Said Jeff Sessions, quoted in The Washington Post in "Jeff Sessions doesn’t think a judge in Hawaii — a.k.a. ‘an island in the Pacific’ — should overrule Trump." The piece is by Aaron Blake, who has "a few problems":
1. "Hawaii is a state...."
2. "[T]he judge isn't a Hawaiian judge, per se" — he's a federal judge. (But "federal" isn't a place. The federal district courts are in particular places, and this one is in Hawaii, and the judge, Derrick Kahala Watson, happens to have been born in Hawaii, like the President who appointed him, even though he's been off the island and even gone to Harvard Law School, like the President who appointed him.)
3. "Hawaii does have major ports of entry, with international travelers arriving regularly."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
141 comments:
I love the Kinks recording "I'm on an Island."
He means he's a native Hawaiian affirmative action appointee so not exactly an American in the sense of running under American rules but rather under radical leftist rules.
The leftist rules are the island.
It could also be "sitting on a mountaintop in Tennessee."
This just is not an issue for for judges to get into unless Congress is the plaintiff.
I love it when the Left tries the disingenuous outrage schtick. I would gladly bet that Sessions knows more about American history, geography, and civics than three-quarters of the WaPo staff combined.
Well, can you imagine the screaming if, say, a judge in the Utah District Court, Central Division, issued an order gagging the media nationwide on LGBT issues?
Apparently he could, and the media would be gagged. Right? Right? That pesky Constitution and congressional laws saying otherwise don't matter anymore.
I vote we try it, just to see the screams of "Judicial tyranny" and the utter, transparent hypocrisy in action.
By the way, apparently Jason Chaffetz resigned because people in black were patrolling around with guns, trying to find his car and him, as well as his family. Today's leftists in action, people!
--Vance
"Well, can you imagine the screaming if, say, a judge in the Utah District Court, Central Division, issued an order gagging the media nationwide on LGBT issues?"
How about BHO saying that Putin isn't so bad for killing journalists and dissenters, cause America has a history of killing too?
He is pushing back. It's not clear the push will have much effect. The question is if Tony K and Neil G will push back. If so, some semblance of sanity will be restored; if not, not.
Pretty dumb comment. On par with the whining how elected men shouldn't legislate on abortion
Hawaii is a place for rich and pretentious people and native Hawaiians. Maybe they will secede when California does, assuming the Norks don't take them out first.
"He means he's a native Hawaiian affirmative action appointee so not exactly an American in the sense of running under American rules but rather under radical leftist rules."
This comment makes you "look weird and dumb."
Judge on Island State Blocks Safety Measure for Continental U.S.
Every grownup knows what Sessions meant. But kids with OMG I CANT EVEN schoolyard levels of discourse now dictate how adults communicate.
Kahala is thewealthy middle class area the other side of Diamon Head. It is nearly all white. And these strategic half way to China military bases are totally dependent on the mainland for everything except fish.
The weirdos are mostly Japanese now, many descended from slaves. Alaska and Hawaii were voted in together, but Hawaii was conditioned on their repealing slaveryfirts so took 2 years more.
I think Sessions' comment provides some perspective.
I'm not even going to bother clicking the link to find out if Aaron Blake ever gets around to addressing the part of Sessions' statement that actually matters, rather than the part that trivial-minded partisans find useful for continuing to play distracting silly word games.
"rather than the part that trivial-minded partisans find useful for continuing to play distracting silly word games."
-- Which is why he shouldn't have said it. As soon as I read it I knew nothing else he said would matter; he stepped on his own message.
CJinPA: Every grownup knows what Sessions meant. But kids with OMG I CANT EVEN schoolyard levels of discourse now dictate how adults communicate.
Exactly. And the adults should not be indulging the little darlings by pretending that they have something to say on the matter worth listening to by adults.
I've also seen complaints about Sessions' comment that note that Hawaii is really an archipelago.
What a bunch of tools.
Sessions must think he can convince the weird and dumb that some judge on some island doesn't know what a violation of the Establishment Clause looks like.
"Sessions must think he can convince the weird and dumb that some judge on some island doesn't know what a violation of the Establishment Clause looks like."
-- Well, the real question is, will Hawaii tip over?
Judge should order Sessions to appear and issue a bench warrant if he doesn't, just to show that he has a sense of humor too.
This is an example of the liberal bias thinking that Southerners are just plain dumb.
My nephew was on a conference call one time with Upenn, Duke and some other medical school scientists and he was amazed that his own UPENN colleagues acted surprised at how smart the Duke participants were.
Inga said...
Sessions must think he can convince the weird and dumb that some judge on some island doesn't know what a violation of the Establishment Clause looks like.
Well, some judge on some island has already convinced the sane and rational that said judge doesn't know what a violation of the Establishment Clause looks like. If Sessions wishes to try to convince you as well, I wish him luck.
That rogue judge in Hawaii might enjoy sitting in a Federal Penitentiary.
Unknown said...
...
By the way, apparently Jason Chaffetz resigned because people in black were patrolling around with guns, trying to find his car and him, as well as his family. Today's leftists in action, people!
--Vance
I'm gonna go way out on a limb, and suggest that you might want to be careful about what you suggest is "apparent." That was your verb, Vance. You could have said, "it was reported, by _____..." Or, you could have written, "it is rumored that..." The very best thing would have been to go with what Rep. Chaffetz said, but of course he said nothing of the kind, and if in fact he knew that he was being shadowed by extra-legal governmental agents, I'd expect and in fact demand that he speak the truth on that claim.
Let's review in order:
1. Chaffetz has said nothing about guys in black with guns following him.
2. Chaffetz HAS carefully said that he is not running for any office in 2018. He has taken out the domain name ChaffetzforGovernor.com; right now, that domain redirects to his congressional webpage. Not a personally wealthy guy, a couple of years off from the House gives Chaffetz a chance to earn a bit of a comfortable nest egg before any likely run for the Utah governorship.
3. I hate to ask what august news source supplied you with the "news" that the Deep State is working to threaten Chaffetz with assassination or whatever the hell you are trying to imply. Maybe this should have been the first, dispositive question. Where'd you get this story, Vance? It didn't come from WeAreKompromat.com, did it? Would your source for this story (I can't wait to learn what it is) have given us all good reason to simply laugh out loud from the outset?
Have a nice day.
Matthew Sablan: -- Which is why he shouldn't have said it. As soon as I read it I knew nothing else he said would matter; he stepped on his own message.
No, the adults shouldn't be endlessly policing their speech to make sure that there's absolutely nothing in there that these miserable spoiled brats can find to throw tantrums about. First, because it is degrading to be submissive to the dictates of bad-faith brats, and second, because they can always find something in normal adult speech to throw tantrums about. There is nothing short of agreeing with them, or just shutting the fuck up, that lefty (and lifelong republican) concern-trolls will not attempt to construe as "stepping on their own message".
Sometimes public figures do make real gaffes that it would be wise to acknowledge (without wallowing in apologies and self-abasement). This isn't one of those times.
Folks here will recall that in addition to Trump's pick of Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court (George Will called that part of Trump's First 100 days "a layup," and also the best and most important part of those 100 days, by far), I said that I liked the pick of Jeff Sessions for AG.
This story makes me regret my support, however slightly. A statement that was 100% Trump, and close to 0% Federalist Society.
"He is pushing back. It's not clear the push will have much effect. The question is if Tony K and Neil G will push back. If so, some semblance of sanity will be restored; if not, not."
