolerate even thimblefuls of that, legislators have consistently ceded painful decision-making to branches more enthusiastic about bearing it. As a result, Congress increasingly finds itself as irrelevant to the true conduct of power as the states before it. Maybe they’ll retain the small dignity of deciding between pheasant and turkey for a mural on the north side corridor.

Though even that became the purview of charity once the Supreme Court generously granted itself the power of judicial review. This being the authority to make final pronouncement on what actions are “constitutional.” The quotes being necessary to highlight this as the pretext to judicial supremacy it has manifestly become. Go far enough up any organization, and you’ll eventually reach one man. That man is either going to be the President or Chief Justice. Though I can recall only one of these two subjecting himself to an election by the people he is committed to ruling.

Though on the matter of immigration, you are aware by now of the intervention by a Washington state federal judge in halting Trump’s immigration order. I would like to assure you that no framer of the constitution anticipated an unelected and unknown district judge roosting somewhere West of the Cascades would be endowed with the authority to peremptorily alter federal immigration policy, much less make the preposterous implicit claim that the constitution grants foreign nationals a universal right to reside here. But since I have not been entrusted with issuing personal preferences under banner of words that nowhere appear, I won’t presume to say for sure. The constitution may not actually opine on the mandates of abortion, gay marriage, infinite black uplift, and Somali colonization, though you’ll simply have to trust us in knowing it’s there if you know where not to look.

For those with a stomach too delicate for lengthy rationalizations I have excerpted only the most germane passages from judge James Robart’s order to the president.

As an initial matter, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over federal defendants and the subject matter of this lawsuit.

I can imagine many of us long for an occupation in which the power to define its contours resides strictly with ourselves.

Hey wait, you’re only a mailman, you can’t just take my car!

As an initial matter, the Delivery Facilitator finds that it can.

Following this unimpugnable explanation, judge Robarts proceeds to present the plaintiffs’ merits:

Specifically, for purposes of the entry of this TRO (temporary restraining order) the court finds that the States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The EO adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the states by virtue of their roles as parents patria of the residents living within their borders. In addition, the States themselves are harmed by virtue of the damage that implementation of the EO has inflicted upon the operations and missions of their public universities and other institutions of higher learning, as well as injury to the States operations, tax bases, and public funds. These harms are significant and ongoing. Accordingly, the court concludes that a TRO against Federal Defendants is necessary until such time as the court can hear and decide the States’ request for a preliminary injunction.

It’s unfortunate for Britain’s King George that the Constitution hadn’t yet been conceived. Otherwise one of Robarts’ loyalist predecessors could have offered the exact citation in shutting down General Washington’s operations. Though I have serious doubt GW would have given such a eunuch more notice than a blowfly.

But to address the matter more contemporarily, the judge is stating–with a straight bow-tie–that American public finances and education are “irreparably” injured by a curtailment of Sudanese squatters. This being the sort of fantasist jabberwocky that belongs on Tumblr blogs or the Washington Post, not publicly-sanctioned courtrooms.

img_3267

Apparently somewhat sheepish about the government hierarchy he has just placed himself atop, Robarts goes on to provide a helpful description of the judiciary’s restrained constitutional role. A statement that must have left many reeling with vertigo from the order that just preceded it.

Fundamental to the work of this court is a vigilant recognition that it is but one of three equal branches of our federal government. The work of the court is not to create policy or judge the wisdom of any particular policy promoted by the other two branches. That is the work of the legislative and executive branches and of the citizens of this country who ultimately exercise democratic control over those branches. The work of the judiciary, and this court, is limited to ensuring that the actions taken by the other two branches comport with our country’s laws, and more importantly, our Constitution.

