The Immigration Order and the Regaining Objectivity In the Media and the Courts

Supreme CourtBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the Supreme Court order lifting the stay over the Trump immigration order.  With the exception of those with bona fide relationships, the Trump Administration has the authority to enforce its travel limitations.  As discussed earlier, the order could prove not the next but final chapter of the immigration controversy given the 90 day period set under the Trump order.  However, a more immediate issue of concern should be the prior coverage and court decisions leading up to the unanimous order of the Supreme Court.

Samuel Johnson once said, “When a man knows he is to be hanged … it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” For opponents of the Trump immigration order, minds became distinctly more concentrated around 11am this morning, when the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated much of Trump’s order in a reversal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While the court will hear the merits in October and could still rule against the administration, these preliminary decisions often reflect a view of underlying merits.

For those of us who have long argued that the legal authority supported Trump, the order was belated but not surprising. However, the order does offer a brief respite for some self-examination for both legal commentators, and frankly, the courts. At times the analysis surrounding the immigration order seemed to drop any pretense of objectivity and took on the character of open Trump bashing.

The Supreme Court ruled the administration could enforce its immigration order under Section 2(c), which deals with the suspension of entry from six countries. The court ordered that the vetting could commence with the exception of “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The court ruled “when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” The preliminary ruling on this type of stay indicates that, when the final merits are decided, a majority of the court is likely to make the changes permanent and binding.

Indeed, three justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — did not want any limitation on lifting the injunction and dissented from that part of the opinion. To use Johnson’s rhetoric, the date of the hanging is set for the October term absent a dramatic shift on the court. That gives us some time to contemplate how this controversy has impacted our core institutions.

I previously wrote that Trump seems at times to bring out the worst of people — supporters and opponents alike. Yet, his signature attacks often cause people to fulfill the very stereotypes that he paints, particularly among some reporters and judges. Ironically, Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now. Mainstream media have become openly hostile to Trump.

There is often little distinction on some cable networks between the hosts and their guests in attacking Trump, who brings much of this criticism on himself in ill-considered and often insulting attacks. However, the media is trained to resist such personal emotions and retain objectivity. Throughout much of its history, it has done precisely that … until Donald Trump.

He seems like the itch that reporters and commentators just have to scratch and frankly sometimes it seems like a few are enjoying it too much. With ratings soaring, hosts and legal experts have shown little interest or patience in the legal arguments supporting his case, even though the Obama administration advanced similar arguments in court.

The hostile (and often distorted) analysis in the media was disconcerting but predictable, given the trend toward greater opinion-infused coverage. Networks are fighting for greater audience shares based on formulaic coverage — offering echo-chamber analysis to fit the ideological preferences of viewers. For the anti-Trump networks, the legal analysis is tellingly parallel with the political analysis. These cable shows offer clarity to viewers in a world without nuance. The law, however, often draws subtle distinctions and balancing tests. In this way, viewers are being given a false notion of the underlying legal issues in these controversies.

What has been more concerning is the impact of Trump on the courts. Trump shocked many in both parties by his personal attacks on judges as well as general disrespect shown to our courts. These were highly inappropriate and inaccurate statements from a president. However, once again, courts seemed to immediately become the very stereotype that Trump was painting.

Of course, the White House gave the courts a target-rich environment in the first travel order, which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended. Yet, the courts did not just strike those portions that were problematic. Where existing case law requires courts to use a scalpel in striking down provisions, judges pulled out a meat ax. They enjoined the entirety of the order while lashing out at Trump’s most sensational campaign rhetoric.

In the second round, the judicial decisions became even more problematic. The Trump administration brought in capable people who drafted the order correctly and defended it well. It addressed glaring errors in the original order like not exempting green card holders. It did not make a difference. The trial court in Hawaii even denied the ability of the administration to study and work on improving vetting procedures in the high-risk countries (part of the order later reversed in the Ninth Circuit).

In the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, judges brushed over the obvious improvements and again relied on Trump’s own comments and tweets. It seemed like sensational tweets were more important than long-standing precedent or official statements from the administration.

The level of reliance on campaign statements by the courts was wrong in my view, as I have repeatedly stated. The record had conflicting statements from Trump and his associates but courts seemed to cherry-pick statements, relying on those that fulfilled their narrative while ignoring those that did not. The analysis of the order should have turned largely on the face of the document. While such political statements can be relevant to analysis (particularly in areas like racial discrimination), the court has always minimized such reliance in favor of more objective textual analysis.