I don't have that much worry there. I wouldn't be surprised if they picked up one or two other votes. The precedent of affirming the lower court decisions would be horrible - that courts could second guess the President in areas of his greatest strength (national security), when operating with the explicit legislative approval of Congress. And then there is the imputation of animus from campaign rhetoric, and granting of Standing on a shoe string and Due Process to people who have never been to the US, but whose families want them to come. Any of which should be sufficient to get a quick reversal from the Supreme Court. But the fundamental reason that I expect it to be reversed by the high court, is that letting the decisions stand would greatly reduce the moral authority of the Supreme Court. The lower courts are enjoining the President from doing just what Congress has specifically allowed him to do. This isn't the Executive trying to fix a legislatively broken law, as was the case with Obamacare. The Supreme Court cannot take the chance that someone let into the country because of these court orders blocking Trump's Executive Orders goes jihadie, and kills a bunch of Americans, because much of America will see the blood on their hands.
You left off the "obvious" answer in your poll:
Judges should decide cases based on law, so it doesn't matter where they are physically located.
Your wording of this choice relies on facts not in evidence...
Trump called Sessions after he said this and told him, "When you have to tweet, tweet. Don't talk."
"No, the adults shouldn't be endlessly policing their speech to make sure that there's absolutely nothing in there that these miserable spoiled brats can find to throw tantrums about."
-- I'd love to live in a world where this worked. We don't though. Sessions said something stupid; take the lump, move on.
Ann Althouse said...I love the Kinks recording "I'm on an Island."
Maybe it's a bit on the nose, but: YT: I Am A Rock
I've built walls,
A fortress deep and mighty,
That none may penetrate.
(A "big, fat, beautiful wall" one presumes.)
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT: A. Any judicial decision limiting or overturning an act of the Congress as executed by the President is limited to the judicial district or circuit in which it was made until confirmed by The Congress or The Supreme Court Of The United States; B. Any decision of The Supreme Court Of The United States may be reversed or nullified by a two-thirds vote of the House Of Representatives; C. All decisions of the courts of the United States shall use the intent of the authors of Constitution, its amendments and the Laws of the United States as the basic authority and source for such actions. (These provisions return constitutional power to the People and their democratically elected representatives as taken from them by individual or small groups of unelected judges.)
Matthew,
The proper thing to do, the difficult, useful thing, is to change the world. This manufactured propaganda-outrage business is merely a symptom of the fatal illness. Tip-toeing around these manifestations is not going to cure anything.
he's a federal judge
He is a so-called "federal judge".
The government of the United States cannot function if its every decision to be subject to the unanimous consent of of the several hundred district judges around the country.
The Supremes need to tell these guys this is above their paygrade and for them to sit down and shut up.
The Boomtown Rats had a song called"living in an island" that's a good fit.
My take is it's easy for someone in Hawaii to be self-righteous when they don't have a border to enforce. Nobody's swimming across the Pacific or by-passing a border crossing checkpoint at night to gain illegal entry into Hawaii.
Bruce Hayden said...And then there is the imputation of animus from campaign rhetoric, and granting of Standing on a shoe string and Due Process to people who have never been to the US, but whose families want them to come.
Honestly the standing problem seems most egregious to (non-lawyer) me--it's pretty close to outrageous for a court to accept a state's argument that a potential harm they might suffer at some unspecified point in the future (at the end of a causal chain as tenuous as "some potential foreign students might be excluded from entry into this state and thus unable to attend in-person classes for which they otherwise would have paid tuition money--money that ultimately goes into our state treasury/general fund") is sufficient standing to prompt a nationwide preliminary injunction...especially after years of being told no one could do anything about this or that Obama admin rule or law until they could show actual, personal/individual harm.
The courts aren't political, though, so probably it's just that I'm not smart enough to understand the very-obvious differences.
Sessions is a fighter. That's why he hooked up to DJT earlier than any other politician did. He wants to fight to save the Old Deplorable USA from the new International Money Power rulers.
NB: like DJT, he fights to win. And Judges who see themselves as supporters of political factions that appointed them are not impartial Judges. As long as DJT is supporting Sessions, they better get ready to fight.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a single previous case where one of the hundreds of federal judges told the President of the United States what he could do or not do in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Has this in fact ever happened before? Where are all the legal historians, and why hasn't any of them answered this obvious and pertinent question? Is no one in the press smart enough to think of asking one of them? Or do the journalists all agree with the outcome of this particular intervention, so they're making sure not to ask whether there's any precedent?
None of the above.
I said the very same thing a month ago, and I probably wasn't the only one. Mainly because it wasn't any of the judge's damn business. If it were up to me, I'd drag him off that island and throw 'em in jail. Give him a taste of Pol Pot (the middle years).
At the minimum, political decisions should be treated as impeachable offenses. Especially when emanating from a lazy, hazy island.
"lifelong republican" and noted Reader of Minds Chuck: "I'm gonna go way out on a limb, and suggest that you might want to be careful about what you suggest is "apparent."
LOL
Yeah, Chuck just wrote that. Without irony.
You can't make this stuff up.
Lot's of stuff that is apparent to normal people is invisible to Chuck. Perhaps he has a problem with his "mirror neurons...."
But I would say it's a "Simple Desultory Philippic"
(Or How I Was Robert McNamara'd Into Submission)"
I been Norman Mailered, Maxwell Taylored.
I been John O'Hara'd, McNamara'd.
I been Rolling Stoned and Beatled till I'm blind.
I been Ayn Randed, nearly branded
Communist, 'cause I'm left-handed.
That's the hand I use, well, never mind!
If you look at those choices Althouse offers, it is pretty clear that "neutrality" was not exercised there. But one thing reading this blog has taught me about Constitutional Law. It's about rationalizations, not ratiocinations. It's about rhetoric and power, not justice and the law.
[x] Standard political posturing, asserting that [other side] really doesn't [represent the "real" America][deserve the authority/power our system gives them], while clearly [my side] absolutely does. Executed more awkwardly than the average case, but basically par for the course.
Keep in mind that the state of Hawaii makes legal distinctions based on race all of the time. They have an office of Hawaiian affairs, and a department of Hawaiian homelands. These serve people with a certain blood quanta of native Polynesian blood. Technically, they require that you have an ancestor who was born in Hawaii before Jan 18, 1778 (the date Captain Cook landed here).
The newest thing is that the Hawaiians want to be treated as as an Indian nation by the feds. Your membership in this "tribe" (which has never existed) will be determined solely by blood quanta.
The Hawaii state AG who argued before the feds that Trump's visa ban was racist supports all of these programs, and will defend them in court.
"The government of the United States cannot function if its every decision to be subject to the unanimous consent of of the several hundred district judges around the country."
Trump may be president, but judges are Kings. All of them. We have a lot of Kings, and they get to decide things without accountability. The way Kings do.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" and noted Reader of Minds Chuck: "I'm gonna go way out on a limb, and suggest that you might want to be careful about what you suggest is "apparent."
LOL
Yeah, Chuck just wrote that. Without irony.
You can't make this stuff up.
So; you want to step in for Vance, and show us how it is so readily apparent, that "Jason Chaffetz resigned because people in black were patrolling around with guns, trying to find his car and him, as well as his family..."?
Chuck: I got my story from the Deseret News, a Utah paper that just this morning published an extremely long story where they talked extensively about the death threats Chaffetz was getting; and the armed Democrats perhaps looking to assassinate him when Chaffetz held a town hall that became somewhat famous a few weeks ago.
