Immigration

Trump Lost in Federal Court: 9th Circuit Leaves Nationwide Block on Travel Ban in Place

|

Gage Skidmore

President Donald Trump has just suffered a significant defeat in federal court. Today a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the Trump administration's request to lift a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) that forbids the government from enforcing the president's executive order blocking travel to the U.S. from seven majority-Muslim countries.

"We hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency appeal," the 9th Circuit ruled today in Washington v. Trump.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit took a dim view of the Trump administration's broad assertions of executive power. "The Government has taken the position that the President's decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections," the 9th Circuit observed. The court then dismissed that government argument out of hand:

Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.

The 9th Circuit also rejected the government's claim that the TRO should be lifted because Washington state will ultimately lose on the legal merits of its case:

The Government has not show that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States' Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims.

The 9th Circuit also rejected the Trump administration's request to at least limit the scope of the TRO:

We decline to limit the scope of the TRO to lawful permanent residents and the additional category more recently suggested by the Government, in its reply memorandum, "previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future." That limitation on its face omits aliens who are in the United States unlawfully, and those individuals have due process rights as well.

In short, the Trump administration lost on all counts. The nationwide temporary restraining order against Trump's travel ban remains in force and three 9th Circuit judges expressed serious reservations about the constitutionality of the government's actions.

It is likely that the Trump administration will now appeal this loss to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Update: President Trump has responded to the ruling on Twitter, writing, "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

NEXT: Trump conflicts watch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remember when checks and balances were racist?

    1. Yea, well that’s all well and good, but Hitler, literally, is now president so everything I said last year doesn’t apply. – Proggie

      1. For a second there I thought it was an historical quote 🙂

    2. Remember when checks and balances were racist?

      Does “in our lifetime” count as an answer?

      the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that political branches have unreviewable authority over [one specific example] or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.

      Hmm… It seems to me that the Supreme Court has adjudicated against the Constitution and Bill of Rights upon several occasions in my lifetime.

        1. December 2014? Mistaken of facts? Fuckers

    3. No, but keep salivating

    4. Alan Dershowitz has read the law in question. He thinks Trump will prevail. If the words written decide the issue.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..court.html

  2. It is likely that the Trump administration will now appeal this loss to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Where they will likely win. It’s nice to see the judiciary has rediscovered healthy skepticism of the motives of the other branches. I hope the Supreme Court does decide against Trump, regardless of whatever inconsistency or hypocrisy would be on display in doing so. I mean, why pretend we have rule of law when we clearly don’t? There’s no consistency.

    If I were looking to challenge bullshit that the judiciary had previously rubber stamped like, say, asset forfeiture, I’d wait for the Trump administration to act and the hysteria generated before court shopping in some far left district. It could be a libertarian bonanza!

    1. “It’s nice to see the judiciary has rediscovered healthy skepticism of the motives of the other branches. ”

      That is not what is going on here at all.

      1. Correct. This is just the Ninth Circus doing their part for the anti-Trump “resistance,” regardless of the law.

        1. If you say so.

          1. Actually, YOU said so in your 9:57 post.

            To win they need Kennedy and at least one progressive judge

            You understand, as well as anyone, that this is political posturing and nothing more.

    2. To win they need Kennedy and at least one progressive judge. Not sure that’ll happen.

  3. And the next time there’s a terrorist attack, guess who’s going to own it? Not Trump!

    1. He wouldn’t own it even in the absence of the TRO. He’s never taking responsibility for a single fucking thing in his life. EVERYTHING is somebody else’s fault.

      1. We’re not talking about Obama right now.

      2. Well, he would also be right in both cases, since the people responsible for a terrorist attack are the terrorists.

    2. As if he was ever going to. He has not owned the Yemen disaster, which killed only half as many Americans as Benghazi.

      Yet, not one hearing scheduled to figure out what really happened.

  4. YOU MEAN THE NINTH RULED AGAINST A CONSERVATIVE VIEW OF IMMIGRATION?

    Shocked, nay, ASTOUNDED at this development.

    Seriously though, what would’ve been shocking is if they agreed to uphold the law, instead of impugning motives, which is what the 9th does best!

    1. The panel (which ruled unanimously against the administration) included a George W. Bush appointee — Richard Clifton — whose previous claim to fame was upholding the imprisonment of a freelance journalist for contempt for failing to turn over videotapes that he took of street protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Clifton), but sure, it’s nothing but bleeding-heart panty-waisted liberals on the Ninth Circuit. (If I could embed an eye-roll GIF here, I would.)

      1. The entire court en banc ruled against Josh Wolf, the “freelance journalist”, so that’s not really here nor there. The Ninth Circuit is known for being pretty left-wing, but nobody said their hearts bled for civil liberties.

      2. Are you seriously arguing that they aren’t a leftist court? I’m sure you could find a few decisions where they ruled against the government but on balance it’s not even an argument.

        It’s known as the Ninth Circus for a reason.

        1. Look, the only reason the 9th is overturned more than any other circuit is the Supreme Court doesn’t have enough progressives on it !!!

          1. The 9th just believes it’s a living breathing document that occasionally needs to be choked until all air is removed from the body.

            Resuscitate, repeat.

            1. auto-erotic legislation.

              1. Nice!
                and congrats on claiming that handle
                ( not a euphemism )

                1. Doubt I’ll keep it for long. I like my old handle (not saying what it was lest someone purloin it).

        2. So the Ninth Circuit magically corrupts George W. Bush (not George H.W. Bush) appointees into liberals?

          1. Judges don’t always conform to the party that appoints them. You think Bush was happy with Souter?

            1. Want Stevens appointed by Nixon?

          2. Isn’t Roberts a Bush appointee?

          3. There is a bipartisan coalition of Ruling Reptiles for Open Borders Uber Alles
            It’s only the Republican peasants who fight it
            But they are winning
            And will win this round too

            We’ll see how much of the courts commit political suicide

            Disband the 9th!

      3. Bush is a neocon prog. Just sayin.

        1. It’s called compassionate conservatism when they do it.

          1. Muh feelz!
            Illegal immigration is an “act of love”.
            Jeb!

            Open Borders Uber Alles!

      4. 77% of the ninth circuit’s rulings that make it to the Supreme Court end up being overturned…
        So yeah, they’re not very good at their only job, which is to interpret the Constitution.

        1. This decision was particularly terrible since they argued that Trumps speeches about considering banning muslims SORTA KINDA MEANT that he REALLY WANTS to ban muslims.

          So ignore what’s written down and codified by law and go with what he said 8 months ago at a rally.

          GOOD JOB GUYS! GREAT JUDGERIZING!

        2. Good enough for govt work.

    2. What’s are the current odds as to how long the jurisdiction of the Ninth gets reduced to, say, California and Hawaii?

      1. Maybe they’ll split off Jefferson too.

  5. OH MY GOD REASON OH MY GOD

  6. reposted because I hate posting in dead threads

    Paris spending $22,000,000 to build wall around Eiffel Tower to stop jihad terror attacks

    “It’s not a wall, it’s an aesthetic perimeter.”
    -deputy mayor Jean-Fran?ois Martins

    Yeah, and a swastika is just a plus sign doing a cartwheel.

    1. The Eiffel Tower is an ugly piece of shit with no practical utility.

      1. fun fact: there was serious talk in the 1890s about tearing it down a selling it for scrap as the maintenance was costing the city a fortune.

        An enterprising con artist named Victor Lustig got away with “selling” the Eiffel Tower- twice.

        Lustig means “funny” in German.

        1. If the Eurotards keep going down the path they’re currently headed down, in a couple of years I’ll buy both the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre at action for $3.94.

          1. Actually, you will be outbid by the Parisian in Vegas, who will replace their fake Eiffel tower with the real one.

            1. ‘auction’. And I would go as high as $6! Ok, so I’m not getting the Louvre and I have no room for the Eiffel Tower, sigh…

        2. Didn’t he sell the Brooklyn bridge also?

        3. It was used as an advertising sign by Citro?n for a couple of decades. The establishing shot of Paris in the Bette Davis version of Of Human Bondage has the Citro?n ad.

        4. They hated the Eiffel Tower after it was built. I think they only started liking it after they forgot it was designed by a German (Gustavo Eiffel).

      2. The __________ is an ugly piece of shit with no practical utility.

        – Washington Monument
        – Mount Rushmore
        – Statue of Liberty
        – Vietnam War Memorial
        – Turtlenecks
        The Moon
        – Winston’s Mom
        – Lena Dunham
        – Uggs
        – _________________________ submit your own

        1. Naturally, when you say turtlenecks, you are excluding the tasteful tactical turtlenecks worn by Archer, right?

          1. Well, obviously, those are both attractive and possess great (tactical) utility!

            1. And they are multiple shades of black to best match the environment.

        2. War on Drugz?

        3. No practical utility from the moon? It’d be a pretty shitty planet without tides or our asteroid barrier.

          1. Fuck the moon. Useless chunk of blue cheese.

    2. Hopefully the jihadis will pay for that shit, too

      1. Ironically, Mexico has agreed to pay for it

        1. Mexico has a wall on their southern border to keep out the Guatemalans, who are pretty much the subject of every joke in enlightened and totally not racist and would never build a wall Mexico.

          1. But I thought the Mexican President just proudly proclaimed that “Mexico does not believe in walls”. Shouldn’t someone have pointed that out at that time?

            1. He didn’t mean a wall to prevent all of his impoverished serfs from escaping so that they don’t instead hang him from a lamppost.

          2. How do they handle a wall along the Usumacinta River? Or does the river have alligators, or pirhanas, or some similar inhabitants that prevent people from crossing it?

            1. There’s not a wall, but they’ve talked about wanting one.

    3. Fake news.

      There is no way the mayor actually said, “It’s not a wall, it’s an aesthetic perimeter.”

      1. Of course the mayor would not say such a silly thing.

        The *deputy* mayor said that.

    4. +1 Maginot Line.

      D’oh!

      1. Hey, it worked! Made the Germans go around it and they never broke it.

        1. Well, I mean, they broke it down for parts…

    5. Seems like it would have been easier to just not invite people who want to blow it up.

  7. To the SCOTUS!

  8. Bangladesh: Hindu vendor arrested for “insulting Islam” on Facebook

    BUT REICH WING CHRISTIANS ARE JUST AS BAD HERPDERP CHIK FILA HERPDERP CRUSADES!