A long line of cases following the decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel followed this approach. In that case, the court rejected such inquiries over the denial of a visa to a Belgian Marxist journalist. It stated that “when the Executive exercises [its] power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with this long-standing precedent. In fairness to the courts and some commentators, there are good-faith reasons to argue against the travel order. Indeed, I predicted at the outset that there would be conflicting decisions in the courts. However, it was the tenor and basis for the decisions that I found disturbing. Courts that once gave President Obama sweeping discretion in the immigration field seemed categorically opposed to considering the same accommodation for President Trump. For commentators, viewers were given a highly distorted view of the existing law — brushing aside decades of cases while supporting the notion that a major federal policy could live or die by the tweet.

The Supreme Court’s stay should cause an examination of more than the lower court decisions. It should concentrate minds in both the courts and the media on the loss of objectivity in analysis over the “immigration ban.” There seemed an inability to separate the policy from the personality in this controversy. That is a serious problem for both institutions. Injunctions come and go. Yet, integrity and objectivity are things that, once lost, are hard to regain.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest at George Washington University.

83 thoughts on “The Immigration Order and the Regaining Objectivity In the Media and the Courts”

  1. “Courts that once gave President Obama sweeping discretion in the immigration field seemed categorically opposed to considering the same accommodation for President Trump.”
    How much time and money has been wasted in myriad legal expenses to prevent the execution of Trumps Executive Order which was not much different than the previous president’s order? How much anger, chaos, and distraction from issues that needed to be addressed by our government is due to the pomposity of discourse the American people have been subjected to? Shame Shame on everyone from both parties and in all (conservative and liberal) media outlets to allow this spectacle of animosity so EMBARRASSING to the American People in front of the whole world. To the Politicians: We HIRED you with our hard earned money to represent, protect, and improve our country and benefit The Common Good of our citizens. Instead you cowtow to special interest groups who are only focused on narrow minded and selfish agendas. To the Media Executives and Entertainment Royalty, you live luxuriously on the income received from the advertisers profucts that our hard earned money buys.
    Because of the controversy, chaos and division you create you have turned America into a laughingstock to our enemies and allies alike! I have not seen a single entity or a single person in your ranks exercise any common courtesy, common DECENCY, or common sense that is desperately needed in order to return to the business of working together for the common good of the People of America. A house divided cannot stand and should ypu all persist with the behaviours you have exhibited in the past few years YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE for the destruction of this great republic! Are any of you capable of humbling your gigantic egos to come together as the well educated elitist you so love to believe you are and start working together doing the right thing for the right reason? The hard working deplorable middle class that keeps this country functioning is sick and tired of your rhetoric. Shut Up. Wake Up. Grow Up. Before you collectively destroy the future of this amazing country.

  2. Well a start would be a system that does not feature the neo aristocratic establishment followed by the Secular Progressive Party followed by the Republicans in Name only all banded to gether as the Government Party. Second return to a multi party system or better yet the original idea of self governing citizens.

  3. Sourxe of leaks from State Department named by Refugee Resettlement Reblogged

    “New post on Refugee Resettlement Watch

    State Dept. leaking like sieve to CNN, reveals WH thinking of moving refugee program to DHS
    by Ann Corcoran

    I know, I know, it is a CNN story with Jake Tapper on the byline, but there is very likely truth to it.

    I’m not weighing in on the merits (or demerits) of such a move, my purpose here is to once again show you that the Obama shadow government, in this case Anne Richard, FORMER Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration has a pipeline in to the career bureaucrats running the refugee program in the Department of State and she is carrying their news to the likes of CNN.

    Anne Richard came to her former post at the Department of State from the federal contractor the INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE. Prior to her job at the IRC, she was at the State Department! The system is incestuous!

    The primary reason that the Deep State would not support the move of the program to the Dept. of Homeland Security is that they (in State) have a decades-long cushy relationship with the refugee contractors that I keep yelling about (here and here just this morning).

    They are all on the same page—more, more, more refugees for America!

    First, get the contractors (yelling and propagandizing) out of the system completely and reform of the program could be accomplished. (This depends on the lazy lunks in Congress!)