The cops begged him to not hold the town hall because they knew, with certainty, that there were armed Democrat goons looking to harm him and his family.
Everything I said was and is fact. Too bad you openly came out as supporting murdering GOP congressmen with your comments.
I mean, really? After Berkeley and Baltimore and Ferguson, you think it laughable that Democrats would be trying to murder a prominent Tea Party person? Oh, wait, I forgot: when it comes to the Tea Party, you fully support the Democrats.
--Vance
Matthew Sablan said...
-- Well, the real question is, will Hawaii tip over?
4/21/17, 9:15 AM
This post also made me think of Rep. Hank Johnson. (I guess states have more stability than territories, less likely to capsize.)
Nevermind; sticking to credible news sources, I figured out that Vance's reckless (so Trumpian!) characterization stems from stories like this one in The Deseret News out of Salt Lake City:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678299/The-calculus-behind-Jason-Chaffetzs-sudden-decision-to-walk-away.html
Where they mention one or more Utah town halls -- scheduled by Chaffetz's office -- at which there were reports of a handful of protesters dressed in black and wearing hoods, who were supposedly looking for Chaffetz's car in the parking lot. And that is pretty much it.
So; was he intimidated by that, and also by angry voice messages and email he was getting (the usual; death threats included)? The story answers:
Wright asked him [Chaffetz] if the town hall had been a factor. “The temperament, the civility, the pressures, has that affected you at all?”
“I tend to gravitate toward, I tend to be attracted to the volatility, I like to go into the firestorm,” Chaffetz said. “… I kind of like being in that position. I don’t mind it, it doesn’t really phase me and this decision really didn’t have anything to do with it. Think about that, 1,500 nights away from my family over the past eight years. That’s a lot and it takes its toll.”
Question asked, and answered. Now, if somebody wants to add to the factual scenario, and wants to argue that the truth is actually out there but is NOT "apparent," that might be interesting (however dubious).
But I didn't set up this fight. Vance did. Vance told us what was "apparent." And, well, it isn't.
JRoberts said...
My take is it's easy for someone in Hawaii to be self-righteous when they don't have a border to enforce. Nobody's swimming across the Pacific or by-passing a border crossing checkpoint at night to gain illegal entry into Hawaii.
That would be a valid point if a judge in Hawaii was ruling on a border-wall issue. But the travel ban, due to the countries involved, primarily hit people arriving by air. So I don't think your concern is an issue in this case. ( You might make an issue of the fact that Hawaii is separate enough from the mainland that it becomes a less effective, an therefore less tempting terrorist target. )
There are rather few actual Polynesian native Hawaiians, or even mixed ones. Hawaii is primarily (largest fractions) an Asian state. The Hawaiian bloodline giveaways are the Hawaiian version of PC, but the PTB aren't them.
The Hawaiian Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos) are, btw, the poorest and least educationally accomplished Asians in the US.
There are more Hispanics in Hawaii than even part-native Hawaiians.
Haha, Vance. I was reading that Deseret News article as you were writing your post.
I gave the good people the link.
And now you go accusing me of wanting Congressmen to be murdered?
You ignorant, malignant, worthless piece of shit.
Exactly what is it, that makes you so stupid that you cannot accept Rep. Chaffetz's own statement(s) on the reason(s) for his decision. What part of the Trump/Limbaugh/InfoWars fever swamp requires a desperately fearful conspiracy theory for everything?
You said that it was all "apparent." Now that I have pressed you on this fabulous story, we know that it isn't "apparent" at all.
Chuck: you liar. You flat out, bald faced liar. You are despicable.
You said that I made up the gun toting Democrat threat. You cite to the right article, and you, very carefully and very conveniently, did not mention this direct quote from the article:
Quote:
A few protesters were masked and dressed in black. They worried Chaffetz most. They carried guns and, he would later learn, were prowling the parking lot trying to find his car.
/Endquote
It says right there that there were gun toting people hunting down his car, at a preplanned riotous event. You are clearly on the side of the Democrats celebrating violence here.
--Vance
Geographical isolation is a reason why we have an electoral firewall.
Not everyone can enjoy a breach-front property in Hawaii... paradise.
Speaking of which, did Obama ever return to his home in Chicago?
Chuck said...This story makes me regret my support, however slightly. A statement that was 100% Trump, and close to 0% Federalist Society.
Oh no! Professor Althouse'd better add a "Trump's In Trouble" tag to this one:
sounds like it's getting serious--lifelong Republicans may be regretting their support for members of the Trump admin!
(Personally I find it impressive that Trump can exert such comprehensive control over someone, you know, to turn them into a human puppet saying 100% of what Trump directs them to say, presumably through the use of heretofore-undocumented secret brain wave transmissions or the like. Think of what a person with such an ability could accomplish!)
Ok, Chuck: what interpretation am I to place on masked, armed men hunting for a congressman's car during a near riot that Democrats were screaming and tantruming; when the cops warned Chaffetz against speaking; when he was getting death threats and armed men were actively seeking his car at a place they knew he would be at?
They wanted to give him an easter basket? That's apparently your interpretation. What else could it be, Chuck?
Armed men hunting your car after leaving death threats usually implies they want to cause you harm. But hey, it's only a Tea Party congressman--who cares if they are murdered, right "Life Long Republican" Chuck?
--Vance
I'll bet a lot of lifelong Republicans are happy to see a fellow Republican like Chaffetz leave public office. He's the guy who helped push investigations into Fast & Furious (not a whiff of scandal there, of course) and the Benghazi security failure(s), yeah?. Good riddance, right?
HoodlumDoodlum said...
I'll bet a lot of lifelong Republicans are happy to see a fellow Republican like Chaffetz leave public office. He's the guy who helped push investigations into Fast & Furious (not a whiff of scandal there, of course) and the Benghazi security failure(s), yeah?. Good riddance, right?
So you asked, and I have an answer. I am bitterly disappointed, that Chaffetz is leaving Congress. If anybody has his cellphone number, and if anybody thinks it would do any good, I'd be happy to call him and beg him to stay.
I watched about 45 minutes of one of his town halls (on C-SPAN, I think) and he was borderline brilliant.
Any other questions?
Who wrote "No man is an island"? John Donne or Jon Bon Jovi?
Jon Bon Jovi, too easy. And, if I may say so, a complete load of bollocks.
Sessions was Trump's worst pick because his legal tendencies run away from individual liberty too much. Especially on the drug war and stuff like civil asset forfeiture reform.
But the dumb left wasted all their powder on DeVos and basically said nothing about a fellow beltway insider like Sessions.
FTR Hank "Tipping Guam Over"Johnson is the Congressman from the urban district that includes Emory University Area where Ossoff and his Med Student girl friend are shacked up. That Congressman is how Ossoff got a Top Secret Clearance in DC for 6 months serving as Hank Johnson's National Security assistant.
It's a crazy world. And they say Trump is dumb.
Cheer up Chuck: your best buddy Evan McMillan, only 750,000 in debt, is making noises about running for Chaffetz. Just like you, he's spent his entire time since the election bashing Trump and Republicans and Conservatives and completely ignoring Democrat violence, riots, and calls for sedition.
Maybe you can come campaign for McMillan. I'd advise getting paid up front first though--these "lifelong Republicans who only bash Republicans" tend to forget to pay their debts. Ask Evan; or more importantly, ask the people he borrowed money from to try to throw the election to Hillary.