The wicked explain when no man asketh. So it was with that embarrassing civics lesson coda. Robarts is repeating the rules he has just openly flouted as camouflage for his misconduct. It’s not a particularly uncommon tic. Having coveted it from afar, I’ve been thinking about swiping my neighbor’s mower. If he notices me using it later, I’ll just immediately commence with fundamental to the work of this lawn care provider is a vigilant recognition that he is but one laborer among many. And that it is not his authority to usurp another man’s zero-turn tractor, but to simply ensure (by possession) that such implements are being used in ways that comport with safety precautions, local ordinances, and Our Constitution. If my neighbor isn’t a nazi, he’ll understand.

But understanding is in unfortunate short supply. Such as precisely what element of the Constitution Robarts is alleging to preserve. Or similarly what laws have been offended by Trump’s actions. Was it 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act?

img_3266

Or Section 207 of that same legislation?

Except as provided in subsection (b), the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year after fiscal year 1982 shall be such number as the President determines, before the beginning of the fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.

Some bagel-faced bols are claiming the Immigration and Nationality Act is no longer even in force, having been dissolved by the later passage of Hart-Cellar. If that is true, 52 years later our federal immigration services have still not yet been informed.

Though citing statutory justification for black-robe policy preferences is nothing more than an exercise in esoterica. As actual words have been entirely unnecessary to achieve the Courts political objectives. Practically the entire leftist platform has advanced behind emanations and penumbrae alone. If there were no constitution whatsoever these raw exercises in undemocratic judicial rule would all be performed in the nude. Instead, Anthony Kennedy advises us the Constitution mandated “gay marriage” some 220+ years after it was ratified by a people who would have found the premise abhorrent if they even possessed the imagination to conceive of it.

And the same document now reportedly prohibits even modest limitations on migration from a region that was attacking and enslaving Americans even as pen was being put to paper. Should we believe the founders’ furtive intentions were for their posterity to cede the country they had bled to secure to the Barbary Coast tribes they were bleeding to defeat? No wonder libs aren’t much for originalist doctrine.

And I’m not much for turning on a spit with an apple in my mouth. Eventually a president, a congress, or just millions of citizens casting ballots in judicially discarded referenda are going to have to feel the same. Because any effort to exit the pot is going to be called unconstitutional. I hope it will take more rope than that to hold us under the boil.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “King of the Cascades

  1. Constitutionally speaking supreme authority rests with Congress. This is despite John Marshall, judicial review, Marbury, etc.

    Article III, section 2: “… In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    The Congress is supreme. Why has it succumbed to judicial activism and shirked its duty over the last fifty years? All the evidence points to one final cause: lack of accountability to the public. Our esteemed representatives don’t want to be held accountable.

    There is no greater argument for Term Limits than this one, to restore accountability to Congress.

    Didn’t we hear from Trump during the election campaign that he wanted an amendment on Term Limits? Time to push it to front of his agenda.

  2. Pingback: King of the Cascades | Reaction Times

  3. At some point a Republican President will have to defy the lawless judiciary. Bush should have when they got in his grill about enemy combatants held at GITMO. But he demurred. Trump should say in advance when he will do so, because he has plenary power in this area.

  4. Your command of the language is without equal; but an old redneck cannot tease out most of the sarcasm. I am certainly poorer for it I know. Seattle hopefully will succumb to a vast tsunami when the next subduction quake takes it and the Peoples Republic of Portland back out to sea.

    • Self abnegating, suicidally misapplied faux White modesty,, and empathetic anthropomorphising pity, for cosmic detritus, put these lizard of zog pavlovian flying monkey’s on our back’s.

      At the unquantifiable cost of the lives and good fortune of countless million’s of our own kind.

      All the better to service maslov’s hierarchy of heebs.

      I ruthlessly purged any of these ill fated personal affectation’s, self-indulgence’s, and foppish luxuries
      six million pogrom’s ago.

      If you are here, all is clear.
      Starkly contrasted by this flouncing, flailing kweer…

      00:22

      A more elegantly delivered disquisition of the foregoing to be found here.