      1. A horrible tragedy that should never have happened. Also a grave error that was not the intent of the perpetrators. So, not analogous.

        1. True, but as Shakespeare said:

          “How yet resolves the governor of the town?
          This is the latest parle we will admit;
          Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
          Or like to men proud of destruction
          Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
          A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
          If I begin the battery once again,
          I will not leave the half-achieved Yemen
          Till in her ashes she lie buried.
          The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
          And the flesh’d soldier, rough and hard of heart,
          In liberty of bloody hand shall range
          With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
          Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.”

      2. Every time some jihadi arms dealer and terrorist trainer was killed CNN and affiliates used to come out and ask his friends if he was a bad guy. They say “whaaaaaa, no way! Just a poor farmer.” Then they stopped asking. Now they’re back I guess.

        1. Let me guess.

          The stories stopped about 8 years ago?

      3. Work-from-home is great for many occupations, but perhaps terrorist is not one of them?

        1. Human shields are probably expensive, so why not make your own?

      4. At that rate, it will take Trump a long time to catch up with just Obama’s drone killings, never mind all the other war casualties Obama is responsible for.

    1. We only consider it a problem if muslims kill people, theocratic authoritarianism is okay.

  9. Venezuela selling passports to Iraqis, may have sold them to jihadis

    At least they’re making money. The morons in Europe are *paying* to be invaded.

    1. islamo-fanatics killing socialists in Venezuela sounds like a fun event to watch this summer.

    2. At least they’re making money.

      I think they’re also pretty sure that the Iraqis are going to use those passports to get into the US, so its sort of a Win-Win

    3. Would anyone even notice the uptick in the murder rate?

  10. So if I’m understanding this correctly –

    They’re not refusing the reinstate the EO because they found it unconstitutional. They just want to review it in case it might be, which is good enough reason to not lift the TRO?

    1. Basically. This isn’t a decision on the merits of the EO itseld; this is a decision on whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed pending resolution of the rest of the appeal of the TRO. From the opinion: “We are tasked here with deciding only whether the Government has made a strong showing of its likely success in this appeal and whether the district court’s TRO should be stayed in light of the relative hardships and the public interest.”

      1. The government is asking for a ban on the court’s ban of their ban. But it’s not a ban.

        1. They’re just asking for a temporary ban until they can figure out what the hell’s going on.

          1. bantastic analysis.

      2. The EO itself consists of several parts, so the ultimate decision may uphold parts of it and strike down other parts of it. For example, the 90-day and 120-day suspensions on issuing new visas and processing new refugee applications might be upheld, while the indefinite suspension on processing Syrian refugees might not be, only temporary suspensions, and the extra examination of green card holders from the seven countries and the cancellation of existing visas could be thrown out. Will a final decision come before, say, the midpoint of the 90-day period specified in the EO? That would be fast work for our court system, but it just might happen.

    2. That’s my understanding as well. Though I have to say that it’s interesting that judges are now raising the possibility that discriminating against potential immigrants on the basis of national origin, ideological belief or religious grounds is somehow unconstitutional despite that such grounds have absolutely been the norm for the country’s entire history pre-1965 and on a limited basis by subsequent presidents since 1965. Now that it’s an unpopular president, particularly with elites, suddenly it’s time for judicial review on the entire concept of being allowed to discriminate against certain classes of non-resident aliens in immigration policy.

      I guess the path to open borders is riddled with judicial activism.

  11. “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!”

    SEE YOU IN HELL! *slams door*

    *opens door* FROM HEAVEN! *slams door*

  12. OK, so the Supreme Court has Alito, Roberts, and Thomas who will want to lift the injunction, and Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan and Breyer who will want to keep the injunction if possible, Kennedy who knows…

    1. The question is whether the prog justices will go as far as the 9th and stop the whole order, or whether they’ll split the different and keep the injunction as to some parts but not others.

      The main thing is to avoid headlines reading “TRUMP WINS.”

      So if they can deny him a few things maybe that will be enough for them.

      1. Nah, if they want to humiliate him (Ha! “if”) they’ll go all the way and declare the entire EO null and void for reasons.

    2. It’s funny, because the liberal justices are actually the ones who have historically ruled in favor of the federal government’s broad power over immigration.

    3. (1) It’s a fools game to predict that SCOTUS will even hear this particular appeal, let alone that it will take it and split on party affiliation grounds — remember that SCOTUS just denied review of the Terri Schiavo case without comment.

      (2) That said, in the event of a 4-4 split, the 9th Circuit decision is affirmed.

      1. OK, to be fair I was just BS ing, and why not, everyone else does it.

    4. If Kennedy applies his new-found (not “wrong” … just new-found) “dignity interest” that he crafted in the gay rights cases to those affected by the (don’t-you-dare-call-it-a) ban, then the Administration doesn’t stand a chance.

  13. Trump should stfu and i suspect the reason he lost along with not being prepared

    But from a legal stand point 8 USC 1182 section f seems straightforward

    1. Look at you looking at the legal issues as if those are the primary considerations in the judges’ minds.

    2. I doubt they ever read the law- they had their minds made up before it started. I listened to part of the arguments and the female Judge was giving answers to the solicitor general when he was stuttering and didn’t have a good reply to a question. It was a farce. That’s why they sued in the 9th district, they knew this would be the result.

    3. I simply cannot adjust to “amsoc” making coherent posts after months of associating that name with 1000 consecutive turds.

    4. (B) Terrorist activities
      (i) In generalAny alien who?

      […]

      (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

      Well to be legal grounds for an EO to block or highly restrict almost the entire middle-east from immigrating based on public opinion polling in those countries where you’ll find that 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah, 83% of Egyptians approve of attacks on American troops, 74% of Palestinians support Hamas terror attacks and over in Indonesia 59% of Indonesians support Osama bin Laden in 2003. A general ban on Muslims from these countries could be argued in court with actual merit in my view.

      Also there is the foreign policy bit

      (C) Foreign policy
      (i) In general
      An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

      And also this

      (4) Public charge
      (A) In general
      Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

      “likely” is a pretty low bar I take to mean greater than 50%.

  14. Some guy in Sudan doesn’t have any constitutional right to come to the US. I don’t have the right to drive on the roads without a license how can he have a right to a visa? Makes no sense. Now if they had said visas already issued must be accepted is one thing. Saying embassies have to keep issuing visas seems beyond their purview.

    1. Racist !!!

    2. Seems to me that the best option is to find a reason to revoke all of the individual visas from those countries, one at a time. Let them sue as individuals. One by one. I’m sure the State Dept is allowed to revoke a visa with just cause. Let the lawyers have fun with that…

      1. Shit, an immigration officer can turn someone away if they part their hair on the wrong side.

  15. College to host ‘anti-bias’ workshop targeting toddlers

    Evergreen State College will soon host a workshop for eager parents who wish to preempt their toddlers from developing “bias” before it’s too late.

    “I’m sorry Mrs. Smith. But according to our tests, your son has a 90% chance of becoming a Republican by age 40.”

    “NOOOOOOOOO!!!”

    1. I once had a dog that had a long tendency of barking and trying to bite Mexicans. I wonder if there is any sort of class to teach dogs the tenants of social justice.

      1. Yeah, they teach that class over at the farm where Mommy and Daddy sent him to live out his days in peace.

      2. AHAHAHAAAAAHHHH LOLLLLOLOLOLLLLLLOLLL A RACIST DOG HAHAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA

        1. Yea, batshit loons such as yourself would never accuse a dog of racism. Come on – let’s get serious here.

      3. No way, you just took liberties with the movie “White Dog”.

    2. Evergreen State makes Berkeley look centrist in comparison .

    3. Had a doctor ask my 8 year old daughter if she felt she was transgender today. My wife like this doc, I think any doctor who thinks 8 year olds are equipped to provide a useful considered answer to the question is amost certainly a quack.

      1. Get a different doctor.

      2. That strikes me as a doctor who might also start asking about “abuse” so I’d change, too. That’s a doctor on a mission to find something.

  16. At first I thought that Trump’s EO must have been clearly illegal. Then I saw the statute its based on. It gives the president pretty broad powers to limit travel to the US. I also can’t find a good cut and pastable text version.

    1. From 8 USC ?1182:

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

    2. From 8 USC 1182 (f)

      “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    3. So the United States Code trumps (oy) the Fourteenth Amendment?

      1. What exactly do you see in the 14th that’s relevant here.

    4. Not just that, such discretion is international law, and it is widely practiced around the world.

      If US courts find a legal right to non-discrimination on immigration, that’s pretty much a complete innovation.

      It’s also something that would be extremely harmful to the US.

  17. Western “Christians” kill far more Muslims than the reverse. Just sayin’.

    1. Muslims kill far more Muslims than western “Christians”. Just sayin’.

      “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

    2. Do you even know what laicit? means?

      1. It’s when a woman’s titties make milk.

        1. Your pedantry must be leaving him in tr?mas of shame and self-loathing.

    3. In war, that’s called “winning”.

    4. Well, so get out while you can!

      I mean, why do so many people want to come to our racist, violent, irrational, sexist, uneducated, bigoted country, with its massive inequality, oligarchy, and near-universal poverty?

    1. (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

      1. Hmmm….I wonder if a ruling by the SCOTUS goes sideways on Trump will result in them striking this part of the US Code down even though its been on the books for over half a century…..

        1. Given recent history, one always has to wonder when the Democrats throwing a hissy and going out on a limb is going to come back and bite them hard in the ass in the near future. If you know what I’m sayin.

          1. That’s also why I wonder if the SCOTUS will strike down that part of the US Code. The goobermint’s black-clad idjits rarely likes to strike down long existing US policy because, ya know, goobermint is “always right” and so forth.

    2. “Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.”

      OMG, anti-Muslim oppression!

      1. What’s to stop him from issuing another order, with changes?

        1. Ban everyone. There’s your equal protection bitches:) lol

          1. Coulter wins!

        2. The same thing which stops the courts from issuing another injunction – nothing.

          1. How many divisions does judge Roberts have?

        3. Issue hundreds of orders and let the Left clog up the courts in the Ninth Circuit with them.

          1. “Executive Order FY9C: Effective immediately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shall be referred to in all government documents as the Silly California Clown Court of Appeals.”