    And, second!
    Trump must get his loyalists placed in positions above the bureaucrats to get this under control.

    Career people can’t be fired unless, and until, they are caught in insubordination to a boss. Right now Trump is at fault for not picking their bosses!

    Here is CNN quoting Anne Richard extensively so she must be the one carrying the tales….

    Washington (CNN)The White House is considering a proposal to move both the State Department bureau of Consular Affairs and its bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration to the Department of Homeland Security, a senior White House official tells CNN.

    The move, which the White House official cautioned was far from becoming official policy, would likely be controversial among diplomats and experts in State Department matters.


    “It would be a huge mistake,” said Anne Richard, who led the bureau of Population Refugees, and Migration during President Barack Obama’s second term.


    The proposals were written in a memo submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget from the White House Domestic Policy Council as part of President Trump’s March executive order pushing for ideas for Government Reorganization.

    A State Department spokesperson referred CNN to the White House for comment.

    The extremely complicated admissions process now starts with the UNITED NATIONS making the first cut as we have reported ad nauseam.

    The White House did not explain the reasoning behind the recommendations, but perhaps the idea is rooted in a desire to streamline the refugee vetting process. As it stands currently, the United Nations High Commission of Refugees refers applicants to the State Department for vetting. This vetting is carried out by nine International Resettlement Support Centers (RSC) with American interests***; all of which are managed by the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Approved applicants are then sent to the Department of Homeland Security for final vetting. After final vetting at DHS, the State Department then resumes supervision of the process with its Reception and Placement Program.


    Richard, the former Obama State Department official, pinned the proposal on an “imperfect understanding” of the bureau’s function. It’s not mainly a law enforcement body, Richard said, rather, it works with nongovernmental organizations and the UN to assist refugees around the world. [And that is the problem—the NGOs and the UN—ed]

    More here.

    *** Are there other interests operating Resettlement Support Centers??? See here.

    Nine Department of State-funded Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs) not to be confused with the nine major refugee contractors (except that there is some overlap because some contractors work at these RSCs). Look at these locations. Can you say opportunity for fraud!

    Amman, Jordan with sub-offices in Baghdad, Iraq and Cairo, Egypt;

    • Bangkok, Thailand with a sub-office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;

    • Damak, Nepal;

    • Havana, Cuba;

    • Istanbul, Turkey with a sub-office in Beirut, Lebanon;

    • Moscow, Russia with a sub-office in Kyiv, Ukraine;

    • Nairobi, Kenya with a sub-office in Johannesburg, South Africa;

    • Vienna, Austria; and

    • Quito, Ecuador with small sub-offices in San Salvador, El Salvador and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

    The nine federal resettlement contractors who are fighting tooth and nail to let nothing rock their cushy relationship with the DOS:

    Church World Service (CWS)
    Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
    Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)
    Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
    International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
    US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
    Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
    World Relief Corporation (WR)”

    end of reblog

    that site has a lot of information and keeps close track of the current status of the immigration and refugees for example Hawaii with all it’s legal BS at Ninth Circuit has allowed 3 Iraquis and reportedly less than 80 total immigrants.

    Included are a great many other resources of all viewpoints but it appears the system they have set up is something like Pay For Play times Planned Parenthood and then some. being conducted by the so called Deep State element buried in the State Department itself.

    That’s another avenue of investigation involving both the State Department.

    By moving the program under DHS the refugee program wouild be directly under those responsible for national and Homeland Security. and to my way of thinking away from one of the most incompetent parts of government.

    The Refugee Settlement Watch Site does fact and reality checks on all of it’s information…..

    is the URL for the article above.

  4. Much ado about very little.

    Global warming is the serious issue…

    1. I can see why the extremist left would want too immediaely change the subject. One more investigation of one more incidens of felonies is one more nail in their coffin. And if it was about Global Warming they would say… munchadoodle about however hey want to spin but then thats the job of their programmers not the RoboClones of The Collective spitting up The Party ruling class version.

  5. Virginia and some of these other states in the 4th and 9th Circuit have some thousands of refugees and that gives them some skiin in the game. But what is Hawaii bitching about? To date number of refugees or perhaps immigrants for this last Fiscal Year is 85 Number from Iraq 4 that’s right “Four.” So what was that Hawaiian due complaining about? Or today the dudette? Maybe they saw chance to grab the limelight ans say “Hey look at us we’re here.” Maybe it’s just the Dude and Dudette perhaps running for President in 2038 or 2050? Maybe it’s only a case of …… “or something.”.

