The Court Finds What It Creates

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 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.


29 thoughts on “The Court Finds What It Creates

  1. The very idea that a federal judge could negate the lawful action of the President based solely on his inference of the motivation behind the order makes an utter mockery of the last tattered shreds of the Constitution. The previous travel ban was nullified on essentially the same grounds. Apparently, the only thing standing between the remnants of the Republic and the absolute dictatorship of any Obama-appointed Federal Judge was Antonin Scalia’s 79 year-old heart. What an absolute farce of a country we have become.

    • Antonin Scalia was “Fosterized” get used to that idea right now, along with Andrew Breitbart. Impeach that Judge and any and all others that may try to subvert the US constitution (law)
      President Donald Trump should fire everyone of the holdovers from prior administration(s) full stop.

  2. Pingback: The Court Finds What the Court Creates | Reaction Times

  3. Pingback: The Court Finds What the Court Creates-Porter #ThursdayThoughts – End Evening Nautical Twilight

  4. I wish Trump would go with a nuclear option here. Say ok, since you say I can’t selectively ban Visa admissions, I’m going to halt them all. Nobody gets in. That would leave us with travelers from only 38 Visa-free nations, most of which used to be white, but which still leave us open to quite enough third worlders. It would even stop travel from all of South and Central America, and China as a bonus! What a hoot that would be. And what a respite for a weary America. Of course Las Vegas would be upset, and a few other places that have always depended on the profligacy of wealthy strangers, but F them.

    At the very least Trump should cut the refugee count to zero. No more selectivity or “religious” tests! Just none a ya’ll all are comin’. Shet deh doh on dem. And while you’re at it, start tossing back the ones we already have (that’s what the rules say we can do).

    Alas, I fear none of this will come to pass.

  5. Another dismal day but it’s hard to be surprised anymore at a nation whose response to 9-11 was to ramp up Muslim immigration and spend 15 years building infrastructure in Afghanistan. We did advance quickly to the circular hell where “The Court finds What the Court Creates, but we haven’t had a populist President since Eisenhower and the globalists are sore and incredibly infrequent losers.Hopefully President Trump has a plan (that’s a little Pollyanna, but not impossible)

  6. Some articles have suggested Trump will take the matter to the Supreme Court. If he does, it must be after the seating of Judge Gorsuch. Because going there now would give the present panel its Brown v. Board of Education moment. That would be when the court declares separate countries as inherently unequal, and proceeds to outlaw global segregation.

    For what we like to consider a free republic, it’s remarkable how little input the American citizenry has had in the key decisions of its own affairs. Ridding ourselves of the Kritarchy can’t be overprioritized.

    • Elected officials can be removed through elections, but as regards officials appointed for life…..well the American citizenry is going to have to think hard about its options.

    • The Supreme Court is still a risky proposition, even with his new judge confirmed. You still have Kennedy there, who is about as squishy as you can get. “Conservative” chief justice Roberts essentially rewrote Obamacare for the Obama regime to give them its required rubber stamp. Anyone expressing optimism about it going to the Supreme Court needs to reexamine recent cases. Remember, despite the fact that the word ‘abortion’ is not mentioned in the constitution, its a constitutional right, apparently. No where does it mention marraige, but somehow bob and steve have the constitutional right to engage in holy matrimony.

  7. Am I the only one who just wishes Trump would direct the executive branch to willfully ignore this latest diktat? The only reason the various leftist judicial officials persist in this Alice-In-Wonderland jurisprudence is that, for some reason, we’ve all decided to take this seriously. Plainly this latest musing by a leftist judge are nothing more than foolish uttering, so why pay any mind? Just proverbially pat this judge on the head and say, “Yes, you’re right, this executive order is doubleplusungood and we’ll stop enforcing it immediately!” and then go on about the business of enforcing the order.

  8. Trump is stalling to get his man on the court, then he is going to double down bigly. If that doesn’t work, he should just pull an Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to use their own army to enforce their decisions.

  9. Thus the Dutch got what the Dutch wanted: a government to transition their country away from the Dutch.

    Thirteen different parties won seats in the 150 seat parliament. Six of them lean right (in a Dutch context) and won a combined 82 seats, up 5 from the last election.

    Mark Rutte stole a lot of Wilders’ thunder re immigration and Islamization, and was seen as a having a firm pimp hand during the Turkish chimpout. The next coalition government will be more conservative than the last one, even without Wilders in it.

    Wilders was never going to be in government anyway, even if he finished first, instead of a respectable second with 20 seats, up 5 from the last election.

    What’s interesting is that a new ‘nationalist lite’ party (Forum for Democracy led by Thierry Baudet) won 2 seats. Maybe they’ll be in government. Here’s some clips from an article about them:

    The Forum for Democracy (FvD) has a curious history. Baudet, a well-regarded legal scholar and political philosopher, set it up in 2015 as a conservative, euroskeptic think tank, not a political party. Almost the first thing it did was to take part in organizing a referendum on whether the Netherlands should ratify the European Union’s 2014 association agreement with Ukraine. That non-binding vote was a stunning success for the Netherlands’ nationalist right, despite a relatively low turnout: In April, 2016, 61 percent of those who voted, about 2.5 million people, rejected the trade deal.

    Baudet, who has long harbored political ambitions, saw his opening. “There is a huge gap in the political landscape,” he told me, “between the establishment, which weakens national sovereignty, and the populist right that discredits itself by taking extreme positions. That’s the raison d’etre of my party.”

    This populist message is supplemented with healthy doses of antipathy toward the EU and milder nativism than the fiery Wilders variety. Both are coated in economic and cultural arguments. The U.K. is the third biggest destination for Dutch exports after Germany and Belgium; post-Brexit, the Netherlands should be able to trade with it on the same terms as with EU countries, or it’ll become too dependent on Germany. Muslim immigrants resist integration and reject cherished Dutch freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, women’s equality and equal rights for homosexuals.