--Vance
Chuck wrote: "You ignorant, malignant, worthless piece of shit."
I am sick of your vulgar ad hominem attacks. Play your troll games somewhere else.
Ok, Chuck: what interpretation am I to place on masked, armed men hunting for a congressman's car during a near riot that Democrats were screaming and tantruming; when the cops warned Chaffetz against speaking; when he was getting death threats and armed men were actively seeking his car at a place they knew he would be at?
They wanted to give him an easter basket? That's apparently your interpretation. What else could it be, Chuck?
Armed men hunting your car after leaving death threats usually implies they want to cause you harm. But hey, it's only a Tea Party congressman--who cares if they are murdered, right "Life Long Republican" Chuck?
--Vance
You really don't understand what a dipshit you are.
If you want to know why Chaffetz is not running in 2018, you might start by reading what his extended answer was, to the question. Chaffetz does not say that he felt threatened.
Now if you want to make a claim that you know a truth that Chaffetz won't acknowledge -- a hidden truth that only you, and not Chaffetz, possesses -- you should just say that, and not that it is "apparent."
But then just think about the notion you are setting up. A blueprint for mass Republican resignations from Congress. All you gotta do, is get together a handful of activists whose wardrobe includes some black clothing and a hood, and get them to prowl around at public events. Be sure to spread rumors about their being armed, and make certain that the activists ask lots of people if they know where the Congressman's car is.
Bingo; you get them to resign, or promise not to run again in 2018.
On this theory, the right response from Ann Coulter (who was never on a BYU football team, isn't 6'2" and 195 lbs.) would be to cancel all speaking engagements where protesters threatened violence. Which Ann understands is precisely the wrong reaction.
Vance you are such a tool.
Vance, if Evan McMullin runs for Chaffetz's seat, I'd regard that as a silver lining in a gray cloud.
More anti-Trump Movement Conservatives may actually be better, than just a silver lining. In fact, I think that there's a whole lot of AlmostNeverTrump in Chaffetz, too, and it could be part of his general motivation at this time. As your Deseret News story mentioned, some of Chaffetz's staff thinks the guy "sees around corners" for future political trends.
No Chuck, the Democrats here locally are celebrating driving Chaffetz from the field, precisely because of death threats/violence.
Now, I don't think that Chaffetz is a coward; and he certainly was right saying that the Wyoming stands were more threatening. But it's not just him, it's his family. And it certainly appears like violence worked to get him to suddenly throw in the towel and possibly even resign early.
However, my larger point was that Democrats are now excusing and lauding direct violence against Republican Congresspeople. And you stuck your big mouth in and tried to deny it was happening, then I proved it was happening, and now you claim its "no big deal" because "Chaffetz isn't a coward!" Never said he was; my point was that Democrats are mainlining political violence and possibly the "we'll kill your wife and kids" may have played a part in Chaffetz's decision to quit.
But good ol' reliable Chuck never fails to take the part of Democrats when violence is in the air: somehow it either never happened or it is being misinterpreted and anyway, we should give Democrats the benefit of the doubt first, last, and always.
Maybe that's your best proof of how you are indeed a lifelong Republican: You always side with the Democrats as your first instinct.
--Vance
Francisco D said...
Chuck wrote: "You ignorant, malignant, worthless piece of shit."
I am sick of your vulgar ad hominem attacks. Play your troll games somewhere else.
I'm not going to ignore, or succumb to, the relentless personal attacks on me here.
Tell it to somebody who cares, what you are sick of.
I've often heard how someone is declared to lack standing on a legal matter. What is this one judge's standing to block a president from an action that is clearly within his purview? He reportedly said that he based his decision on his interpretation of things Trump said during his campaign. That means if any other president had done it, it would've been legal. Sorry, but this judge needs to be professionally spanked.
Chuck said...Vance, if Evan McMullin runs for Chaffetz's seat, I'd regard that as a silver lining in a gray cloud.
Oh dear. Maybe I'm behind the time on things again, but I was pretty sure even the hardcore #NeverTrump crowd had come to understand what a disaster McMullin is. Hasn't Kristol (even Kristol!) said he's glad McMullin didn't do better, based on McMullin's many regrettable statements and positions since the election?
I could be wrong, but I really thought we all decided McMullin's not the guy.
Unknown said...
No Chuck, the Democrats here locally are celebrating driving Chaffetz from the field, precisely because of death threats/violence.
Really!?! Link us to a Utah Democrat who is "celebrating driving Chaffetz from the field, precisely because of death threats/violence..."
And it certainly appears like violence worked to get him to suddenly throw in the towel and possibly even resign early.
Again, for about the third time; Chaffetz was asked about this, and he said that was not the case.
However, my larger point was that Democrats are now excusing and lauding direct violence against Republican Congresspeople.
Second time you have tried to run that by us. I'd like to have names, and quotes, for "Democrats [who] are now excusing and lauding direct violence against Republican Congresspeople."
...My point was that Democrats are mainlining political violence and possibly the "we'll kill your wife and kids" may have played a part in Chaffetz's decision to quit.
You know; he's not quitting, right? He's choosing not to run in 2018. Leaving open the notion that he'll run in an election after 2018. Which says more about opportunism (opportunism isn't always bad) than about fear of harm while in the public/political spotlight.
But good ol' reliable Chuck never fails to take the part of Democrats when violence is in the air...
You lousy little moronic troll. Name a time when I have ever taken "the part of Democrats when violence is in the air. I just finished making the point that Ann Coulter ought to speak at Cal-Berkeley, no matter what. And shame on Cal-Berkeley if they don't use ever resource at their disposal to protect her, and her student sponsors' First Amendment rights.
Fuck you, Vance. Fuck you and your misquoting me, mischaracterizing me, and your personal attacks on me.
Too funny!
Look at that. Chuck defending Democrat violence and cheering a Republican traitor like McMuffin. Lets look at Chuck's hero's positions:
McMuffin in this article sounds like any democrat:
1. Supports TPP and "free" trade.
2. Supports A path to citizenship for illegals.
3. Believes AGW and Climate change regulations
4. "McMullin did not have an immediate answer for why Democrats unhappy with Hillary Clinton, especially those who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary, should support him.
“That’s a good question and I don’t exactly know the answer to it,” he said. “I do have a theory based on some comments because we do have Bernie Sanders people coming to us saying we’re going to support you and people who have supported Hillary Clinton but have grown concerned about the stories that have come out about Clinton Foundation and other things.”"
5. Believes Trump owes allegiance to Putin. Seriously:
“I firmly believe,” he said, “that someone needed to step up and stand in contrast to Donald Trump’s bigoted rhetoric and his allegiance to Vladimir Putin...”
6. Says the GOP is racist.
Chuck and McMuffin are indistinguishable from Democrats at this point. Both are supporting and apologizing for violence against republicans and spouting all of their talking points.
No one should be under the illusion that Session's likes or tolerates colored people. Even if that color is "island brown".
Achilles said...Look at that. Chuck defending Democrat violence and cheering a Republican traitor like McMuffin. Lets look at Chuck's hero's positions:
Now now, we should all try to be fair, swift-footed Achilles. I can see the appeal of voting for someone like McMullin in the Presidential election (if one lived in a place where the vote was very unlikely to make a actual difference); my memory is that McMullin wasn't terrible before the election--more like an annoyance to people who wanted everyone to rally 'round Trump. For the #NeverTrump people (Kristol, Erickson, Goldberg, etc) I can see the appeal of someone like that. Also we know our lifelong Republican Chuck isn't a die-hard #NeverTrump since he did, in fact, vote to MAGA.