  18. Iowa State provides ‘Ouch! That Stereotype Hurts’ training to local community

    “Women comprised 83.9 percent of ouch participants, and 98.6 percent of participants were white.”

    Anybody got a shocked face I can borrow? I broke mine.

    1. At least we know where da white women at.

      1. “At least we know where da white women at.”

        Good, I might need a sandwich or some coffee.

      2. And corn fed.

    2. Well, it is Iowa.

    3. “98.6 percent of participants were white.”

      Have you ever been to Iowa City? Is any other outcome even possible? No.

      1. Ames…

    4. It is Iowa, where 98.6% of the people are white.

      1. Looks like it’s down to about 85% now.

  19. It sounds like the circuit reviewed the merits of the case and decided that the law is irrelevant because they are going to go all “equal protection ” and “religious discrimination ” on their ass.

    Even though neither seems relevant to the case … unless you reach beyond the EO and go to the hyperbole being tossed around during by the proponents and opponents.

  20. Did this surprise anyone? It’s the 9th. They may as well have let Pelosi decide (they might have).

    1. But one of the judges was appointed by George W. Hitler Bush, so it must be OK.

      1. HW appointed Souter. /facepalm

        1. Judge Clifton was appointed by George W. Bush, not George H.W. Bush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Clifton

      2. Hmmmm, is “Hitler Bush” worse than “Trump Fascist Hitler” ?

  21. They’re allowed in but restricted to entering through Sea-Tac so that security can be focused on one entry point.

  22. Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, but that was different when our side was doing it.

    Alternative facts FTW!

  23. Comment from youtube:

    “Here’s the test I’m gonna use from now on when dating:

    Show her the “grab em by the pussy” video. If she laughs, she’s worth dating. If she’s deeply offended and calls it an admission of sexual assault, run for the hills.?”

    Word.

    1. I hope he’s not a college student.

      1. If he is, he should adopt the rule that Rufus just posted and stay away from his female classmates, instead opting to go off campus and pick up milfs. There is really no way that is bad advice. It’s rock fucking solid advice.

        1. Tallahassee is well known as the home of Florida State. It is also the home of Florida A&M (mostly black).
          Based on my experience, this honky suggests crossing the tracks if the white SJW’s are getting too uppity.

        2. My qualm is that he’ll never get laid if he follows that advice on a college campus.

          1. Da fuck are you both going on?

            /slap!

          2. Did you miss the part about going off campus?

  24. Trump is probably now going to bomb someone, just to show he can

    1. I was thinking of that, as well. I mean, he has shown recently, he has no qualm murdering children.

    2. It’d be a real shame if the 9th circuit club house was accidentally bombed by the air force as happened to the Chinese embassy in Serbia.

      Or if they were wrongly raided by some interagency leo task force, completely with indiscriminate flash bangs and incendiary devices.

  25. Ninth Circuit, not a surprise at all. Supreme Court here we come.

    1. I wouldn’t bet against Trump on this one.

        1. He means Trump has a solid legal case, even if he is Gibbon-brained.

          1. “loofa-faced”?

          2. Yeah, basically I mean that the Great Orange Trumpallo is going to prevail here, as the EO is not Unconstitutional. Hurts muh feelz does not qualify as Unconstitutional.

            1. Roberts upheld Obamacare. Why do you think the Supremes are going to overturn the Ninth Circuit?

    1. “Genders can overlap and negate one another”

      Wow, that just sounds like so much fun, I’m not sure why everyone isn’t into that idea.

      1. Amorgender ? gender that changes in response to a romantic partner’s
        Mirrorgender ? gender that changes to reflect those around you
        Ambigender ? two genders experienced simultaneously as equal and unchanging
        Chaosgender ? gender that is highly unpredictable
        Genderfuck ? a subversive gender that can be singular or multi
        Demifluid ? having multiple genders where some are fluid, while others are static
        Collgender ? not pangender, but having too many genders to describe
        Endogender ? having multiple genders that all relate to a specific gender construct, e.g. mascfluid
        Cyclogender ? gender that changes with hormonal cycles
        Fissgender ? having highly disparate genders, as in “fissured”
        Domgender ? having multiple genders where one is dominant over the rest
        Gendervex ? having multiple genders, each of which is unidentifiable

        Yep, sounds pretty stupid.

        1. I actually felt a twinge of pain from looking at that. I mean, wow, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in at least a month.

          Thank you!

          1. Glad to help.

            1. Link(s)?

              1. Just copied and pasted from the above Derpetologist link (late hat tip-that was a good find).

        2. Is there a gender for guys like me who like girls, or is that orientation?

          If it’s any help, I’m attracted to blonds, brunettes, and redheads.

          1. Hitlergender

          2. Yeah, it’s called male pig dawg and you gotta wear it proudly, bro. And what’s the bias against girl’s with black hair?

        3. I’m still waiting for someone to eventually discover Everyday Feminism is actually run by a bunch of guys as a joke.

        4. Wait, you didn’t just make up this list based on some sort of D&D like terminology? This is a “real” list that people actually refer to?

  26. For Commodius:

    The next time your dipshit professor yaps about the wonders of Norway, ask her:

    “So your ideal society is 5 million white people living off oil money?”

    1. Brilliant.

      But see, the Norse are doing their part by bringing in ethnic transplants. It’s like the opposite of America’s reservations for the Indians, they’re installing an ethnic problem in their own towns, right next door to their schools. That’s just how enlightened and progressive they are.

    2. Demographics is not a thing in Progtown.

  27. In other news, the governor of Alabama has appointed Jeff Sessions’ Senate replacement, the Alabama Secretary of State who’s currently kinda-sorta investigating the governor of Alabama for campaign violations and ethics violations. Or not investigating him, maybe.

    Alabama may not know exactly what their cousins in Louisiana mean by “laissez les bon temps roulez”, but they get the gist of it.

  28. Chris Cuomo: “The only thing that’s bothersome about it, is that I see being called ‘fake news’ as the equivalent of the n-word for journalists, the equivalent of calling an Italian any of the ugly words that people have for that ethnicity,” he explained. “That’s what fake news is to a journalist.”

    1. Hey, Christopher: Alex Jones is a crank. Andrew Wakefield is a quack. And you, you are a purveyor of fake news.

    2. That brain damaged dago greaseball needs to avoid talking off script-he makes a fool out of himself every time.

      1. You forgot to add coomba.

        Hey, Coomba Cuomo!

    3. Didn’t the left invent the expression “fake news?” So, shouldn’t they take the blame for inventing this new N word for journalists?

      1. They wouldn’t have had to invent it if the right weren’t pumping out so much fake news.

        1. It’s laughable. They created this expression as a hammer with which to beat the heads of their political opponents, and now Como is whining when they grabbed it from hands of the left and beat them over their heads.

  29. Lawlessness begets lawlessness

    1. Enough Judicial Authoritarianism from the Left and Trump may pull a huge smackdown and bring back the Constitution.

      It’s not like they could call him Authoritarian any more often than they already do.

  30. Anyone seen WaPo’s new article proclaiming that Keith Olberman will be the new hero of the left. I guess that Keith Ellison is just like so last week. Keith Olberman, yeah, this guy:

    RUSSIANS!

    1. What is with their desire for heros?

      1. Lack of personal agency, appeal to authority, victim hood in need of a champion…

    2. Seems like Olbermann should end every one of his monologues by doing jazz hands and saying “hot-cha-chaaa!”

  31. I wish the courts had been as skeptical of mass surveillance.

    I still expect the Trump administration to lose on those who already had green cards.

    I still expect the Trump administration to prevail on asylum seekers and preferential treatment for minorities–and whether I agree with those positions is beside the point. For goodness’ sake, who seriously expects the courts to shoot down preferential treatment for minorities on principle?

    1. Agreed.

    2. Just you wait till those Coptic Christian refugees start shooting up evangelical churches for being insufficiently pious.

      1. Beside the point.

        Ruling that persecuted minorities can’t be given special treatment just because they’re minorities would undermine everything from affirmative action to Title IX and far, far beyond that. Overturning Filburn v. Wickard might be less disruptive.

        Again, how I fee about that is beside the point. I’m not talking about the way things should be, here. I’m talking about the way they are.

        1. And I’m just talking out of my ass.

          But seriously, bigger than Wickard?

          1. More disruptive.

            Filburn v. Wickard is about government regulation.

            If the government can no longer favor minorities for being minorities, then we’re talking about all culture war issues.

            I’m saying that if the courts were to ultimately rule, “So you’re black, so what?”, yeah, that shit-storm would rage for decades. In a lot of people’s minds, you’re overturning half the history book since 1954’s Brown vs. Board of Education.

            1. Maybe I’m mistaken in thinking that the culture war shit is an inch deep and a mild wide, but the regulations are narrow abysses nobody but the deep divers ever see.

              1. Regardless, the point is that if the courts insisted that the government can’t favor persecuted minorities, we’re talking major implications and consequences.

                My read is that they’re probably not going to do that. When the court upholds a TRO on the basis that the Trump administration is likely to lose on that argument, I think they’re really stretching to reach that conclusion.

    3. I wish the courts had been as skeptical of mass surveillance.

      They kinda were when someone could prove standing.

      1. How does the Washington AG have standing in the executive order case?

        1. Something about how Somali refugees count for .001% of Starbucks profits.

      2. Yeah, it’s alright to violate the constitutional rights of 350 million Americans–so long as their rights are all being violated equally?

        Now, I’m talking about the way things should be:

        Blech!

        Don’t believe the hype.

        Such lawyerly arguments should become socially unacceptable.

    1. That was awfully titillating.

  32. Huh, Dershowitz is on CNN recommending that Trump shold scrap current EO and basically issue a new one and that he should not take his case before the Supreme Court.

    1. Why not, if terrorists are such an imminent threat to invading through immigration? How many will squeeze through before SCOTUS can rule? If Trump doesn’t do as Dershowitz suggests,then are we to conclude the” imminent threat” is b.s.?

      1. That’s a good point.

      2. Do you think trump would abandon his original EO? It may appear to be admitting fault–and he seems to have trouble with things like this.