  6. Donald Trump didn’t create them, he exposed them.

    Olly, for the Win.

  7. “Ironically, Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now.”

    “Trump’s attacks on the media as biased are true.”

    There. Fixed that for you, JT.

    1. The news media is definitely biased. First recognized it while in Viet Nam.

      1. [New post] Linda Sarsour: Muslim immigrants must not “assimilate”
        Refugee Resettlement Watch

        4:40 AM (3 hours ago)

        New post on Refugee Resettlement Watch

        Linda Sarsour: Muslim immigrants must not “assimilate”
        by Ann Corcoran

        The news is not surprising, so I’m bringing this Breitbart article by Neil Munro to your attention so I can once again mention the words “assimilate” and “integrate” in the Left/Open Borders agitators’ lexicon.

        Linda Sarsour is the American-born daughter of Palestinian immigrant parents according to wikipedia and she is making news almost on a daily basis as she champions the cause of Islam in the age of Trump.

        Here is Munro in a story entitled: ‘Muslim Immigrants Must Not Assimilate, Says Progressive Ally Linda Sarsour’

        Muslims in the United States should not assimilate into American society, but should instead act “to please Allah and only Allah,” said Linda Sarsour, a rising star among progressive Democrats, last weekend.

        Sarsour’s remarks were part of a July 1 speech given at the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.


        Sarsour’s speech was peppered with refusals to integrate into Americans’ Western-style blends of secular government, religious freedoms, and civic society, or to compromise any aspects of Islamic doctrines, such as support for Muslim Palestinians living alongside Israel.


        She urged Muslim groups to build alliances – but to not integrate — with other groups in America, saying “You are not [numerous] enough on your own …. we need to build coalitions, we need allies.” [Not numerous enough yet!—ed]

        Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority.

        Read the whole thing by clicking here.
        Integrate vs. assimilate?

        Watch closely going forward. The open borders left is outright opposed to any assimilation by immigrants. They see assimilation as meaning that the immigrant must take on some American lifestyles and values (be a part of a national community) and is therefore a bad thing!

        They prefer the word ‘integrate’ which they see as a side-by-side (separate and no compromising of principles) way of living.

        Did you ever see Obama or any of his gang say ‘immigrant assimilation?’ Never! But, instead they said ‘immigrant integration’ was a worthy goal.

        I’ve watched over the years and haven’t seen the refugee contractors use the word “assimilate” either as a desired goal. But, they will use the word “integrate” as a positive objective (LOL! and integration implies that you, Americans, must bend to accommodate the migrant community and its values!).

        Be sure to see my 2015 post for further edification:
        Migrant “integration” vs. “assimilation,” how the Obama Administration is changing the language with devastating results

        The point I’m making is twofold, no well-trained progressive worth their salt would ever want immigrant “assimilation.” That is taboo! And, we must be careful in swapping those words back and forth because they don’t have the same meaning for the Left.
        My recommendation is to use the word, and demand “assimilation”! Make them go ballistic!

        And, avoid falling in to using their preferred word choice—integration.

        I did not read Sarsour’s speech, let me know if she goes back and forth between those words as reporter Munro does.”

        My recommendation is simple. Under the rules of immigrating to and becoming citizens of our country they must follow our system of government and laws. Period. If they don’t asgree …leave or don’t come here. But don’t expect special favors. Tht goes for those of the left who rejected citizenship and took up allegiance to a foreign ideology.

  8. The Fourth Circuit decision seems especially unhinged from the law, stating that the Executive Order “in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

    The Executive Order might be bad policy, but it is disappointing to see courts ruling on the basis that they think there is a “bad” motive behind the order. This type of ruling strikes me as an overreach by the courts beyond their proper role as coequal branch of government.

    1. On the subject of the Fourth Circuit, the decision in Kolbe v. Hogan upholding Maryland’s so-called assault weapons ban is bizzare. Asserting that semi automatic rifles are “weapons of war” that are not protected in any way by the Second Amendment is directly contrary to Heller.