  5. What seemed the unequivocal authority of the US president to set immigration policy is reduced to a mere plea. How frustrating that Porter has the ability to pen such eloquent debate while 97 companies including Netflix and Apple came up with “Immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries…”
    Immigration is the crux of the battle. The fact that gun company stocks sold off after Trump won shows that there is too much optimism on our side.

  6. It is indeed funny, that during the Obama Interregnum, when a few much put upon states, such as Arizona, tried to make minor gestures in the direction of securing themselves from the unwashed hordes, the Courts (we must always capitalize that, as one does “the Lord”) fervently declared that immigration is a Federal matter! Get your stinking paws off it, you damned dirty states!

    Now, hocus pocus, it’s states’ right to the fore! Why, that nasty old Federal gubmint NEVER had the right to dictate immigration law, and forget all the times we said that up to mere months ago. Surely now the States are supreme! It says that right here in the Bazooka comic I just opened. Bazooka Joe wouldn’t lie about it.

    The effortless hypocrisy of the Left does make me smile, but then since it’s also precisely what puts my neck under their boot, I don’t smile for very long.

    An excellent post, by the way.

  7. Anon: For those who didn’t click through, his link is to a video of Robarts, this time in a lime green bow tie. In it, the judge steels himself several times from tears and croaks out the horrifying statistic that blacks account for 41% of police shootings (in whatever jurisdiction he’s citing) while comprising only 20% of the population. A fact to which he shakes his head in disgust and proclaims “Black lives matter!”

    It’s hard to fit any additional contempt for men like this. Whether he is too dumb or disengenuous to contemplate why it is blacks could possibly be getting themselves shot at double rate by the police I don’t know. Could it be that they commit twice as many crimes pro rata? That they confront or flee the police at twice the rate? That they have the typical time preference of a coyote? No, of course none of those obvious factors entered his mind. Look the guy’s just a federal judge, what do you want, a 90IQ?

    Peter: Glad you enjoyed it. I LoLd at Bazooka Joe.

  8. This is a great piece of writing. It really is a shame your writing is such bad think that it must be relegated to lunatic fringe blogs. I read everything, and I never see writing like this anywhere. Its like the left and mainstream right make sure not to write anything that requires higher than room temp IQ to enjoy.

    The left is really pushing, hard with this immigration/migrant shit. They are playing a truly dangerous game. Trump was the response to rule by dictate, rule by executive order, and a judiciary that sees fit to overturn centuries of established law, and interpretation of law, by legislating from the bench. Now, that they have neither the senate, congress, or WH, and have lost over 2000 state congressional seats and over a dozen governorships, they STILL act like they have some kind of mandate and persist in this behavior.

    When will they learn that Trump was our POLITE was of ridding the country of their rule? We participated in the system(me especially, after swearing off republicans and the GOP for good a few years back) because we were trying to play by the rules, do it peaceably. As strange as it may be to the left, Trump is actually our peace offering. Keep refusing it, they aren’t going to like what comes next.

    • Agreed. Every essay is a masterpiece deserving of a larger audience and acclaim.
      Trump is just one man. One man carrying out the globalist agenda has an easy path to victory. One man opposing it is blocked at every turn. Control of the House and Senate doesn’t mean much when they unabashedly oppose the President–selling out America under the guise of compassion.

  9. The late Justice Scalia gave the same warning to his fellow magistrates:

    “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the ‘least dangerous’ of the federal branches because it has ‘neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.’ With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them- with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court- we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

    They seem not to have listened to him. In the (possibly apocryphal) words of President Jackson, “Judge Robarts has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

  10. I regularly read stories about bus loads of illegal immigrants that have been disgorged by DHS in unsuspecting and unprepared townships throughout this fair land of my birth. Why cannot our President direct DHS to henceforth deposit all of those dear people, from wherever they come, on this judge’s doorstep?

  11. Pingback: Lawless Judiciary, Part 12,834,019 – Neurotoxin

  12. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/02/12) - Social Matter

  13. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2017/02/21 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s