        1. I figure a lot of this could have been avoided if he or his advisers had any idea how to go about this sort of thing. If it had looked methodical and exempted current visa holders plus those already in transit, had he sought out comment from DHS and laid out a workable policy, had he not made the thing a prepackaged casus belli for leftists, I bet it would not have run afoul of the courts.

          1. I bet it would not have run afoul of the courts

            almost everyone who looked at it on day 1 said the same thing. If he’d spent literally 1-2 days having lawyers at different depts give it their OK, it would have been mostly incontestable, and achieved almost all the same effects he wanted.

            it is certainly a problem entirely of Trump’s own creation. which is a point i made long ago, which john got angry about, saying (paraphrase) “as long as his supporters don’t give a shit, its a good move”

            I personally don’t think that’s how effective governance works. It would have been better if he’d avoided an immediate constitutional showdown.

            1. Well, he’s not wrong that good governance != electoral popularity. Venezuela probably wouldn’t be mired in the shit it’s in if its people had any interest in good governance.

              1. i was the one saying governance (more important than) popularity*; he was the one saying the opposite

                (*once you’ve been elected)

                I think he could have delivered some easy red-meat to his base that didn’t produce legal problems. Die-hard nativists don’t really care about the fine details whether he quasi- “bans” or fully-“bans” muslim refugees, or whether its temporary or more lasting, or anything. they just want to see him “do something” that signals its no longer the Left’s “everyone hug a terrorist” approach.

                meaning, he could have stayed popular with the people he wants to stay popular with without creating a clusterfuck. just my 0.02$, don’t think it matters much now.

                1. Then issue an EO saying “radical Islamists intent on killing American civilians are banned from our shores forevermore,” and let DHS scurry about figuring out how to enforce that.

                  1. I’d like to know what exactly the State Dept (*DHS has nothing to do with refugees) actually DID do when Obama issued his “6 month halt” in the refugee program

                    …Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Peter Boogaard said in a statement that the U.S. government “continually improves and expands its procedures for vetting immigrants, refugees and visa applicants, and today [the] vetting process considers a far broader range of information than it did in past years.”

                    “Our procedures continue to check applicants’ names and fingerprints against records of individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watchlist, or of law enforcement concern*… These checks are vital to advancing the U.S. government’s twin goal of protecting the world’s most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety,” the statement said.

                    Last year, a Department of Homeland Security senior intelligence official testified in a House hearing that Alwan and Hammadi’s names and fingerprints were checked by the FBI, DHS and the Defense Department during the vetting process in 2009 and “came in clean.”

                    all the things they talk about are things they already did. “but now we do more-better!” isn’t really clarifying.

                    1. *and for the record, i’ve written in the past noting that there are fundamental limits to “Screening” that makes it pretty shallow-stuff to begin with.

                      most of what they end up relying on is the word of the applicant anyway.

                      So, even if processes and procedures DID actually change in some way after the 2011 pause… , i’d be curious to see what they think was *actually* useful vs. what was just ‘stuff they do to claim they’re ‘screening’ people’.

                      If Trump said THAT was what he was doing – e.g. having every “screening/vetting process reviewed “- it would have been far more plausible cover than the bullshit they’ve tried with this notion of ‘Extreme vetting’. Because the fact is that there’s very little they can do that they don’t do already, and what little is useful isn’t rocket science. I’d presume if there were any fixes to make, they’d have already made them.

            2. though do we want “good governance”?

        2. He can just call it “renegotiating”.

          /Art of the Deal

      3. There was nothing about “imminence” embedded in the EO, nor was it a central part of the defense of it.

        the core of it is that the executive simply doesn’t even need to provide a reason re: banning foreigners of any type.

        they DID say the reason was national security – but they could just has well have said, “because its tuesday”

    2. Dershowitz is on CNN recommending that Trump shold scrap current EO and basically issue a new one and that he should not take his case before the Supreme Court.

      That doesn’t mean the one as written is either unconstitutional or necessarily even legally problematic at all – but that may be a smart move to avoid the ideological split showdown in the SC over his stupid order.

      It would start the process over, and force the courts to consider the thing on more-narrowly tailored grounds which the Executive could write specifically to make even less ambiguous (tho frankly, there’s not even a lot of wiggle in the existing one)

      tho if he did that, the media and the left would dance in the streets that they’d achieved another “victory”. And i think trump is too shallow to want to grant them that, so he’ll let it play out and let his base turn their animus upon the judiciary.

      1. Or, he could keep forcing it and making the Democrats own their preference for the needs of foreigners from terroristland over the needs of citizen, further driving a wedge between them and the rest of the country that prefers not being murdered to Google getting cheap labor.

        1. i think it doesn’t work that way.

          that wedge is plenty thick and strong already. the problem here is that he’s basically handing an easy win to a legal challenge, which simply sets a successful precedent encourging his opposition to use it more.

          the left has no real political power anywhere. He’s going to gut them in the federal agencies. what do they have? they have the press, and some of the courts.

          Now they’re going to do it every time (challenge Trump actions in court, then use the press to create a huge story out of it, drowning out any other issue).

          i think he could have instead spent his first 100 days (*or more, its just a phrase) doing lots of stuff on the regulatory dismantlement side, and set the stage for bigger reforms. Instead, he’s going to be playing defensive because he’s got a major SC challenge in front of him within 2 weeks of taking office.

  33. Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context.

    Do these chuckle heads have a copy of the constitution? I am no constitutional scholar, but I am pretty sure the subject of immigration policy is solely given to the, “political branches”. Congress maybe? And they wrote the law that gives the President to write an order like this, just as many Presidents have done.

    My take on this is the court ruled that everyone on the planet has constitutional rights. It is idiotic. Anyone on the Supreme Court who votes to uphold this should be impeached.

    And ya ya, I get a lot of libertarians are all for no borders and as much as I would love to see that (sans welfare state), it is fantasy. We kind of have a constitution here. The courts do not make immigration law, and non-citizens do not have constitutional rights.

    1. What would happen if a president in these circumstances simply chose to ignore the court and exercise his constitutional authority?

      1. The shit:pants ratio would exceed 1.21 jigawatts.

        1. Would that be subject to a carbon tax?

      2. Some argued he should have done that with the first idiotic stay. This president if he did that? The dems start calling for impeachment.

      3. I expect progressives will be weeping everywhere they go, leaving a trail of tears behind them.

    2. I am no constitutional scholar, but I am pretty sure the subject of immigration policy is solely given to the, “political branches”.

      The power to regulate interstate commerce is also expressly given to the political branches, not the courts. Are you saying that Congress is free to call anything “interstate commerce,” and anyone challenging such a law won’t lose because the courts defer excessively to Congress on this topic, but because the courts have no power to review that determination in the first place?

      If you want to overrule Marbury v. Madison, make that argument. But there are all sorts of powers the Constitution vests in Congress or the executive that we’ve accepted are subject to judicial review since 1803.

      1. The power to regulate interstate commerce is also expressly given to the political branches, not the courts. Are you saying that Congress is free to call anything “interstate commerce,”

        No I am not arguing that at all. And everything congress claims to be interstate commerce is far from it. And when they claim something to be interstate commerce that is not, they should be shut down. And should have in many cases. I am saying the simple thing, maybe because I am simple. Non-citizens are not covered by our constitution anymore than I was covered by any constitution of any other country I have had a visa and or applied for a visa. If a court thinks that, they are out of line with the rest of the sovereign countries on the planet. Are you arguing that everyone on the planet has constitutional rights, and they deserve due process if they are not allowed to come here?

        1. Non citizens absolutely have constitutional rights when they are on US territory. Remember the Constitution applies to the government not the people.

    3. “I am no constitutional scholar, but I am pretty sure the subject of immigration policy is solely given to the, “political branches”. Congress maybe?”

      The power to set the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress–like the power to declare war. Because the people who already had green cards had already complied with the rules Congress set, their due process rights were violated when Trump unilaterally declared their visas to be invalid. What he did to them was wrong and unconstitutional.

      The question here is whether Trump’s order violates the Constitution in various ways, and the courts certainly have the power to hear cases brought by the states against the president’s orders. I mean, we’re not buying Trump’s argument that the courts aren’t allowed to review the president’s actions even if they violate the Constitution, are we? That argument is ridiculous.

      That being said, the president has the power to suspend the acceptance of refugees pending better screening procedures–not just derived from his constitutional powers as the chief executive and the Commander-in-chief but even from a libertarian perspective. If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights, and the legitimate purpose of foreign policy is to protect our rights from foreign threats. If asylum seekers represent a threat to our rights, then the president would be remiss in his libertarian responsibilities not to seek to address that threat.

      1. The question here is whether Trump’s order violates the Constitution in various ways, and the courts certainly have the power to hear cases brought by the states against the president’s orders. I mean, we’re not buying Trump’s argument that the courts aren’t allowed to review the president’s actions even if they violate the Constitution, are we?

        No, of course not, I am not saying they should not hear the case. They are required to hear it. (maybe, I am still not sure how they have standing, but I am not a lawyer) But fuck me, they then say that non-citizens have due process rights? That is crazy. They should have heard it and said, “huh?, you are nuts”

        I was working in an an unnamed country. A friend of mine drank a bit much. Canadian fella, a maritimer. I could have just said that and the “drank too much” would have been known. He mouthed off at a check point and that earned him a knock in the face with the butt of an AK, and an escort to the airport where they stamped deported in his passport. No due process. No courts. He was not a citizen. He was on a work permit/visa. That countries equivalent of a green card.

        1. “But fuck me, they then say that non-citizens have due process rights? That is crazy. They should have heard it and said, “huh?, you are nuts”

          I guess I’ve addressed this below, but the idea that non-citizens don’t have rights is absurd.

          That idea has no basis in history, law, philosophy, or reality.

          1. I believe they have a Constitutional right to due process after they get here. I don’t know how one could argue that they have Constitutional protection when they’re 1. not a US citizen and 2. on a foreign sovereign’s soil.

            1. I already did this above.

              “The power to set the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress–like the power to declare war. Because the people who already had green cards had already complied with the rules Congress set, their due process rights were violated when Trump unilaterally declared their visas to be invalid. What he did to them was wrong and unconstitutional.”

              There it is.

              The idea that people don’t have due process rights because they aren’t U.S. citizens and aren’t within our borders is a fantasy you’ve concocted in your head. It has no basis in history, law, philosophy, reality, or the Constitution. Wherever you heard that, stop listening to them. They have no idea what they’re talking about.