Now, that was then. Supporting McMullin was understandable, to that degree, then.
Supporting McMullin now, especially in an enthusiastic way? That's MUCH less understandable. From a Republican standpoint, anyway. (And of course that's the standpoint a lifelong Republican would naturally have, when evaluating McMullin.)
HD: "Also we know our lifelong Republican Chuck isn't a die-hard #NeverTrump since he did, in fact, vote to MAGA."
We "know" no such thing.
Larry J:
Here's how it works. A lawsuit gets filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i. The Plaintiff is the State of Hawai'i, represented by the Attorney General of the state. It names as defendants Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, General John F. Kelly, as Secretary of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of State, and Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. And it states a cause of action alleging that the state and the state's interests are being harmed by the Trump EO's on immigration. If the case had not been filed in a U.S. District Court (as it properly was), and was instead filed in a state court in Hawai'i, the defendants' first move -- I guarantee you -- would have been to file a removal petition, to place the case in a federal court, based on a large handful of jurisdictional reasons. Diversity, federal questions, constitutional concerns about disputes involving the states and the federal government, etc.
So your question about "standing" and the substantive evidence needed to support a preliminary injunction notwithstanding, a Hawai'i U.S. District judge was destined to hear this case, and it was proper to do so.
The "standing" issue is mildly interesting, and I might agree that it is a weak case of claimed standing in this action. But still; the U.S. District Court is exactly the right venue. And yes, Trump is now being bedeviled by the stupid shit he uttered during the campaign. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. On the basis of separation of powers, and the orderly maintenance of national security by the Executive Branch, I'm generally inclined to think that Trump should win in the end. But since this involves the clash of probably-good policy*, and Trump's own personal stupidity, I love this issue.
*I should be clear; I don't even agree that the Trump Executive Order represents any sort of good, or important, policy. I think it is baloney, in search of fulfilling an amazingly dumb promise made by Trump during the campaign. So it isn't really a "policy" thing. I just don't like seeing too much latitude being denied to the Executive Branch on terrorism and immigration, as a matter of legal precedent.
"lifelong republican" and Noted Psychic Chuck: "You know; he's not quitting, right? He's choosing not to run in 2018. Leaving open the notion that he'll run in an election after 2018. Which says more about opportunism (opportunism isn't always bad) than about fear of harm while in the public/political spotlight."
Chuck just knows, KNOWS, the innermost thoughts of so very many folks.
It's a gift.
Of course, his "gift" was notably absent in the run up to the election.
Perhaps his gift was retracted, or taken back, in an Elizabeth Warren "indian-giver" sort of way.
"lifelong republican" and Noted National Security Expert Chuck: "*I should be clear; I don't even agree that the Trump Executive Order represents any sort of good, or important, policy. I think it is baloney, in search of fulfilling an amazingly dumb promise made by Trump during the campaign."
You are an idiot so we'll just let your national security recommendations go by the wayside along with all the others.
Chuck,
First, thanks for replying. Second, how can a judge's ruling on a matter brought by the state of Hawaii apply to the entire country?
Third, Trump's EO was about a temporary pause on immigration from 7 countries that have particular problems with terrorism. The pause was for 90 days to give the government time to set up proper vetting policies and procedures for those particular countries. The ban didn't apply to over 80% of the world's Muslim population, so it was hardly a "Muslim ban".
Larry J: "The ban didn't apply to over 80% of the world's Muslim population, so it was hardly a "Muslim ban"."
This is well understood.
It's also well understood that "lifelong republican" Chuck adopts every democrat talking point as his own which is SOP for "lifelong republicans".
Just as a note, Chuck says Chaffetz isn't leaving.
Here's a link that, well, Chuck won't want to read: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678225/State-plans-for-special-election-after-Chaffetz-confirms-he-may-step-down-before-his-term-ends.html
--Vance
Achilles wrote:
[A short list of Evan McMullin positions]
...
2. Supports A path to citizenship for illegals
Interesting point. You aren't the first to make it. And to be clear, I am 1000% against any "pathway to citizenship." I disagree vehemently with the few Republicans who signed onto such proposals in the past.
There is a zero-point-zero chance that the current Republican Congress will enact any "comprehensive immigration reform" that would include "a pathway to citizenship."
In the somewhat distant past, a number of notable Republicans (Graham, McCain, Flake, Rubio) fell into that category under intense pressure to get an immigration deal done with Democrats who insisted on it. They mostly all regard it as having been a mistake, and have reversed themselves.
Also, this is one of those things (like abortion, like an assault weapons ban, like a single payer national health system, like "a path" for immigrants) on which Trump has also reversed himself.
It is my understanding -- you can correct me if I'm wrong but be very careful about it and show your work with links -- that Evan McMullin went through the 2016 campaign and stepped away from any position on a pathway to citizenship. He currently favors no government benefits for illegals, no benefits, no amnesty, no tuition, and that he only just stopped short of calling for an end to birthright citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegals.
Should never have been made a state.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "It is my understanding -- you can correct me if I'm wrong but be very careful about it and show your work with links -- that Evan McMullin went through the 2016 campaign and stepped away from any position on a pathway to citizenship."
Egg McMuffin's entire 2016 campaign for the Presidency was a transparent play in support of Hillary's campaign and was designed to potentially keep Trump from reaching the electoral votes necessary to win.
McMuffin was, like Chuck, operationally pro-Hillary in every regard and no real republican should ever forget it or reward such a toady of the Clintons.
No one should be under the illusion that Session's likes or tolerates colored people. Even if that color is "island brown".
This is a vile, discredited ad hom, and says more about Etienne than it does Sessions.
During Obama's time, the average length of vetting was 15 minutes--confirmed by Obama officials after that information leaked. Trump proposed a moratorium until we could improve the vetting process, including being sure the fucker standing in front of us was who he really said he was. Voters agreed overwhelmingly--except cocksuckers like Chuck and Lefties that really want bad shit to happen--or don't care if it does. Chuck would blame it on Trump anyway.
Drago, you aren't wrong. There's Youtube video of McMullin dating from during his campaign where he openly admits he is in the race to try to prevent Trump from being president. That was his openly stated goal. He claimed to be "independent" but never criticized Hillary except when left no other choice -- you know, like Chuck "Well, of course if Hillary was in favor of cannibalism I'd have to disagree with immediate implementation of that in favor of further studies first, but I do want to keep an open mind."
That kind of disagreement with Hillary is what McMullin did to show his "moderateness."
Since the campaign ended (and he is directly responsible for Trump losing I think Virginia -- if Trump had McMullin's votes, he'd have won the state), Evan McMullin has gone off the deep end and without checking the name you'd be hard pressed to distinguish between his twitter stream and, say, Nancy Pelosi's.
--Vance
Gahrie: "This is a vile, discredited ad hom, and says more about Etienne than it does Sessions."
"lifelong republican" Chuck himself insinuated just such a thing about Trump supporters at rallies. Vile and discredited applies to that as well.
3. "Hawaii does have major ports of entry, with international travelers arriving regularly." ...And going through this thing we call "Customs."
Unless they have people sneaking ashore on outrigger canoes, they don't have anything in Hawaii similar to people sneaking across the southern border of the United States.
Vance: "Evan McMullin has gone off the deep end and without checking the name you'd be hard pressed to distinguish between his twitter stream and, say, Nancy Pelosi's."