      What seems to be lost on some people is that a court that has the power to ignore the law and reach a conclusion liberals agree with also has the power to ignore the law and reach a conclusion liberals disagree with.

      Perhaps conservatives should favor a living breathing Constitution that lives and breathes in a conservative manner?

    2. That little jab from the 4th Circuit was for history books. The decision from the Fourth Circuit is what “drips with animus and intolerance”..towards Trump.

  9. The thing to be applauded about this interim Per Curiam decision is its pragmatic tone of “let’s move forward”.
    The USG gets to move forward to redesign visa applicant vetting for improved countermeasures to infiltration of violent jihadism and fundamentalist Islamism, while foreigners from the 6 nations who have a timely, valid need for a visa are allowed to move forward toward issuance. It’s fairly clear that the Lower Courts’ speculation that the E.O. served as a deceptive cover for Presidential animus toward all Muslims was not persuasive, and an unsuitable basis for anticipating a successful “Establishment Clause” challenge when the merits are later argued.

    If this case becomes moot at the October hearing based on the completion of the 90-day moratorium, we can expect a new challenge which goes after the specific terms of the new vetting procedures developed. The left seems incapable of accepting that Islam is undergoing a schism, and that the Supremacist-Sharia branch is waging a psychological, demographic and violent terrorist war on America with the goal of supplanting and subjugating our secular, pluralistic way-of-life. But, the Solicitor General will find it easy to enter into fact the many Fatwas, fundamentalist sermons, jihadist webpages, terrorist plots and attacks that form the backbone and operation of the declared war against the United States. At the same time, the SG will enter into fact the Reformation movement within the Muslim world to shed the aspects of Qoranic and Hidathic liturgy which oblige attacks on kafirs (“outsiders”) as a religious duty. The SG will present a strong evidentiary basis to establish that the USG faces no restraint under the Establishment Clause in defending the country from religiously-inspired war, and no restraint in recognizing the Islamic Schism and differentiating Muslims based on compatibility of their beliefs with the U.S. system of secular law and human rights. If the plaintiffs cling to the assertion that Islam is one cohesive religion and that the USG cannot make such distinctions, they will be facing a wall of indisputable factual evidence saying otherwise….if the SG does his job and enters into evidence the jihadist war on the U.S. in all its dimensions….kinetic, psychological, and demographic.

    This will be a landmark case placing strict limits on the Establishment Clause’s applicability to belief systems that ask its believers to conduct aggressive warfare on America and Americans as a religious duty. So long as the USG does not conflate jihadist believers with neutrals and reformers, an immigration policy that defends national security using belief-system distinctions along these lines is consistent with the Establishment Clause.

  10. “Ironically, Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now.”

    “There is often little distinction on some cable networks between the hosts and their guests in attacking Trump, who brings much of this criticism on himself in ill-considered and often insulting attacks. However, the media is trained to resist such personal emotions and retain objectivity. Throughout much of its history, it has done precisely that … until Donald Trump.”

    I disagree. The media has been demonstrably biased against any political candidate who is not a Liberal for at least 20 years. You may recall that Obama’s eating a dog in Indonesia barely got a blip on the media’s radar, while Romney’s putting his beloved pet dog’s crate on top of their station wagon during a move became Dog Gate. The “binders full of women”, mockery of Romney’s attempt to fill high level positions with qualified female candidates. It’s pass of Hillary Clinton’s camp’s usage of “bimbo eruptions” during Bill’s Impeachment.

    Romney’s dog story reminded me of how parents used to let their kids ride in the back of pickup trucks. It was perfectly normal back then, but now viewed as horrendously unsafe. Everyone used to do it, now nobody does. But you wouldn’t judge those parents back then as bad because it was normal back then.

    And of course we all know how the media failed to investigate Obama’s past, failed to properly critique his untruthful biography, gave him a pass on lying about Benghazi, and they’ve been giving Hillary’s whoppers a pass long before Trump was distilled as her opponent. Do we hear daily outrage about how she sold 1/5 of our Uranium to Russia in exchange for half a million for Bill’s speaking fees and $144 million to their slush fund, I mean foundation? No, we do not. And that’s not Donald Trump’s fault.

    Yes, he does make crass or self destructive statements at time. That’s a separate issue. We have been bitterly complaining about how the media has become a State DNC propaganda machine for many years.