        2. P.S. If a foreign government violated your friend’s rights, that doesn’t justify the U.S. government violating anybody’s rights.

          1. Yes, and I got your points below. I was just pointing out that the US is exceptional in its recognition of rights. My friend lost his job due to the fact he was barred from ever entering that country again for mouthing off and being drunk. That is not uncommon in many countries. In the US you can drive drunk and not even have a visa and you will get mayors protecting your “right” to be in the country. They may charge the dude with drunk driving, but won’t hand him over to ICE for deportation.

  34. So it will continue to be a FACT that your average American is subjected to ting to fly from Cleveland to Miami than you fools will allow for no citizens coming from terror ridden countries. NOT libertarian. Partisan hackery.

  35. I still don’t understand how this was against the law, just that the judges did like it XYZ. So fucking what? No one asked your opinion if you liked it or not; your job is to decide if it’s legal or not, which it is.

    Why the hell do we even have that court around anymore? They get overruled more than any other circuit court in history.

    1. I think the part about banning the people with already-issued visas and green cards can reasonably be seen to be an ex post facto law, but simply not issuing any new visas? I don’t see how that should be illegal.

      1. It’s funny how the government doesn’t even need an ex post facto law anymore. They can just create a regulatory scheme. But this is somehow illegal.

        Anyway, I’m a little confused about this. I thought that green card holders aren’t a part of the EO and that was a mistake?

        1. Muslims is Muslims. They’re all banned.

          1. *spits* good start, I reckon.

        2. I thought that green card holders aren’t a part of the EO and that was a mistake?

          The wording of the EO would seem to apply to green card holders — the office of counsel later “clarified” the EO saying that it didn’t apply to them. The court ruled that the office of counsel doesn’t have the authority to amend the EO, so they’re interpreting it as applying to green card holders.

        3. Anyway, I’m a little confused about this. I thought that green card holders aren’t a part of the EO and that was a mistake?

          That was my understanding as well. Apparently they did not make it clear enough.

      2. I think the part about banning the people with already-issued visas and green cards can reasonably be seen to be an ex post facto law

        No. An ex post facto law is one that punishes acts that occurred before it was passed. The govt can revoke permits (which is essentially all a green card or visa are) at any time they please. The question is whether this can be done by EO or requires a change in the law.

  36. The court’s opinion all but says “if only the EO hadn’t been sloppy, we’d have upheld it,” which is clearly begging the administration to write a new EO that doesn’t suffer from notable problems (like the green card thing) that allow states to assert much broader interests than individuals could.

    So the smart thing to do would be to revoke this EO and issue a new one. Odds Trump does that? Zero.

    1. Persistence is a form of rape, shitlord.

    2. You know who else persisted?

      1. Peter Feuchen?

      2. Hillary?

      3. Persistus Strategies Sales & Marketing, of Burlington Ontario?

    3. ‘Endeavor to Persevere”

  37. LOL!

    This series is hilarious. Somebody’s all wee-weed up! Make me a sammich!

    1. Also, the woman being spanked does not look entirely displeased about it.

      1. Male pig dog! No female likes being spanked and… and… every female on the planet is offended by your pigness!

    2. So celery is good for you.

      1. If you have blue cheese and cayenne mix to dip it in, why, then yes.

        1. Shit, I actually meant tabasco. Where’d I come up with cayenne? Capsicum frutescens.

    3. Sexist ad with Jungle woman holding up the man like he’s a King

      Is he insane? Those women are all white! That’s cultural appropriation!

  38. Assad says some refugees are terrorists.

    http://bit.ly/2krKNHd

    No shit.

    1. OH MUH GAWD, RUSSIANS!!!!

    2. Isn’t Assad dead? If not, why not? What have we spent all that money doing? We can’t kill one fucking guy? Can we kill anyone? We had to wait till Fidel keeled over of old age, we let the Iraqis hang Saddam two decades after our first little war, we couldn’t even dispose Hugo Chavez, and now this jackass is giving interviews to fucking Yahoo?

      1. “What have we spent all that money doing?”

        Look, dude, we were trying to arm the good terrorists against the bad terrorists. How’s it our fault that they kept switching sides and we can’t always be sure which are the good ones?

        /Hillary, Obama, McCain, and little toady Graham in his Captain Neocon onesies

  39. “We hold that the Government has not … shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury …l,” the 9th Circuit ruled

    What could *possibly* go wrong?

    1. injury …l,” -> injury …,”

      *** gets coffee ***

    2. “What could *possibly* go wrong?”

      Workplace violence?

      1. So-called workplace violence?

  40. potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections,

    Did they every mention what “rights and protections” they were talking about and who they allegedly belonged to?

    1. Look, dude, terrorists have constitutional rights too.

    2. Mostly, the Constitution just protects our rights from government action.

      The First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, etc. doesn’t grant us any rights we wouldn’t already have without them anyway. Those amendments simply prohibit the government from violating our rights.

      The question is whether we’re talking about the U.S. government. The government is prohibited, for instance, from violating people’s right to due process. Whether it’s doing that to citizens or non-citizens is beside the point. The U.S. government is prohibited from doing x, y, and z.

      Our rights are not derived from government. The idea that our rights don’t exist unless the government gives them to us is probably the cornerstone of totalitarianism.

      1. Psshaw. I’m so glad our government respects the constraints put on it by the 9th and 10th amendments.

        1. Whether our rights exist and whether the government violates them are two different things.

          1. It only stops being a difference when tar and feathers makes a revival.

            1. Tarfeathevival.

      2. Rights that the government does not recognize and respect may as well not exist. Far from being the cornerstone of totalitarianism, this fact should encourage us to force our govt to respect those rights, and not allow it to slip into totalitarianism.

        If you think the freedom of speech is inherent to human nature, then you haven’t really lost anything when the government becomes totalitarian and polices speech, have you? You still have that right, after all, same as you did before, you merely can’t exercise it.

        It’s a joke to say that rights are inherent in human nature when 99% of people in the history of humanity have never had them in practice.

        1. “Rights that the government does not recognize and respect may as well not exist.”

          You have it completely backwards. You and Tony.

          It’s the laws that are the fantasy.

          The idea that people don’t have the right to ingest marijuana because the government says so is a fantasy.

          People making choices for themselves about that despite the state, the police, the laws, and the courts saying they don’t have that right is reality.

          Laws that don’t respect people’s rights might as well not exist.

          You can always tell which is fantasy and which is reality, too, because when they come into conflict, over and over again, it’s the fantasy that disappears and the reality that persists. The laws said that Rosa Parks didn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus. What a ridiculous fantasy those laws were! And once they came into conflict with the reality of Rosa Parks refusing to move, they started to fade like last week’s bad dream.

      3. They said constitutional rights. Either a guy in Syria has a right recognized in the Constitution or it doesn’t.

        I don’t see anything there. Nobody else has seen anything there about it for the last 200 years. Maybe the Constitution has a decoder ring only available to a few judges. Maybe unelected judges should not rewrite the constitution. It’s a tough call.

        1. The only rights that a guy in Syria doesn’t have that I have are the right to be in the United States, the right to hold office here, and the right to vote.

          Very little else.

          I believe our rights are a natural outgrowth of our agency. After all, a right is a right to make a choice. Rape isn’t a crime because the government says so. It’s a crime because the victim’s right to make a choice was violated.

          Some people believe that our rights flow from a social contract that was made between people long before any governments existed. Even they believe that when the government violates people’s rights, it voids the contract. When that happens, they say people have a right to overthrow their rights violating government.

          I’m tying to think of a system of thought that says people’s rights don’t exist unless the government says so, and the only one I can think of is totalitarianism.

          Even socialist anarchists believe that our rights exist independent of government. They oppose the state for creating property rights that they don’t think would exist without the state, but even they don’t believe that someone in Syria doesn’t have any rights.

          1. Are you being intentionally obtuse? I didn’t say a guy in Syria has no rights, the court is interpreting constitutional rights. It doesn’t matter one bit whether you believe taxation is theft or rights are natural, it matters what the constitution says about the matter. The court made a specific claim of a constitutional right, in regards to immigration. People in China should have free speech, but it the Constitution doesn’t compel the US to import them to ensure they have it.

            Now if you believe the Constitution is, was, and always has read that borders are non-existent, or that the US cannot screen refugees however it pleases then you are flatly wrong.

            1. “It doesn’t matter one bit whether you believe taxation is theft or rights are natural, it matters what the constitution says about the matter”

              I’m talking about what the Constitution says, too, and it does not say anywhere that only U.S. citizens have rights.

              The Constitution does say that setting the rules of naturalization are an enumerated power of Congress, and it says that the U.S. government must respect people’s due process rights. If someone in Syria already complied with the rules of naturalization set by Congress in obtaining a green card, then the U.S. government is obligated not to violate that person’s right to due process.

              Show me where the Constitution says otherwise.

              My stance that people’s rights are not tied to citizenship or granted by government were shared by the framers of the Constitution. Do you know why the Bill of Rights is a list of amendments rather than included in the text of the Constitution itself? It’s because the Federalists were concerned that posterity might come to imagine 1) that our rights would be limited to only those that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and 2) that we might come to imagine that the Constitution was the source of our rights.

            2. So, in exchange for tacit approval from the Anti-Federalists, they agreed to pass the Bill of Rights first thing–and added the Tenth Amendment to make it explicit that our rights don’t flow from the Constitution.

              “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

              —-Tenth Amendment

              I’m not being obtuse. I’ve got both social contract theory and natural rights theory behind me on this, as well as the framers, and the Constitution.

              You’re the one out in left field somewhere running around claiming that our government isn’t bound to respect the rights of non-citizens.

              Oh, and just in case there’s some confusion, for the third time in this thread alone: one of the few rights non-citizens don’t have is to be within our borders. It’s just that once they follow the law and get a visa, the government is obligated to respect their due process rights.

              1. I meant the Ninth Amendment, but you know what I mean.

              2. Except when they are on the drone kill list…No due process for you

      4. Our rights are not derived from government.

        Amen to that.