Or say, "lifelong republican" Chucks.
Clyde: "Unless they have people sneaking ashore on outrigger canoes, they don't have anything in Hawaii similar to people sneaking across the southern border of the United States."
Shhh. The lefties and "lifelong republicans" are on a roll....
Humor Dies in Smugness
Larry J said...
Chuck,
First, thanks for replying.
You're welcome. It's such a pleasure to interact without people attacking me personally.
Second, how can a judge's ruling on a matter brought by the state of Hawaii apply to the entire country?
It wouldn't, if for instance a U.S. District Court in another state reached a different conclusion on the same order. We have, on a semi-regular basis, federal issues that are resolved one way in a Circuit like the Ninth, and another way in a Circuit like the Sixth. And the Supreme Court goes out of its way, to make room on its docket for such cases. We call them "conflicts" between the Circuits.
But frequently an unchallenged U.S. District Court ruling, especially from someplace like the Southern District of New York, in a securities case, or the District Court for the District of Columbia, in a federalism case, or the Delaware District in a corporations case, will stand as national precedent. Depends in large part on any appeals, up to the Circuit(s).
Third, Trump's EO was about a temporary pause on immigration from 7 countries that have particular problems with terrorism. The pause was for 90 days to give the government time to set up proper vetting policies and procedures for those particular countries. The ban didn't apply to over 80% of the world's Muslim population, so it was hardly a "Muslim ban".
Did I call it a "Muslim Ban"? I don't think so. You are of course right on the facts. But also, since any 90-day urgency seems to have been made up to put a legal fig leaf on the Order, and since the real motivation seems to have been White House political strategy to make good somehow on Trump's campaign trash talk about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," I don't blame people too much for their inaccurate labeling.
Drago said...HD: "Also we know our lifelong Republican Chuck isn't a die-hard #NeverTrump since he did, in fact, vote to MAGA."
We "know" no such thing.
In your heart you know he voted Trump.
Trump's ground game was in our hearts, and knowledge of Chuck's Trump vote is in yours, my precious fire-breathing friend.
HD: "In your heart you know he voted Trump."
I know no such thing.
As for fire-breathing, well. Thats the kind of thing that can give you the agita!
Hoodlum, let's just say that on the Hillary Public Statement Loyalty Scale of 1 to 7, "lifelong republican" nailed it at "11".
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/21/clinton-camp-instituted-loyalty-scores-following-2008-loss/
"lifelong republican" and Noted National Security Expert Chuck: " But also, since any 90-day urgency seems to have been made up to put a legal fig leaf on the Order,...."
This is the part where Chuckie calls General Kelly a liar.
Well played Field Marshall Chuckie. Well played.
Trump = Right
Chuck = Wrong
Trump 2,146,483,648
Chuck 0
I wonder what General Kelly is thinking right now?
Chuck, any insight there?
LOL
Chuck said...But also, since any 90-day urgency seems to have been made up to put a legal fig leaf on the Order, and since the real motivation seems to have been White House political strategy to make good somehow on Trump's campaign trash talk about "a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," I don't blame people too much for their inaccurate labeling.
"Legal fig leaf," huh? Are we really at a place where "he did it just to make good on a stupid campaign promise!" is enough to remove Article II power from an Executive we don't like? I mean, the President either has the Constitutional power to take the action or he doesn't, right? It's a little weird to say "well, he has the power, but only 'cause of this legal fig leaf, so it doesn't count and we therefore block it," don't you think?
You think it was a stupid campaign promise and you think what Trump REALLY wants to do is keep the Moose-limbs out. You believe his INTENT in signing the order is to do something you disagree with. Ok. Is the actual executive order lawful/Constitutional, though? I mean, if some other President without Trump's bad INTENT had signed the exact same order, would that order be Constitutionally permissible?
What kind of a precedent do you think letting courts make that kind of a determination (finding an otherwise-legal order to be unconstitutional based on the campaign statements of a candidate for Pres and/or his "real intent" as decided by someone else) would set??
I do find the idea that strictly complying with what you believe to be the legal limits of your authority is employing a "legal fig leaf" and somehow disreputable to be quite amusing.
A judge says "this is impermissible because it's not time-constrained--it might be permissible on a temporary basis only." The people in charge say "ok, we disagree but accept your authority, here's a new order with a definite period" and people then object: "it's a legal fig leaf! They're just hiding what they really want to do--they're complying with what the legal authority said but we all KNOW they don't want to, so we shouldn't permit them to do this either!"
HoodlumDoodlum said...
...
"Legal fig leaf," huh? Are we really at a place where "he did it just to make good on a stupid campaign promise!" is enough to remove Article II power from an Executive we don't like?
No. As I rather clearly stated, my misgivings on this issue are mainly that in getting knocked down in court, the Trump Administration could be making bad law.
I mean, the President either has the Constitutional power to take the action or he doesn't, right? It's a little weird to say "well, he has the power, but only 'cause of this legal fig leaf, so it doesn't count and we therefore block it," don't you think?
Right. I get that part. If I were a federal judge, I would say, "Mr. Attorney General, the first Trump immigration order was dated January 27, 2017. It's now been 85 days since that order. You wanted an order that was temporary, for 90 days. In one week, is all of this moot? Why would you need more time, when you only asked for 90 days? What are you doing, immigration-vetting-wise? What was the purpose of the 90 days? What's your game plan?
You think it was a stupid campaign promise and you think what Trump REALLY wants to do is keep the Moose-limbs out. You believe his INTENT in signing the order is to do something you disagree with. Ok. Is the actual executive order lawful/Constitutional, though? I mean, if some other President without Trump's bad INTENT had signed the exact same order, would that order be Constitutionally permissible?
If I were in the DoJ and working on this, and if the White House counsel's office called me with your question, I'd say, "It probably shouldn't make a difference. I'd like to try to win this for you, but I don't know if we can win, at the Hawai'i District, or the 9th Circuit. Maybe, in a year or so, we can prevail at the Supreme Court. But by then, we will be way past '90 days.' Substantively, what do you want? And by the way, could one of your guys please tell the President to stop saying and Tweeting such stupid stuff? Makes it hard for us to defend him. Just ask the Trump University lawyers, or the Trump defamation lawsuit lawyers."
What kind of a precedent do you think letting courts make that kind of a determination (finding an otherwise-legal order to be unconstitutional based on the campaign statements of a candidate for Pres and/or his "real intent" as decided by someone else) would set??
I expect it would probably be a bad precedent. Lots of smart litigators settle cases where they think they may be at risk to make bad law for their industries.
"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on a hill in Wisconsin can issue an order that stops the President of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and Constitutional power."
It makes as much sense as that. Forget WHAT the ruling is. The statement makes no sense unless Sessions thinks Hawaii is not a state or that judges not in the contiguous United States have no authority. Maybe he thinks that? But for those who think that Hawaii is somehow off the map because it is separated from the continent that is absurd. People [or judges] can live anywhere from NY to Miami to Seattle to San Diego and still be isolated from what is happening in other areas of the US. Some might live right in Wisconsin and not know what's going on. ;)
Matt, eat more fiber.
I think what Sessions said is brilliant. Not one word of it is inaccurate or could be construed as inflammatory. He is using a rhetorical device to predispose those hearing him or reading his words that the judge (and by extension, his jurisdiction) are insignificant in the extreme and the very idea that some puffed up island muckety-muck could stop the President of the United States from carrying out his Constitutional duties is farcical.