    Other than that, I greatly enjoyed the legal analysis of this latest development.

    1. As always Karen, well reasoned.

      Ironically, Trump’s attacks on the media as biased may not have been true at the outset but they are true now.

      That’s like saying, Frankenstein was not a monster until the good Dr. pumped life into him. Our entire political class and their fawning media outlets are and have been for quite sometime the monster they appear to be. Donald Trump didn’t create them, he exposed them.

    1. Wow, though funny it sounds like some people are sniffing the hair spray along with the glue. Any idiot can make any claim they want about another person but it requires a bit more to actually demonstrate why they say what they do. I await for idiotic remarks to move up the ladder step by step, hopefully past moron status.

        1. When you provide a citation why don’t you provide which portions of the citation you agree with.

          OK, I looked at the first sentence war crimes. You must believe that both Obama and Trump are guilty of war crimes because Obama used drones a lot. You must believe that all in ISIS, the leaders in Syria, Turkey, Russia, Iran, and all the rebellious forces are guilty of war crimes as well.

          Is that your position?

          1. Allan, his hobby is malicious and nonsensical babbling about the Jews, perhaps because his doctors cannot manage to locate the right dose of thioridizine and Benny Goldberg stole his lunch money in 1979. There’s no point in replying.

            1. DSS, thank you. He pointed to three Americans, but didn’t point to ISIS as war criminals. Therefore, it appears he must have fondness for those that purposefully kill woman and children.

            1. Starting with you trying to invoke the Nuremberg Defense which is no defense at all but an open admission of guilt with a plea for clemency. I’m up for supporting that then another National Socialist can bite the dust.

        2. One should always use a valid a source that is open for all to read. In this case strike one and strike two. HuffPo is not a valid source along with the discredited by themselces NYT and WaPo. Second it requires signing up and is really all about trying to pump up readership numbers. As for the so called War Crimes? Who knows. In a few short months it would be hard to catch up to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Dung never mind the wanna be’s like LBJ and the rest of the of the war mongering Socialist Regressive Party aka liberals or Democrats. The numbers of dead speak for themselves and condemn the Party of Death and their allegiance to a foreign ideology. Along with the National Socialist who posted all that crap.

    2. Out of work Comedienne has sex change operaatin but still the same red hair. What is IT doing here? Sidewalk shilling for the DNC or looking for little boys

  11. Trump has provided a great service to America for not only exposing the mainstream media as an evil public relations arm of the filthy establishment but also for outing the courts as bagmen for elite agenda. Whoever defined the law as rich men in charge was spot-on, and now Trump has proven it.

    Just about everything wrong in our nation today can be traced back to the evil doings of horrible people cloaked in black. The only good that is coming out of these heinous people is that the Left is now irrelevant, thanks to the people who have finally had enough and now have taken back the country. Attrition by death will make liberal courts like the 9th Circuit extinct. Having been vindicated, the public will never, ever again let go of the power that rightfully belongs to them. Any attempt to do so, such as a full frontal assault on gun ownership, will be sorted out in a civil war.

  12. Superb. Our social medi-fied cultural pandering and relentless pursuit of ad dollars are twisting us into something dangerous. People aren’t *aware* that they are being manipulated at every turn, or they don’t care so long as their personal level of comfort is maintained. This is indeed a surprise in an era when no one uses their brain or ethics or or common sense or foresight and greed has replaced compassion as a legitimate virtue. Long live deliberation!

  13. This is not the America I was born into, nor the same people nor culture. Whether bad or good remains to be seen.

    Going “beyond the strict interpretation of the law” is not a solution. It is the problem. Why? Because when the law becomes ambiguous, as it has become, it is no longer the law; it is an exercise is Socratic debate and philosophical discussion, a nebulous thing subject to whatever political winds happen to be blowing at the moment.

    If the law doesn’t make sense, then change it. It is a sad day, indeed, when a law which says “$10.00 fine for spitting on the side walk” devolves into what the definition of what a side walk is or did the defendant actually spit..

    1. There’s merit in that, to be sure, I feel the same way, alas. The millennial generation and likeminded authority figures along with subsequent pandering for profit have regressed us collectively by *decades*. Additionally, the law really needs to apply to everyone equally, we have far too many untouchables. American society is in dire, dire need of some serious tightening up.

Comments are closed.