        The question is whether we’re talking about the U.S. government. The government is prohibited, for instance, from violating people’s right to due process. Whether it’s doing that to citizens or non-citizens is beside the point. The U.S. government is prohibited from doing x, y, and z.

        That gets a bit deep in the weeds for me. The US constitution applies to US citizens Ken. x, y, and z are stated as protected rights for citizens. The ones who formed the government to protect said rights, and those who are naturalized citizens of the country governed by that government. Where are you getting that due process applies to everybody?

        1. “The US constitution applies to US citizens Ken. x, y, and z are stated as protected rights for citizens.”

          I know this is a common idea, but it’s a misconception. Do you imagine that tourists aren’t entitled to Fifth Amendment rights if they’re accused of a crime?

          I’ll show you what the First Amendment says:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

          Where does it say anything about anybody’s citizenship?

          “Congress shall make no law”–that applies to the U.S. government.

          This is really important for people to understand, too. Why, there are people out there who think getting a social security check, food stamps, a free education at taxpayer expense, etc. are all entitlements you should get with U.S. citizenship. It’s a sick fantasy.

          Being a U.S. citizen entitles you to be within our border, to vote, and to hold public office–and that’s it.

          You’re entitled to your rights because of your agency–not because of your citizenship.

          1. Do you imagine that tourists aren’t entitled to Fifth Amendment rights if they’re accused of a crime?

            Ya, they are in country. And yes you schooled me there, (as you usually do). I will buy that those protected rights apply to those here in country and are under the jurisdiction of US law as we recognize that to be a protected right. I am not buying it applies to those in other countries. Yes, I understand they possess that right as a human being, but they are not under the jurisdiction of US courts, and therefore, it cannot be defended in US court and or applied for. No one has a right to come here anymore than I have a right to demand Canada make me a citizen because I like frozen water and poutine.

            This is really important for people to understand, too. Why, there are people out there who think getting a social security check, food stamps, a free education at taxpayer expense, etc. are all entitlements you should get with U.S. citizenship. It’s a sick fantasy.

            All those are unconstitutional as well as being a sick fantasy.

            1. “All those are unconstitutional as well as being a sick fantasy.”

              The idea that you only have a right to freedom of speech because the government says so is even sicker in its own way.

            2. The idea that you have only have freedom of speech, etc. because you’re a U.S. citizen is sicker in its own way, too.

        2. He’s saying that our constitutional rights are rights that exist, anyways; the bill of Rights only codifies natural law.
          And he’s not wrong.
          The ninth circuit says that even illegals have natural rights, including the right to appeal to US courts, and they’re not wrong either.
          However, yes, US jurisprudence indicates that the Constitution, itself, only applies to the relationship between US government and US citizens, and I’m not convinced that isn’t right, also.

          1. “The ninth circuit says that even illegals have natural rights, including the right to appeal to US courts, and they’re not wrong either.”

            I tend toward ‘open borders’, just so my bias is clear, and as below, natural rights are universal.
            I find questionable whether universal ‘natural rights’ includes the right to appeal to the US justice system. But disregarding spurious claims of ‘religious discrimination’, it sure seems that those legally
            under the US justice system (citizens, green-card holders, and the like) have that legal (as opposed to natural) right.
            It’ll be interesting to read Volokh on this.

            1. Anybody within US jurisdiction can claim the rights recognized by US law. People living under Syrian jurisdiction can’t.

              1. DenverJ|2.9.17 @ 10:47PM|#
                “Anybody within US jurisdiction can claim the rights recognized by US law.”

                I assume your statement is as determined by case law, and regardless of location, that would be citizens, green-card holders, and the like?

                1. No. I’m not a lawyer, and wouldn’t guess as to all that. But, if you are living within the borders of the US, regardless of your citizenship status, you still have the right to appeal to a US Court.

        3. “…The US constitution applies to US citizens Ken. x, y, and z are stated as protected rights for citizens. The ones who formed the government to protect said rights, and those who are naturalized citizens of the country governed by that government….”

          Not quite exactly backwards, which is one reason I’m not in love with the ‘bill of rights’.
          There are no limits to human rights, and the constitution applies to all humans, US citizens or otherwise. We charge our government with protecting our rights, including but not limited to x, y, and z.
          I do not have a “constitutional right” to free speech; I have an unlimited right to free speech, and the constitution requires the government to respect that right and protect me from coercion by others who would deny that natural right.

          1. Correction:
            “There are no limits to human rights”
            Replaced by:
            The limits to human rights begin when an action harms another

            1. “The limits to human rights begin when an action harms another”

              Too broad. Everything we do or don’t do harms someone else in some way. If I grow wheat on my own farm for my own consumption, I’m impacting the interstate demand for wheat. If I don’t grow corn on that land for sale instead, the price of corn may be a little bit higher for some consumer than it would have been otherwise and what about the demand for corn seed?

              The limits to human rights begin when an action violates another person’s rights.

              We should be free to do things that harm other people. I should be free to open a pizza restaurant next to yours and drive you out of business with better quality and lower prices.

              We should be free to say things that hurt other people’s feelings and make them cry–so long as we don’t violate their rights.

              1. “The limits to human rights begin when an action violates another person’s rights.”

                OK, Ken, we can both play pedantic:
                Too vague.
                Are you happy?

                1. Mill’s harm principle is so dangerous because it’s so close to being right. In practice, though, it’s a big difference.

                  A society in which people are only free to do things so long as they don’t harm anyone else is an authoritarian nanny state. A society in which people are free to do things so long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights is a Libertopia.

                  And that “free so long as you do no harm” idea has been used to justify everything from the drug war to the individual mandate. The climate change alarmists will use it to come after our standard of living if we let them, too.

                  It’s a distinction with a huge difference.

                  1. Ken Shultz|2.10.17 @ 1:05AM|#
                    “Mill’s harm principle is so dangerous because it’s so close to being right. In practice, though, it’s a big difference.”

                    I made no reference to Mill.
                    If you wish to pursue the pedantry, you need to define “rights”.

                    1. “I made no reference to Mill.”

                      Here’s what you wrote:

                      “The limits to human rights begin when an action harms another”

                      —-Sevo

                      Here’s what Mill wrote:

                      “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else”

                      —-John Stewart Mill

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

                      You may not have done so intentionally, but you made a reference to Mill.

                      Unfortunately, certainly since the ’60s, progressives have used that harm principle to limit any freedom which can be shown to be harmful. If we’re not allowed to do anything that’s harmful to anyone, then we’re not really allowed to much of anything–because almost everything we do can be shown to be harmful to someone else in some way (see law of scarcity).

                      Don’t carry the progressives’ water for them, unintentionally or otherwise. The correct formulation is that we should all be free to do anything so long as we don’t violate anyone’s rights.

                      A right is the right to make a choice for yourself. They naturally arise from our agency. Rape is wrong because the victim’s right to make a choice was violated. The right to free speech is the right to choose what you say. Religious rights are the right to choose your own religion. The right to bear arms is the right to choose to own a gun, etc. A right is the right to make a choice for yourself.

                      We should be free to do anything that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

                    2. I suppose a more exact formulation might be, “We should be free to choose to do anything so long as our choices leave others free to make their own choices for themselves.”

                      Nah, “We should be free to do anything so long as we don’t violate other people’s rights” is as good as it will ever need to be, and if that statement leads to a discussion about what we’re talking about when we talk about “rights”, then that’s a feature not a bug.

                      P.S. “Stewart = Stuart” You know what I meant!

          2. Ya, I am getting that. Unfortunately, in a discussion about an overreaching court, I was tending to defer to allowed rights and jusridiction, and not natural rights. Thanks to you, DenverJ, and Ken for making natural rights a clear point.

            I am still not seeing how citizens of other nations have other than natural rights as far as the US government is concerned. They may possess those rights, but they do not have a right to have the US government protect those rights. If that is the case we need to really ramp up to overthrow every government that does not recognize the same natural rights we do.

            1. Any person within US jurisdiction can claim the rights recognized under the US Constitution. People living elsewhere can, also, but the US government will not enforce those people’s rights.

              1. People living elsewhere can, also, but the US government will not enforce those people’s rights.

                Not according to the 9th Circuit.

      5. the Constitution just protects our rights from government action

        When did this start?

        1. Assuming you’re serious, it protects us from that and from coercive actions of individuals or groups.

          1. I have seen no evidence that the constitution is no impediment to government action.

            1. Ah, fuck. Scratch one of the no’s.

  41. Look at all the fucking “libertarians” here who favor a travel ban.

    This place is Bratfart.com v. 2. (the comments – not the writers)

    1. Fuck off 🙂

      1. He’s just admitting he’s a prog again, for the 600 millionth time. Nothing to see here.

        1. Says the Trumptard idiot who favors a government imposed travel ban.

          Just admit you’re a fucking conservative asshole, you dolt. You will feel better admitting the truth.

          1. Sorry, I’d forgotten, are libertarians anarchists?

            1. Suicide pact, bra.

            2. Only a few times a week.

          2. Banning theocrats is unlibertarian? Who knew?

            1. And shreek thought he had a problem hiding from the Christian Taliban in Dogdick. Wait until the theocrats arrive in Dogdick.

            2. So you will support my Christo-fascist ban?

              1. Which are they, the ones being exterminated in Syria?

              2. Sure. What’s the wording? ” Anybody more religious than the fucking slaver Palin’s Buttplug is hereby banished to Siberia”?

    2. Oh boy, the man who bent over for Obama is lecturing other people on libertarian purity, that’s cute.

      1. I never ever claimed Obama was a libertarian, you idiot.

        I did claim he was more libertarian than Bush, Romney, and McCain. And rightly so.

        1. Despite trying to nationalize a fifth of the American economy… and managing to thoroughly fuck it up, instead.

          libertarian af mang

        2. I never claimed you said Obama was a libertarian, you idiot. Basic reading comprehension, learn it.

          What I said is that you bent over for him. Because you did. You excused constant anti-libertarian behaviour and threw another one of your “rationalist” emotional freakouts when anyone called you on it. You continue to lie to defend him now.

          That makes you a shitty little statist sycophant in libertarian clothing.

          1. I defended Obama when he behaved like a libertarian, you jackass.

            He should be applauded for such.

            For instance, Obamacare is market based – unlike your shitty Canuck health care single payer system.

