Reflections From a Murky Pond

Yeah, the comma in this post’s title is actually important. This isn’t about the courts imposing racial quotas; it’s about Chuck Schumer trying to impose race quotas on the Court. Chuck Schumer had the audacity and unmitigated gall to stand on the floor of the Senate and reject one of President Trump’s judicial nominees, Marvin Quattlebaum because and, if one is to lend Schumer the hand-out of credence, only because he’s White.

Not, of course, that Schumer’s racist narrative, childish actions, or Oppositional Defiance Disorder made any difference in the outcome. The Senate voted 69-28 – that vote included 19 Dem Yea’s – to confirm Marvin Quattlebaum as a US district judge for South Carolina.

No, this was just Schumer’s cynical ploy to paint his refusal to vote for any nominee put forth by America’s President, Donald Trump as an exercise in social justice, something that Schumer has an “interesting” track record with. After all, the only thing that Schumer and the Dems have is their narrative that President Trump is racist, sexist, and xenophobic…oh yeah, and nationalist.

Tags: America | Blacks | Democrats | Diversity | False Narratives | Federal Courts | Hypocrisy | Lies | Politics | Quattlebaum | Race Quotas | Racial Politics | Schumer | Senate | Trump | Whites

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 11th, 2018 at 1:04 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Scalia Iudex Ave Atque Vale

Justice Scalia has passed over into death after just barely under 80 years on this Earth and 20 years of duty as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is said to have passed peacefully in his sleep after an afternoon of quail hunting and evening of fine dining at Texas’ famous Cibolo Creek Ranch.

Truly, as last days in this life go, quail hunting and a great dinner is far, far, far from the worst one possible. It’s pleasing to know Justice Scalia got to enjoy such.

Justice Scalia will certainly be missed by Americans, though the Liberals and Progressives are more likely to celebrate his death than to mourn it. How much we, the People will lament Justice Scalia’s death remains to be seen. It will depend upon first whether or not Congress can block whoever Obama digs up as a replacement and secondly, assuming the first is successful, who is elected as the next POTUS in November.

In other words, Ladies and Gentlemen of America, we’ve just been handed a truly grim reminder of just exactly how the upcoming Presidential election is existentially important to the future of our nation.

Tags: 2016 Elections | America | Death | Federal Courts | Law | Politics | Scalia | SCOTUS | US Supreme Court

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 18th, 2016 at 11:46 am and is filed under 2016 Election, Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Obama’s response Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruling in favor of Texas and the 25 other states that had the temerity to challenge Obama’s unilateral immigration “reform” actions is classic Obama attitude – petulant and arrogant.

Despite the federal court’s injunction against carrying out Obama’s unilateral immigration policy changes, Obama has made it clear to all ICE and Border Patrol employees that they must carryout his wishes or face “consequences.”

Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be.

— Barack Obama

It’s part of the law of Obama’s jungle – violate or be violated.

That’s the way it seems to be within the Obama Regime. You do what Obama demands, even if it’s in violation of court order, or you will be violated yourself.

And, of course, America’s domestic enemies are all for this sort of thing.

Tags: America | Amnesty | Border Crisis | Border Security | Federal Courts | ICE | Illegal Aliens | Immigration | Politics | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 10:02 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

On Monday, February 16, 2015, a mere one day before Obama’s sweeping executive actions on immigration would have allowed illegal immigrants to begin applying for work permits and legal protection, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states that had challenged Obama’s unilateral immigration actions and issued an injunction against carrying out these changes to the law.

Obama’s White House will, of course, challenge this ruling and battle it in the federal court system, possibly with it ending up in from of the SCOTUS in the relatively near future. That challenge is to be expected and is largely immaterial in the larger, deeper scope of America’s tribulations. There are bigger issues.

The bigger, deeper, and more fundamentally dangerous issue that this relates to is that almost half of the Democrats don’t believe that Obama should listen to- or abide by federal court rulings.

Should the president have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Yes, you read that right. 43% of Democrats believe that Obama shouldn’t be bound or constrained by the federal courts, 22% aren’t sure, and only 35% Democrats think he should be bound by the federal courts’ decisions.

