Denial on parade

Ace of Spades cites Glenn Reynolds: The Civil War Has Already Started. –

“He’s referring to an idea I’ve mentioned before myself, that there are “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” that predict divorce in a couple. Those Four Horsemen are criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt.

All of which are singularly present in modern American “discourse.”

Dear Judd And Kumail: You Have No Idea What A Nazi Really Was By David Harsanyi – “Please find another historical event to exploit. Because you sound like a bunch of hysterical know-nothings.”

7 Examples from the Last Two Weeks That Show How Dangerous and Insane Liberals Have Become by John Hawkins – “If you told any American ten years ago how badly liberals have behaved in just the last two weeks, they would have thought you were the crazy one for thinking this was possible.”

The Five commentary panel on Fox News had a segment to discuss problems in civil discussion. It was quite a dance around facts such as cited over and over again here to support the ‘both sides are the same’ fiction. As has happened so many times in the past, American will put up with a lot of abuse and bullying but only up to a point then watch out. That is what worries a lot of people.

Observations on the Travel Ban Decision by John Hinderaker – “The fact that four justices dissented is extraordinary. Their grounds are, in my view, pretextual.”

“Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissent that Democrats were hoping for. It is a fiery denunciation of President Trump, but one that includes little material relevant to the case. She quotes, at great length, statements that candidate Donald Trump made during the campaign about wanting to restrict all Islamic immigration. One problem, of course, is that the order at issue doesn’t bar all Islamic immigration–it affects only a tiny percentage of it. The fact (if it is a fact) that Trump would have preferred to issue a different order, obviously can’t make the order he did issue unconstitutional.

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsberg, who joined in her dissent, do not shy away from the conclusion that if another president had issued the same order, it would have been valid and constitutional. It is only Donald Trump who can’t issue this proclamation, on account of various statements he made that the justices interpret as being hostile to Islam. If Hillary Clinton had issued the same order, it would have been fine.

I therefore see the Sotomayor opinion (and the Breyer opinion, too, although it is more circumspect) as political, not legal, documents. They reflect the Democratic Party’s continuing refusal to accept the result of the 2016 election. In their view, Donald Trump isn’t really our president: he doesn’t have the powers that any other president would have.

The bottom line is that Trump vs. Hawaii came out the right way, but it is deeply disturbing that four justices were willing to put politics before jurisprudence.

NIFLA v. Becerra: free speech or pro-life by neo-neocon – “Headlines in the MSM dealing with the decision tend to emphasize that this is a win for pro-life clinics (see this, for example), whereas conservative media seems to have more of a focus on the free speech aspects (an example is this). The former is a political emphasis, whereas the latter is a constitutional and legal one.”

Where is academia? Prawf’s Blog cited Balkinization by Joseph Fishkin to explain why a ban on visitors from countries with poor identity laws is just as bad as rounding up a bunch of U.S. citizens for incarceration. The distinction between aliens and citizens is dismissed with the presumption that the rights of U.S. citizens apply to anyone in the world, U.S. citizen or not. Then there is presumption that the travel ban order was racist despite it being based on non-racial criteria. In trying to rationalize the concept that the travel ban was equivalent to the Japanese WW II internment, Fishkin also completely sidesteps the major case of the dissent that relied on elevating campaign speech to formal, courtroom testimony level testimony. The conclusion is that, for academia, ideology supersedes law.

Comments are closed.