"doesn't know that Hawai'i is a state" - my left butt cheek!
And dreams at 9:06 is right.
Matt: "The statement makes no sense unless Sessions thinks Hawaii is not a state or that judges not in the contiguous United States have no authority."
LOL
Yeah, sure. That's exactly what Sessions thinks!
Idiots.
I have searched this thread for "Obama" to see if anyone brought up the fact that a federal court put a hold on Obama's attempt to give out millions of work permits to illegal immigrants. Isn't that the same thing as the Hawaii federal judge's order?
I am not talking about the merits of the two issues here.
When someone I like does something I like within the dictates of a given law it's "perfectly legal, adhering to all rules, clearly within bounds" and shouldn't be stopped.
When someone I don't like does something I don't like within the dictates of a given law it's "employing a legal fig leaf" and should be stopped.
When rich people I like file their taxes they've "complied with the IRS rules."
When rich people I don't like file their taxes they've "taken advantage of every loophole!"
(I mean, I assume they all have. I don't see most of their tax returns. Why would I??)
I have searched this thread for "Obama" to see if anyone brought up the fact that a federal court put a hold on Obama's attempt to give out millions of work permits to illegal immigrants. Isn't that the same thing as the Hawaii federal judge's order?
The difference being, Obama's actions were defying the will of Congress and Trump's actions were enforcing the will of Congress.
johns, and Hoodlum -
Together, you two raise a really clever legal point. One that you probably didn't intend.
Late in his second term, Obama tried to "EO" his way into establishing the so-called DAPA program. Conservatives and the State of Texas sued, in District Court. The District Court ruled that Obama had exceeded his powers. The Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court. Conservatives all praised the rulings.
But now, much of that legal reasoning is being used against the Trump Administration's EO's.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-live-updates-9th-circuit-arguments-conservative-challenge-to-obama-1486685157-htmlstory.html
Gahrie said
"The difference being, Obama's actions were defying the will of Congress and Trump's actions were enforcing the will of Congress."
I agree, that is a huge difference. But Sessions was expressing exasperation that a single federal judge could halt Trump's order for the whole country. My feeling is that since I was happy when a judge halted Obama's EO, I have to suck it up now that a single judge's order applies to the whole country for Trump's order.
Here is the February 17, 2015 Althouse post on that Texas/Obama Executive Order case, with some rich comments from some familiar commenters:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-federal-judge-in-texas-has-ordered.html
I see we have a new math formula; Chuck is spelled a-s-s-h-o-le. And we thought Einstein was a genius.
German judge decides Muslims can't be convicted of rape.
"I believe Mrs. G. every word," but added that "her tormentor probably did not know what he was doing to her."
johns said...
But Sessions was expressing exasperation that a single federal judge could halt Trump's order for the whole country.
...when that order appears to be clearly within his statutory and Constitutional powers.
Sessions included that last phrase. I suspect he thinks it is relevant.
Chuck said...
Here is the February 17, 2015 Althouse post on that Texas/Obama Executive Order case, with some rich comments from some familiar commenters:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-federal-judge-in-texas-has-ordered.html
Obama makes massive unintended changes to a congressionally signed and passed law unconstitutionally through executive order. Trump undoes changes to immigration laws Obama made by executive order and tries to enforce the laws as written.
Chuck can't tell the difference and sides with Obama and the people that want open borders.
Shocking. I know. He supports path to citizenship McMuffin the obvious Clinton plant too. It is almost as if Chuck is a liar and is really a democrat. Who could possibly think such a thing.
traditionalguy said...
"Kahala is the wealthy middle class area the other side of Diamond Head. It is nearly all white. ...."
According to the information at the link, the population of the Waialae-Kahala area is 52.1% Asian and 27.2% white.
http://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/Hawaii/East-Honolulu/Waialae-Kahala/Race-and-Ethnicity
Another relevant Kinks song is Holiday in Waikiki ("Across the coral sands I saw a hula hula dancer, looking pretty / I asked her where she came from and she said to me / I come from New York City / And my mother is Italian / And my dad's a Greek").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la2lbUh4v4
Achilles said...
Chuck said...
"Here is the February 17, 2015 Althouse post on that Texas/Obama Executive Order case, with some rich comments from some familiar commenters:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-federal-judge-in-texas-has-ordered.html"
Obama makes massive unintended changes to a congressionally signed and passed law unconstitutionally through executive order. Trump undoes changes to immigration laws Obama made by executive order and tries to enforce the laws as written.
Chuck can't tell the difference and sides with Obama and the people that want open borders.
Shocking. I know. He supports path to citizenship McMuffin the obvious Clinton plant too. It is almost as if Chuck is a liar and is really a democrat. Who could possibly think such a thing.
I'd call you a moron, but you are much more deliberately malevolent, than ordinary stupidity could explain.
I didn't side with Obama, or with Obama's immigration orders. Not one thing that I have written here would support your categorization. I cheered, when the Texas District Court and the Fifth Circuit struck them down. So too did the Wall Street Journal.
As for Trump, most of what has been appealed to the various Circuits (mostly the Ninth) as of late was not any undoing of what Obama ordered; the federal courts in other circuits have been doing most of that undoing, thank you very little.
And for the second time on this page, I say; I am unalterably opposed, to any immigration legislation that offers any new "pathways to citizenship." That has always been a Democratic ploy to register millions of new underclass Democrat voters. I know some Republicans have, in the past, been soft on that issue. In the past, Donald Trump was soft on that issue too.
You guys are having to really work at it, to be as stupid as you are today, on this issue. There's not much difference, between my views on immigration and most Republican immigration hawks in Congress. My complaint is the string of dumb things that Trump and others close to him have been saying in the last two years. It's the same old story; Trump policy (to the extent that competent Republicans can work out all of the details for him) isn't the problem so much as it is a problem of Trump's stupid statements, stupid Tweets, bad impulses, rank ignorance and inability to communicate like a competent pro.
I know how it works, with the Hannity-listening, college-dropout, bus-and-tunnel guys from Queens. The Howard Stern demographic. The Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly crowd. All of those guys, Trump included, make the mistake of thinking that because they are at the very top of their discrete demographic, and making millions from advertisers, that they are vastly popular, all over the country. But they aren't. Their popularity numbers are always minorities. Sizable minorities, but still minorities.
Whatever; it's a free country. They can say what they want. And so can I.
"And now you go accusing me of wanting Congressmen to be murdered?"
No. He accused you of wanting Republican congressmen to be murdered.
And he was correct.
"lifelong republican" and Rachel Maddow fanboy Chuck: "I know how it works, with the Hannity-listening, college-dropout, bus-and-tunnel guys from Queens. The Howard Stern demographic. The Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly crowd"
Wow.
Rachel Maddow could not have vomited that sentence out any better.
You should be proud. You've outdone your gal.
So I've been offline all day and have missed this controversy. What is the argument here? That Hawaii is not an Island? Or that it's not in the Pacific?
Chuck,
I take it that this is your venue for dealing with the emotional issues that bedevil you. Your significant other probably appreciates that.
I do not appreciate it. You are extraordinarily vulgar and personal your attacks. It reminds me of a HS sissy who could never confront anyone personally for fear of bodily harm.
There are a lot of other ways that you can receive the help you need.
Chuck said...
I'd call you a moron, but you are much more deliberately malevolent, than ordinary stupidity could explain.
All you have are personal attacks. I have met you point for point. You call people names.