    Baudet’s well-heeled audience, much of it made up of former VVD party supporters, lapped it up. VVD membership is down to 26,500 today from 38,400 in the 2012 election year, but many of the Dutch center-right voters find Wilders’s message — ban the Koran, close down all the mosques — crass and distasteful. Baudet is among those providing a plausible alternative.

    “These are well-substantiated ideas, not a lot of screaming and nonsense,” said Ronneke Boumans, a former VVD supporter who signed up for Baudet’s party after the campaign event.

    The Dutch populist revolt and the rise of Wilders are often described as a rebellion of older, less educated, more economically challenged voters — just the way the Donald Trump movement was described in the U.S. There is some truth to that, but there’s also more to it, just like there was with Trump: A feeling of disconnection between the ruling elite and the people, a desire for more participation in how decisions are made.

    To young politicians such as Baudet, politics is now, for the first time, about performing, campaigning and engaging with voters through various channels. To the old school, it was about bargaining. Rutte is old-school. He will probably govern by inertia after this election, but the paradigm is shifting and newer political leaders appear to be more in line with the engagement voters want.

    • Appreciate the in-depth analysis, but didn’t an out-and-out ethnic Turkish party called Dink or Denk or Dunk or something win three seats as well? How much access does that give them to national security secrets via Parliamentary committees or whatnot?

  10. The constitution was a tool: once used to protect the rights of englishmen (us), now used to replace and destroy englishmen (us).

    The constitution, once high walls that protected us, now keep us locked in to this prison of multicultural hell!


  11. The Nationalist Japanese of the 1930s, while ultimately ruinous to their country’s short term prosperity, provide insight into one avenue of effective response to the increasing leftist subversion that can only be characterized as treason. Awesomely named groups like the Black Dragon League and the Brotherhood of Blood League made it clear that there would be no more cost-free posturing by opposition politicians. I’m pretty sure that the term “Government by Assassination” was coined as a result. A commenter on another site talked about measures like spilled drinks, nasty staring and social ostracism to make clear our displeasure. Anything in that continuum is fine with me at this point. Keep pushing, Rachel Maddow fans…

    Jeppo – awesome Dutch political comment. It’ll be a close run thing for the Netherlands to pull out of this dive, but the trajectory is improving.

  12. My grave concern with parties like PVV and AfD is that their strides are genuine, but insufficient. It is not merely that they must grow, which is obvious, but that they must expand at a rate that is equal, and ultimately greater, than what demographics are taking. Eventually capturing every Dutch vote won’t capture a majority of votes cast in Holland. So a positive linear trend is to be applauded, except when it competes against one that is parabolic.

    I want to say to the people of Europe what an old sky-diving instructor once said to me: Don’t stress about getting that chute open. You’ve got the rest of your life to figure it out.

  13. “It’s remarkable how little input the American citizenry has had”
    Yes indeed. Even when allowed the gesture of voting, as in California’s 1994 Proposition 187, a judge has no difficulty or qualms in overturning a solid majority. Elections aside, not much is left to public vote.
    A more conservative court performed the contortions necessary to accommodate ObamaCare. Trump, God bless him, is going to need something more than Executive Orders.

    • Reader: It’s been at least a few hours since I’ve read something of such blithe presumption. Something that produced such visceral contempt for the philosophies described. I may make a post on it if I feel capable of doing so in a vaguely composed manner.

      • I’ll keep an eye out in case you do. Something about it seemed off to me, but we sometimes look to you to put words to our intuitions.

        I wonder if I have correctly guessed the nature of the presumption you refer to.

    • With respect, that article is howlingly dumb. I presume the blog is written by lawyers, for lawyers, because the theme of the piece seems to be that judges are justified in issuing sweeping, unlawful orders because Trump is intemperate and they don’t trust him. “The decision(s) may be improper on their own merits, but let’s get involved in a long navel gazing discussion about how the judges’ concerns might be valid.”

      Of course we know the contrary truth: leftist judges have been out of control for decades. When the president is on their side, but the states aren’t, they side with the president. When the states on their side and the president isn’t, they side with the states. And most tellingly, when the people speak through referenda, the court always, always overturns them on matters of immigration.

      David Frum, of all people — a cuckservative twat (who’s never seen a twat) — offered a much more cogent analysis of the Hawaii decision in the Atlantic, rightfully noting that this Judge Watson has essentially extended the constitution’s protections to the entire world, and all on the basis of Trump’s suspected motivations in issuing the Executive Order:

      When judges decide that feelings are more important than law, the law is dead. Your link talks a lot about how Trump is a loose cannon, and it autistically minces through a tepidly critical analysis of the courts’ decisions, but it never once makes the crucial conclusion staring everyone in the face: even if Trump is Satan himself, the courts’ response to him is outrageously irresponsible.

      • Of course I ranted before seeing the followups by Reader and Porter. Reader’s right; it’s the kind of article that gets under your skin, despite that it doesn’t explicitly say anything too terribly objectionable. It’s the tone; it’s the presumption, the self-serving subtext that they’re all in this bubble world where lawyers and judges are always entitled to the benefit of the doubt, where their motives are always pure, even when they’re wrong.

      • They’ve already won the bigger issue: Whether immigration policy can discriminate using “religion” as a factor. (And the answer to that stacks the deck with respect to what the law may be as to other kinds of discrimination.)

        Because everyone is now debating not whether it can but whether Trump in fact used religion as a factor in the promulgation of the EO. The premise being that it cannot.

  14. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/03/19) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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