            1. Oh look, you’re lying and pretending government intervention in the economy is libertarian again. How predictable.

              Bent over more PB, take that regulatory and dirigisme cock as hard as you can.

              1. Quit defending single payer, you statist fuckhole.

                1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.10.17 @ 12:04AM|#
                  “Quit defending single payer, you statist fuckhole.

                  Shitstain, only you has done so here.
                  Got fuck your daddy.

                2. Nowhere in any of my statements do I defend single payer. Straight-up lying about reality to insult your opponent, PB’s ‘rationalism’ strike 8.

                  Quit lying, you statist fuckhole.

    3. Look at all the fucking “libertarians” here who favor a travel ban importing a permanent big government electoral majority to the US

  42. So we’re providing potential terrorists with VISAs? Why not AmEx?

    1. And welfare. If you don’t give them welfare with that Visa, you’re an Islamaphobists, racists, sexists, and lots of other shit. So look here con, you better give to em, or else you’re causing workplace violence!

    2. Isn’t part of the court process called DISCOVERy?

    3. Those Travelers need to be Checked

  43. Shreek’s still off his meds.

    1. And I’m drunk, the sky is blue, and Chelsea Clinton has the face of a bulldog.

      1. Stop that! Some bulldogs are kinda cute, and aren’t the offsping of Satan.

        1. “Chelsea Clinton has the face of a cute bulldog”

      2. I found $11 bottles of okay rum and I’m enjoying my evening.

        1. Now that’s a good day.

        2. Ron Bacardi Gold is decent rum that can be had for about ten bucks a bottle. I would highly suggest getting a bottle of maraschino liqueur and some grapefruit and lime and making a Papa Doble. It was the drink Hemingway supposedly would request in his thermos for the walk home. Very tasty. If you want really nice rum the Mount Gay stuff is really nice. As well as Ron Zacapa.

          1. I’ll have to give that a shot. My current drink of choice is this no-name bottle, and diet caffeine free coke.

  44. President Donald Trump’s “wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border would be a series of fences and walls that would cost as much as $21.6 billion, and take more than three years to construct, based on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security internal report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

    The report’s estimated price-tag is much higher than a $12-billion figure cited by Trump in his campaign and estimates as high as $15 billion from Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    http://mobile.reuters.com/arti…..SKBN15O2ZN

    The “libertarians” here want their wall, goddamnit!

    1. Really? Who does?

      And I must, again, ask why a physical wall is being discussed in the first place. We have drone surveillance technology. We can figure out where the hotspots are, and predict where traffic will move when busts are made with some regularity. What use is a dumb wall when we can observe and intercept?

      1. Shreek’s just your typical prog. Pay no attention to his lunatic drivel.

      2. Theoretically, if you made an imperfect wall, you could influence where the hotspots are and make the job of interception easier.

      3. You can hang signs on a wall?

      4. ‘Hotspots’ shift in response to busts, border security and the DEA have had to deal with that even on the U.S.-Canada border.

        If we’re really going to get into the most efficient method for ‘border defense’, minefields are probably you best bet due to fear alone. And hey, you guys didn’t sign the Ottawa Treaty, so it’s all good. Probably bad optics to blow some people up though.

        (This is not my actual position, just theoretically speaking. I think the better way is still well-publicized mass deportations of illegal immigrants. Eventually the others get the hint and leave on their own.)

        1. It totally works.

          I think our obsession with securing the border is stupid and counterproductive. We should focus on beggaring the rest of the world in terms of our regulatory and tax liberality. Fat chance, but still.

    2. I havent seen many here keen on the wall

      1. Doesn’t bother turd at all.

    3. The “libertarians” here want their wall, goddamnit!

      Damn right we do. We are opposed to the US being ruled by Left Wing Reptiles til the end of time.

  45. NBC Nightly News doing a pants-shit on “ghost guns”. You can make a “fully functional semi-automatic weapon.”

      1. What they are describing sounds to me like something that is against the law already. A receiver is a “firearm” under current regulations and thus can only be shipped to a licensed firearms dealer and can only be sold to someone who has submitted to a background check*.

        In other words the laws that are already in place are not stopping this trade but some new law is going to magically succeed.

        None of the above is intended as approval of current gun control laws. I’m tired of pols and journos claiming that these things are not already illegal. I makes me question either their honesty or their intelligence.

        *Unless the seller is a private individual who purchased the item originally without the intent to resell it.

        1. 80% receivers are not considered to be firearms.

          1. The article doesn’t seem to be talking about 80% receivers.

            It implies that no advanced skill or tooling is required.

            A vanishingly small number of these kits are ever likely to be used in crime. They are bought and assembled overwhelmingly by law abiding enthusiasts who have the skill and the equipment to machine a receiver from 80 to 100%.

            What I am tired of is the mendacity (or possibly ignorance) of pols and journos who are claiming that a tiny portion of an already small market justifies this kind of pantshitting fear.

            I am just tired of the repetition of the “teenagers can buy machine guns on the internet” myth.

            1. In the video they do.

              1. Yes, I see.

                It doesn’t change my main point which is that they are lying or ignorant. And the fact that the result is that they are misleading the public about how truly restrictive gun control laws already are makes me think that they are lying with that intent.

                1. Of course they are lying. Progs always lie.

    1. The horror!

    2. Sweet.

      1. Maybe the government shouldn’t infringe upon constitutional rights in the first place and then this wouldn’t be an issue?

        1. Bro, do you even Living Constitution?

          1. He like a dead Constitution.

  46. Mike Tirico is taking over for Bob Costas as NBC’s Olympics host. I wonder if he’ll add anything to the broadcast.

    1. Some color?

    2. The “mute” button still works and a talking horse replacing Costa’s whining would be a definite improvement on any broadcast.

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.9.17 @ 10:10PM|#
          “Where is your mute button?

          Fuck off, turd. And diddle your daddy.

          1. Fuck off, turd. And diddle your daddy.

            Eloquent as usual, Sevo. You must be the life of the party when you wear the lampshade on your head.

            1. “Eloquent as usual, Sevo”

              Imbecilic as usual, turd.
              Fuck off and diddle your daddy.

    3. Make kt less touchy-feely, I hope.

  47. As a rationalist, I despise Islam (and to a lesser degree all religion) so I am not jumping for joy concerning this decision. However, people should be free to move about as they please. I don’t want the fucking government choosing who can enter the country by whim.

    1. As a rationalist

      You have a wiki and a whole sad community devoted to it, bub. So go find it and leave us alone.

      1. Liberty is rational, pal. Sorry to disappoint you.

        1. Liberty is sodding not rational. Not at least as the rationalists would have it. Purebred rationalists would deny choice in as many avenues as possible: freedom of speech would be right out. Too controversial. Freedom of religion, absolutely gone. What proper rationalist questions the consensus? Nobody needs firearms for self-defense in our purely rational society, since crime cannot exist. Except it does. But at least nobody dies when a family is burgled, as long as you’re properly risk-averse. Political freedom is a joke, of course. The French saw to that during their grand experiment.

          Liberty is irrational but necessary, because humanity cannot rationalize good governance. It depends on irrational contrivances that counterbalance the rational desires of mutually antagonistic agents.

          1. OK, I will allow some slack for your drunken state.

            But your little speech is pure gibberish. So I will destroy it in one word:

            What proper rationalist questions the consensus?

            Darwin.

            I won’t bill you for this lesson.

            1. You can’t win them all, buttplug.

                1. Listen, buddy, like I said… you can’t win them all. I’m sorry. Tough row to hoe and all that .

                2. Palin’s Buttplug|2.9.17 @ 11:31PM|#
                  “I won this one, like usual.”
                  Did you screw your daddy? Is that how you “won”?
                  If not, you haven’t “won” anything,
                  Fuck off, and screw your daddy.

        2. Too bad you don’t actually believe in liberty, or rationality.

      2. Also, this is NOT a chat group for you conservatives. Go to Free Republic for that.

        1. Fuck off slaver 🙂

        2. It’s also not a chat group for insecure man-children who don’t pay their bets, and yet here you are.

          1. Sure. I’ll bet that, tomorrow, you are still a whiny little authoritarian, lying, piece of shit.

          2. Is it betting season again?

            What was that event app that Reason was touting about a year ago? The one that uses bitcoins for events or forecasts?

            Auger? Aurum? Aurem?

            Let’s do it!!!

            1. You still owe from the last bet.

              1. You still owe from the last bet.

                I sent Reason $20. You know that.

                Let’s go for $500 this time in a secure bitcoin event forum.

                1. You saying Matt isn’t welch enough for Reason?

                2. How could I possibly know something that didn’t happen? Nice try.

                  All you had to do was take a pic and put it on imgur. Blur your name, your address, your zip… I don’t care. Just an acknowledgment that you lost so ridiculously hard that the English language is lacking.

                  I’m fine with 500 bucks. It goes to this site, not you. Not that you’ll win.

                  Let’s talk when you come down.

            2. Why? You don’t pay in US dollars, what makes us think you will pay in digital dollars?
              Nothing. Because we all know you. And you have been found wanting.

          3. “Is it betting season again?”

            In turd’s case, betting and welching on bets has no season.
            Turd lies always and in every case. He claimed to ‘work in finance’; it’s a good bet that meant emptying the trash cans after the people who did work there left.

    2. Remember how this ‘rationalist’ threw a temper tantrum when people tore apart his bad history on the founding fathers with actual quotes from them? How about the other dozens of times he’s been proven incorrect and his response is to stomp his feet and screaming names?

      The walking amygdala hijack is a poor source for rationality.

      1. Quit lying, you sordid little Canuck. Don’t you some skates to shine?

        1. You are a profoundly stupid man PB. It’s public record, available for anyone with an internet connection.

          You can scream “you lie!” as much as you want, but the evidence directly contradicts you. You were wrong, and rather than accept it you just scream like a little child and bellow names and insults.

          Such a rationalist, refuses to engage reality and dreams up a fantasy, then throws a hissy fit when people don’t accept his idiocy.

          1. You and Trump are lost to reality and resort to lies instead.

            Our (rather mine) founders were secularists. You can give any religious figure a handjob and it won’t impress me.

            1. Keep screaming ‘liar’ and random insults at me PB, if you believe it really, really hard they’ll come true. Ignoring evidence and embracing pre-determined conclusions because they make you feel good about yourself? That’s not a rationalist PB, that’s a solipsistic child.

