It’s tempting to seek solace in the sorrow that no one could have had a worse day than Dutch children. Like most liberal offspring, these white-privileged wretches can only watch glumly as their favored siblings–preening and xenophilia–attract all of their parents’ attention. One could argue that spending a child’s ancient inheritance on your own fashionable moralizing is a particularly venomous species of selfishness. Though that’s why the word “Nazi” exists: to denounce those who make you feel badly about doing that.
Of course the Dutch children that were today defenestrated in the Holland elections will one day have their revenge. But they’ll have to have it soon. You can’t very well piss on your parents’ graves if majority Turks and Moroccans have already plowed them over. Unfortunately, that certain mode of “minority” gratitude runs counter to the more romantic images liberals prance about playing in their heads: being carried upon a parade of smiling brown people singing Coldplay.
Yet the adult Dutch, at least, can still boast of a better day than Americans. For their will was able to find expression in politics and policy. They watched thousands of Turks marching in their streets, burning Netherlands flags, and promising the ummah in Amsterdam. Obviously, the Islam-resistant Wilders had little to counter such enticements. So the mainstream candidate prevailed. Thus the Dutch got what the Dutch wanted: a government to transition their country away from the Dutch. That’s about all a man can reasonably ask.
And far more than any American reasonably can. As I’m sure readers by now know, a clerk in the fourth precinct Honolulu night-court issued a ruling today that froze President Trump’s second executive order temporarily halting some Muslim migration. Thus the judge effectively mandated the continuation of a similar Dutch-style population transition 4,500 miles away in Knoxville, Tennessee (along with everywhere else under the broad rule of luau dancers). Interestingly, Marrakesh is only 4,200 miles from Knoxville, and so Southerners should find some solace in having avoided edicts from that more local jurisdiction.
Though the point is that 200-some years ago white colonial Englishmen drafted a government charter to assure the right of remote islanders to order a smooth mainland transition away from the posterity of white Englishmen. If you don’t believe that was their intent, then I’m afraid you’ll just have to fall back on the Constitution’s actual text. It’s right there if you don’t look hard enough.
And part of the textual there cited by Hawai’ia’n district paralegal Derrick Watson didn’t even involve text whatsoever. Instead, finding nothing offensive to constitutions real or imagined actually written in the executive order, he turned his mind-probe instead to Trump’s “animus.”
So now an order or law may fall within Anthony Kennedy’s vaporous contours yet still be “unconstitutional” by virtue of the mindset in which it was drafted. I simply marvel at the gall of a judge actually putting this to paper–though couldn’t tell you why I would.
Though under this precedent, enterprising right-wing jurists should feel little compulsion to leave any of the post-WW2 legal edifice standing as a result of their own valid speculation into historical progressive animus. Did you see the way Thurgood Marshall scowled at John Harlan?
Does Derrick Watson understand that such a doctrine would negate the 1964 Civil Rights Act, since Johnson said ******? Because he said ****** a lot. In fact, if the standard of unconstitutionality is the existence of any statement more piquant than oatmeal by its author, then practically nothing the government now does would stand. That includes particularly those items of sacred prog scripture.
And does it actually require the work of unpaid wags to make a mockery of the citation that a review of the historical background here makes plain why the government wishes to focus on the executive order’s text rather than its context.? The reason the government wishes to focus on text rather than feelings is that only the former is a relevant legal issue. You can premise a constitutional argument against federal drunk driving laws on the enumerated powers. But you can’t premise one against them because signer Bill Clinton enjoyed a highball during Monica’s ministrations. But that is what just happened in H’awa’ii. And that turns constitutions and courtrooms into farce.
Which leads me to wonder if it would overly surprise this pre-law polynesian to learn he was hired to exercise discretion only over bland matters of law rather than flamboyant declarations of psychology. It should lead others to wonder whether “animus” is now replacing “penumbras” in the lexicon of raw judicial fiat–this being the world’s oldest form of constitution.
Liberals should wonder why Watkins didn’t rule Trump’s election itself unconstitutional by virtue of the same animus he cites above. Aside from the awkwardness of leaning so far out on that branch, they would probably like to hear the legal reasoning why any of Trump’s decisions should merit the Honolulu court’s deference. By Washington Post editorials alone Trump’s reservoir of animus is sufficient to negate all other executive direction. What if Donald is found to be somewhat ambivalent about Koreans? Then military action there is prohibited by the court and Kim will live to become even fatter. Fair enough.
But what isn’t fair is the denial of self-rule to millions of (vaguely) sentient voting citizens by a few small men hiding under robes. The Dutch want to do away with themselves, and they can be assured no liberal courts will intervene. Though Americans explicitly elected a candidate whose positions leaned toward national endurance. And there is no actual text outside salon.com that denies them his platform.
The history of American judicial activism has been incalculably destructive to its founding nation. If those judicial activists are as attuned to animus as this one implies, they should be pleased with how much of it has grown in their own shadow.