I didn't side with Obama, or with Obama's immigration orders. Not one thing that I have written here would support your categorization. I cheered, when the Texas District Court and the Fifth Circuit struck them down. So too did the Wall Street Journal.
Your post in it's entirety and it needs no help:
"Chuck said...
Here is the February 17, 2015 Althouse post on that Texas/Obama Executive Order case, with some rich comments from some familiar commenters:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-federal-judge-in-texas-has-ordered.html"
As for Trump, most of what has been appealed to the various Circuits (mostly the Ninth) as of late was not any undoing of what Obama ordered; the federal courts in other circuits have been doing most of that undoing, thank you very little.
4 of these pertain to immigration Any decent person would credit the work the Trump administration is doing.
And for the second time on this page, I say; I am unalterably opposed, to any immigration legislation that offers any new "pathways to citizenship." That has always been a Democratic ploy to register millions of new underclass Democrat voters. I know some Republicans have, in the past, been soft on that issue. In the past, Donald Trump was soft on that issue too.
You just whine when Trump actually does something and cheer for left wing hack judges who abuse their position and treat the law as garbage.
You guys are having to really work at it, to be as stupid as you are today, on this issue. There's not much difference, between my views on immigration and most Republican immigration hawks in Congress. My complaint is the string of dumb things that Trump and others close to him have been saying in the last two years. It's the same old story; Trump policy (to the extent that competent Republicans can work out all of the details for him) isn't the problem so much as it is a problem of Trump's stupid statements, stupid Tweets, bad impulses, rank ignorance and inability to communicate like a competent pro.
Oh god you are so pretentious. You are so disingenuous and pathetic.
I know how it works, with the Hannity-listening, college-dropout, bus-and-tunnel guys from Queens. The Howard Stern demographic. The Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly crowd. All of those guys, Trump included, make the mistake of thinking that because they are at the very top of their discrete demographic, and making millions from advertisers, that they are vastly popular, all over the country. But they aren't. Their popularity numbers are always minorities. Sizable minorities, but still minorities.
You have always hated actual republicans. You constantly spew hatred for people who hold the beliefs you purport to hold. You are a liar pretending to be what you are not.
Whatever; it's a free country. They can say what they want. And so can I.
It is a free country because people better than you went and fought for it. Now you are trying to break it down. You tried to get Hillary elected and you are fighting the people who are actually fighting the left.
If you actually hold the beliefs you say you do it is worse. That just makes you a backstabber instead of a liar. Just go join George Will already. You people are worthless to this country when it actually comes right down to what is important.
Achilles: "It is a free country because people better than you went and fought for it."
That's not really fair to Chuck who almost, missed by a whisker, very nearly joined the military but didn't because there was no draft and besides Trump sucks.
buwaya said...
There are rather few actual Polynesian native Hawaiians, or even mixed ones. Hawaii is primarily (largest fractions) an Asian state. The Hawaiian bloodline giveaways are the Hawaiian version of PC, but the PTB aren't them.
Hence the "one drop" rule. It allows them to inflate the numbers. They even claim people with 1/64 Hawaiian blood, whose ancestors left Hawaii a century or more ago, as "native Hawaiians."
Hawaiian homelands requires either 50% or 25%, I forget which. There aren't many left with that much provable Hawaiian blood.
There are many non-native-Hawaiians here who are descended from people who were citizens of the Hawaiian kingdom. They get nothing. It's strictly a racial thing.
There are a lot of people now claiming to be part Hawaiian who have no more Hawaiian ancestors than I have (zero).
If Trump were smart he would get behind the Hawaii initiative to give back Hawaii to the Hawaiins.
Two less Democrat senators. Poof.
Francisco D at 5:34 PM
Chuck, I take it that this is your venue for dealing with the emotional issues that bedevil you. blah blah blah ...
I like Chuck's comments.
Blogger Matthew Sablan said...
"No, the adults shouldn't be endlessly policing their speech to make sure that there's absolutely nothing in there that these miserable spoiled brats can find to throw tantrums about."
-- I'd love to live in a world where this worked. We don't though. Sessions said something stupid; take the lump, move on.
Matthew, I think you are one of the brightest and most astute commenters here, but you are TOTALLY wrong on this one.
@Matthew Sablan:
You are essentially giving in to the heckler's veto in a sense. The left will never accede an inch, so it is futile to give it to them. All it does is silence our side.
Blogger JRoberts said...
My take is it's easy for someone in Hawaii to be self-righteous when they don't have a border to enforce. Nobody's swimming across the Pacific or by-passing a border crossing checkpoint at night to gain illegal entry into Hawaii.
Brilliant. I always tell people here in SoCal that you don't see any illegal Mexicans working as hotel housekeepers in Hawaii. It's mostly locals and Filipinos.
Mike Sylwester said: "I like Chuck's comments. "
I hope you realize that Chuck is acting out his mental health issues on this site.
Francisco,
Your behavior toward Chuck is incredibly unprofessional as a psychologist. If I were Chuck I would sue you. People are doing that nowadays, are you aware of that?
Chuck said...It is my understanding -- you can correct me if I'm wrong but be very careful about it and show your work with links -- that Evan McMullin went through the 2016 campaign and stepped away from any position on a pathway to citizenship.
Hmmm...so making claims during or before the campaign and then changing one's position later during or after the campaign, that's ok? That's something you've been pretty down on Trump for doing, isn't it?
It's different with McMullin, sure. He's a good dude--not like Trump.
Chuck said... My complaint is the string of dumb things that Trump and others close to him have been saying in the last two years. It's the same old story; Trump policy (to the extent that competent Republicans can work out all of the details for him) isn't the problem so much as it is a problem of Trump's stupid statements, stupid Tweets, bad impulses, rank ignorance and inability to communicate like a competent pro.
Is it fun to eviscerate strawmen over and over again? Seems like it'd get old, but there are lots of hobbies I just don't get.
Trump's said stupid things. Trump's going to keep saying stupid things. I doubt anyone here would say Trump has never said a stupid thing--since he's taken both sides of most issues even his current supporters probably have to admit that he's said many stupid things on a given issue!
Saying your only problem is Trump & his people saying stupid things entirely avoids the actual discussion here, Chuck. The actual discussion should probably be about the court's action--whether it is correct, what it should mean, how Sessions reacted and should have reacted, what actions the Trump admin should take now, etc. All of those things are worth discussing and even arguing about. Somehow, once again, we've managed to largely avoid those potentially interesting discussions.
I'm seriously asking--is this fun for you, man?
What I am amazed by is that a single district court judge can issue an injunction barring the entire US government from acting throughout the country even though other district court judges in other states have held on the same basic facts that the government's conduct is lawful. How can that be? Prof. Althouse - you're the constitutional law expert, what gives?
Inga said: "Your behavior toward Chuck is incredibly unprofessional as a psychologist. If I were Chuck I would sue you. People are doing that nowadays, are you aware of that?"
Inga, as a former psychiatric nurse you know exactly nothing about the practice of psychology. When I worked on a locked unit back in the early 80's, we called nurses to clean up when a patient shit himself. Stick to what you know.
Of course, Chuck has shit himself many times. Maybe you should be helping him.
Mike Sylwester said...
Francisco D at 5:34 PM
Chuck, I take it that this is your venue for dealing with the emotional issues that bedevil you. blah blah blah ...
I like Chuck's comments.
4/21/17, 7:43 PM
You also bear watching.
Post a Comment