All Hail Barack Obama

So one of the most horrific and potentially destructive problems facing America and Americans is that almost half of the Democrats are not just Statists, not just Anti-Federalist, but in favor of a tyrannical, autocratic presidency which unbound by- and unbeholden to the laws of the land set forth in the check and balances demanded by the Constitution.

If war is politics by other means than politics is just war by other means. These beings within the borders of our nation are not our opponents, they’re our enemies. An the very lawless, tyrannical nature of rule they desire makes them unlawful combatants. We, the People should treat them and such with no restraint and extreme prejudice.

Tags: America | Civil War | Conservatives | Constitution | Democrats | Federal Courts | Illegal Aliens | Immigration | Law | Liberals | Obama | Politics | Progressives | Republicans | Separation of Powers | Tyranny

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 11:50 am and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

The 9th Curcuit of the US Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Constitutional and Civil Rights are not fully applicable or to be enjoyed by juveniles in the setting of a state-run school with their decision upon Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District.

They have ruled that it is no violation of students’ rights to force them to either leave school or change clothes for wearing shirts with the US Flag upon them on Cinco de Mayo. Such juveniles don’t have the same level rights as adults enjoy under the law.

Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

SUMMARY
Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in a civil rights suit brought by high school students who were asked to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo.

The panel held that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection. The panel held given the history of prior events at the school, including an altercation on campus, it was reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real. The panel held that school officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.

OPINION

McKeown, Circuit Judge:

First Amendment rights and the operational and safety needs of schools. As we noted in Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 728 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2013), “school administrators face the daunting task of evaluating potential threats of violence and keeping their students safe without impinging on their constitutional rights.” In this case, after school officials learned of threats of race-related violence during a school-sanctioned celebration of Cinco de Mayo, the school asked a group of students to remove clothing bearing images of the American flag.

The students brought a civil rights suit against the school district and two school officials, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to freedom of expression, equal protection, and due process. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the only defendant party to this appeal, Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, and its denial of the students’ motion for summary judgment, on all claims. School officials anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances. As a consequence, we conclude that school officials did not violate the students’ rights to freedom of expression, due process, or equal protection.

Given the text of the opinion in the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District this was a solid legal decision on the part of the Court. Tinker did, after all, hold that school administrators could violate the constitutional and civil rights of students for the purpose of maintaining order and preventing disruption of the normal operations of the school.  As disruption in the form of violence was likely, Mckeown’s ruling, displeasing as it is, was right based upon earlier Court precedents.

It’d be better if the 9th Circuit had undertaken to decide that, even in the case of minors in school, “Hecklers’ Vetoes” are unconstitutional. Sadly, the 9th Circuit and Judge McKeown is particular has a trend in holding strictly to Tinker. Expecting a significant policy change isn’t really realistic.

A Small Thought Experiment

What actually happened was that during the school’s 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration, a Hispanic Assistant Principal, Miguel Rodriguez demanded that some White students remove their shirts which had the US Flag on them because Hispanic students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those Hispanic students.

That was not a violation of any the White students’ rights.

What could have happened in an alternate reality is that during that 2010 Cinco de Mayo celebration a Caucasian Assistant Principal, John Smith demanded that some Hispanic students remove their shirts which had the Mexican Flag on them because White students were likely to become violent towards them based upon both current and previous behavior by those White students.

Care to wager whether or not that would have been a violation those Hispanic students’ rights?

A Final Consideration

It might actually be that Tinker sets forth the correct constitutional rule in this case. Schools do have special responsibilities to educate their students and to protect them both against violence and against disruption of their educations. Thus a school might thus have and require the discretion to decide that prevention of disruption, even at the cost of suppressing speech, is acceptable.

That, however, does not address the fact that in parts of California it is utterly unsafe for White ,American students to wear or display our nation’s flag while at school due to the reasonable fear that Hispanic students will physically attack them for doing so. Worse, the only way that the schools can- or is willing protect them is by restricting their freedoms rather than punishing and/or reeducating the violent Hispanics.

Tags: 1st Amendment | America | California | Civil Rights | Constitutional Law | Courts | Federal Courts | Freedom | High School | Hispanics | Liberty | Politics | Racism | School | Society | Tyranny | Whites

This entry was posted on Friday, February 28th, 2014 at 3:42 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.