              1. I follow Kantian imperatives, pal. I am of relatively little importance.

                1. Sure you are. As long as you regurgitate a philosophical talking point all your other behaviour and pathologies don’t exist. Keep telling yourself that.

                  Insult, lie, delude yourself, insult, lie, delude yourself. It’s all you’re capable of and frankly it’s just sad.

                2. Palin’s Buttplug|2.9.17 @ 10:55PM|#
                  “I am of relatively little importance.”

                  No, turd, you’re of zero importance.
                  Would you please be so kind as to take poison and make the world a better place?
                  What a fucking excuse for a human…

            2. You can give any religious figure a handjob and it won’t impress me.

              Remember, PB is only interested in catching.

        2. Turd, has anyone recently suggested that you go fuck your daddy and get lost?
          If not, I’m here to help.
          Fuck off, you slimy piece of human waste!
          Oh, and pay off your bets.

          1. And you French kiss your cat with that mouth?

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.9.17 @ 10:43PM|#
              “And you French kiss your cat with that mouth?Z”

              I don’t have a cat, daddy-fucker.

    3. As a rationalist

      I guess it’s more of an aspirational title, since you seem to lack the capacity for rational thought at present.

    4. I don’t want the fucking government choosing who can enter the country by whim.

      Well, I do. And it’s a good bet that the majority of Americans do.

  48. So I just started watching Rick and Morty this week (yeah I’m a bit behind on things) and I’ve got to say that S1E5: ‘Meeseeks and Destroy’ is one of the greatest episodes of television ever made.

  49. So, this one time, at band camp, Palin’s Buttplug fit to second base with the 55 yr old cafeteria lady, and now he thinks he’s Don Juan. Pitiful, really.

  50. Nerd Alert

    Even before that deal, Arrival filmmaker Denis Villeneuve had stated he wanted to direct an adaptation of the Dune novel, with his only reservation being that he didn’t expect to ever be in a position to actually do it. The Legendary move changed things and not long after the ink was dry, there were reports that Villeneuve was in talks to take on the project.

    After a month of quiet, now it’s confirmed: Brian Herbert, son of original Dune novel writer Frank, has tweeted out that Villeneuve has officially signed on to direct a new Dune projec

    1. Haven’t there been like 3 “Dunes” already? none of them at all good?

      1. I liked the sci-fi channel version, but that was… jfc, fifteen years ago??

        1. I watched like 30 mins of it. The special effects were done with a potato.

          1. It’s like if they tried to adapt Atlas Shrugged, it would be… oh dear God it was a disaster.

            1. Ehh, I liked it.

              1. I haven’t actually seen it. I probably should. But I’ve been reading about what a disaster it is for years, and frankly, it doesn’t seem far-fetched.

                1. They have their problems but I’m so invested in capitalism as a force for good that watching a story that explicitly, unapologetically, and boldly takes that POV was quite a moving experience for me.

                  There’s not much else out there that does that.

                  1. Fair point. I’ll give it a shot.

  51. Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump 4h4 hours ago
    More
    SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

    Why is no one laughing?

    1. I love Jen. Totally would.

      1. She’s the one I really miss.

        1. Without her the show doesn’t work.

  52. Found some 2.99 Limoncello at Trader Joe’s. Good and potent!

  53. Question for you Trumptards – Would you like a Buckminster Fuller type dome over the USA to keep out all the dirty foreigners and trade partners?

    John Titor – are you Canuck enough to go there?

      1. Buttplug has a coke problem?

        It would explain a lot.

          1. I never said I had a “problem”.

            Who doesn’t like cocaine?

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|2.9.17 @ 11:43PM|#
              “I never said I had a “problem”.”

              Yeah, it’s just the rest of the world that sees your raging stupidity and your daddy issues as a “problem”.
              Not you, turd.
              Fuck off.

            2. Is coke a ton of fun? ‘Cuz I kinda want to give it a shot and I’ve never done it.

              1. Makes you feel like you can make Mount Everest your bitch.

    1. Don’t try arguing like a rational human being PB, you’re shit at it. You’re much better at the hissy fits and screaming insults at people.

      1. It is a logical extension for your Trumptillian Soviet Wall.

        Why not a dome instead?

        1. “Your” – Factually incorrect. Nowhere did I say I support the wall, nor do I. PB’s ‘rationalism’ (i.e. just make things up) strike 1.

          “logical extension” – Only if you’re stupid enough to ignore any semblance of actual reality or objectives. PB’s ‘rationalism’ (i.e. make something up, claim it’s a logical outcome when it’s a delusional reductio ad absurdum) Strike 2.

          “Why not a dome instead?” – Any number of logistical, architectural, financial, ecological or dozens of other problems that would not be caused by a shitty wall. PB’s ‘rationalism’ (i.e. pretend your bad argument is clever, when actually it’s based completely on false premises and ignorance of the subject at hand) strike 3.

          And you’re out. You’re in the wrong league buddy. Try little league.

          1. But your whole purpose here is to defend Trump and/or conservatism!

            Admittedly, you haven’t said that verbatim but you argue that position. As a classic liberal I know that you don’t like what I stand for (secularism and capitalism). You do oppose me for sure.

            1. Assuming you know your opponent’s position based on your own delusional arrogance and bias, PB’s ‘rationalism’ strike 4.

              1. So capitalism/secularism is only a figment of my delusional arrogance and bias?

                You are truly a statist Canuck.

                1. Construct a strawman based on entirely faulty premises, PB’s ‘rationalism’ strike 5.

          2. you’re debating “The Wall”?

            The wall is stupid. but like many things, its not stupid for the reasons the left thinks its stupid.

            (sort of like their objection to the Iraq War being primarily “Its about OIL!!” – as though that would make it de-facto ‘wrong’ – instead of saying it didn’t serve our interests, and most certainly didn’t help “destroy terrorists” or anything)

            I think the #1 reason the wall is stupid is not for what it is, or whether it will actually have any effect on the comings/goings of people across the border… but rather, what it distracts people from.

            because even if it “worked” (it wont’) all it addresses are the relatively small numbers of people who ‘sneak across borders’; most “illegals” don’t need to. we rubber stamp them and let them in.

            the real “problem” are the many millions of people already here. and i think trump (and his supporters) know that.

            The question is, if you give them their wall, will they then do something ‘smarter’ about normalizing the 10+m undocumented people in the country? AND reforming the process?

            At best you could say “maybe”. But the problem is that the wall means they can put that off for a number of years until it actually looks like it will be done. Basically, it works like a very-expensive and distracting Punt.

            1. *i’d add that i also keep my mind open re: the “Razorfist” argument – that a wall might actually provoke mexico to take its own domestic issues more seriously. But that’s also a longer-term affair

            2. I’m not debating the wall, I’m pointing out how stupid PB’s attempts at argument are. Yes, it’s basically skeet shooting, but I’m bored.

      2. Meh. I’ma say he’s really not that good at doing that either. I’m guessing he has zero skills that he really excels at, other than euphemising with the Buttplug he apparently named “Palin”.

        1. ‘Better’, as in relative to his ability at making an argument.

            1. Because King is a talented hack and the adaptation was a boring plop?

            2. If you keep repeating a stupid argument PB, it doesn’t make it better.

              1. You just said it was a rational argument:

                Don’t try arguing like a rational human being PB

                You only dismissed it because I argued in favor of it.

                1. Again, learn basic reading comprehension. I said you shouldn’t try arguing like a rational human being, I didn’t say your argument was rational, I said you were trying to make one and failing.

                  The fact that you’re incapable of understanding basic sentences really doesn’t help your case.

                  1. Rational or not, you have failed to rebut it because you cannot.

                    1. Ignoring arguments addressed and demanding opponent argue against fallacious positions to pretend he’s ‘won’, PB’s ‘rationalism’ strike 6 and 7.

                    2. Your inane insistence that anyone here is for *ahem* TEH WALL?

                      Have you tracked down even one of them?

                      Hey, maybe you can go back to freewhatever or wherever you crawled from and debate their stance on TEH WALL instead?

  54. when you walk into a courtroom and tell a group of judges they don’t have the authority to review something, you’re going to get slapped down. doesn’t mean you won’t win ultimately, but they’re going to make it harder on you out of spite, if nothing else.

  55. Amusing: Pro-life group calls 97 Planned Parenthood clinics, find only 5 that offer pre-natal care. Most of the receptionists straight up say they only offer abortions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch=ekgiScr364Y

    Only five of the 97 facilities it contacted across the United States provided prenatal care; the rest turned them away, according to the investigation.

    “Planned Parenthood offers abortions, so they don’t offer prenatal care,” a receptionist at the Planned Parenthood in Tempe, Arizona told a Live Action investigator.

    Another receptionist at the Albany, New York facility told them, “No Planned Parenthood does prenatal care, hon.”

    A third in Merrillville, Indiana said: “No, we don’t do prenatal services. I mean, it’s called Planned Parenthood, I know it’s kind of deceiving.”

    I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

    1. Derpetologist, thanks for the entertaining and enlightening links.

  56. If Eddie’s not here, somebody’s gotta post a totally not a cat video thing.

    1. I *wish* I hadn’t been here.

      Shudder.

  57. If a leftist overlord in Chicago runs a bloodbath place year after year and loses not a single election from the time he was born until now one wonders if the left has turned opposition into profession in light of Reason’s tempestuous resistance of the garbled man of many millions.

    1. Damn right.

      We need a little more NAP and a little less SJW around here. ASAP.

  58. It is as if a billion letters were constantly puked into the atmosphere from all the common chests unlocked for glory untold and withheld for who the fuck knows and choice words from ancient mummies racked up and slapped the blurred shadows of simple minds on the periphery for the docks on the waiting turrets… of moments noticing….

  59. nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury

    I really hope the Left keeps up with the Judicial Authoritarianism. The overreach may make possible a real assault on the lawless Judiciary. Break up the 9th.

    Coming Republican 2018 Commercial

    [Repubs find somebody who gets in during the stay that commits a crime.]
    They said there would be no “irreparable injury”. Tell that to XXXX’s parents/spouse/children.
    The Leftist Judges have subverted the Constitution for a hundred years
    Enough is Enough
    Bring back Constitutional Government

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.