Reason Roundup

His DACA Dismantling Rejected, Trump's Travel Ban Now Faces the Court: Reason Roundup

Plus: racist "promposal" is protected speech and how protectionism is killing democracy

|

Jim West/agefotostock/Newscom

DACA down, travel ban on trial. Calling the Trump administration's moves "arbitrary and capricious," a federal judge yesterday blocked the White House's plans to deport young immigrants who had been allowed to stay here under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn't adequately justify its declaration that DACA is illegal, and he gave the agency 90 days to "better explain its view." If it can't, DHS "must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications," ruled Bates.

Now another signature part of Donald Trump's anti-immigration scheme faces a judicial test. Today the Supreme Court will consider Trump's ban on travel to the U.S. by people in a handful of majority-Muslim countries.

"Lower courts have struck down each of the three iterations of the president's proclamation, the first of which was issued just a week after he took office in January 2017," notes The Washington Post. "But the conservative-leaning Supreme Court may be Trump's best hope, and it gave the administration a boost by allowing the ban to go into effect in December while considering the challenges to it."

This is the third iterations of Trump's travel ban. Issued last fall, it originally banned visitors or immigrants from six majority-Muslim countries (Syria, Lybia, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia) and two others, North Korea and Venezuela. Chad has since been removed the ban list, and North Korea and Venezuela are not part of the challenge to the ban.

As Reason's Shikha Dalmia points out, immigrants from these countries "have killed precisely zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. And countries that have sent terrorists—most notably Saudi Arabia, the home of many 9/11 hijackers—aren't on the list." But Dalmia also notes that the Supreme Court isn't tasked with deciding "whether the ban is sound policy but whether it is legally valid and constitutionally permissible," and "there is a pretty good chance that it will find that it is."

Some are summing up the case as being about more than just immigration policy. "The travel-ban case is uniquely tied up with Trump's haphazard policymaking process, and with the tug of war between the president and his administration," says Axios. "The justices will even have to decide how much they care about Trump's tweets."

"In many ways, litigation arising out of the travel ban has been the biggest test case for the courts in the Trump age," suggests Texas law professor Steve Vladeck:

There are still powerful statutory, constitutional and moral arguments against even this third version of the travel ban (David Cole, the ACLU's legal director, offers a concise summary). But, unlike the first two versions, the ban is now plausibly—if superficially—defensible.

Outside of Trump's fan club, there's been surprisingly diverse antipathy to the bans—a reaction "astounding in terms of both numbers and gravitas," says NPR's Nina Totenberg. "Among those lending their expertise to three friend-of-the-court briefs are more than 55 former officials from Republican and Democratic administrations, including CIA directors, national intelligence and counterterrorism chiefs, top diplomats with long records working in the Middle East, secretaries of state, some two dozen top-ranked retired admirals and generals, a former Republican attorney general and even the Republican chairman of the 9/11 Commission."

FREE MINDS

Slavery-referencing 'promposal' sparks free-speech lesson for high schoolers (and media). A high school student in Florida apparently sought to secure a prom date with a homemade sign, posted to Snapchat, reading: "If I was black I'd be picking cotton, but I'm white so I'm picking U 4 prom?" Stories in national news outlets let to outrage over the distasteful "promposal" that went far beyond Sarasota, Florida's Riverview High School.

In a startling show of restraint (by high-school-administrator standards), the district said while the 18-year-old student, Noah Crowley, will "more than likely" face some sort of punishment, "this incident is a gray area," since Crowley's actions did not take place at school. The school's policy only prohibits certain social-media speech if leaders "reasonably believe the conduct or speech has caused or will cause actual, material disruption of school activities or a staff member's ability to perform his or her job duties." Yet a lot of the press is framing this as some sort of First Amendment failure, like the goal of public education is to punish young people for any missteps using the harshest means available.

"Just like the rest of us, students have the ability to say things that are offensive," Fred Smith Jr., an associate law professor at Emory University, tells The Washington Post. "Given that he was off of the school campus, the mere fact that his speech was offensive would strike me as an insufficient basis for the school to punish him."

On Tuesday, Crowley released a statement saying, "It was a completely joke and it went too far. After reading the texts and Snapchat's I truly see how I have offended people and I'm sorry." His family said, through a spokesperson, that he won't be attending prom. They also offered "sincere apologies for the terrible words used in his 'promposal.' As a family, we truly recognize this incident is a very difficult but important life lesson and pledge to do all we can to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again."

FREE MARKETS

Saving democracy and capitalism from short-sighted leaders. Against a backdrop of the weakening of social cohesion, "liberal democratic capitalism is in retreat," writes economist Dambisa Moyo in a new book, Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Is Failng to Deliver Economic Growth and How to Fix It. "After the fall of the Berlin Wall, this political and economic model—characterized by universal suffrage, civil rights and personal freedoms, and the individual control of capital and labor—had seemed ascendant. But now alternative models, such as authoritarianism, state capitalism, and illiberal democracies, have proliferated, offering formidable challenges to liberal democratic capitalism's model of achieving growth."

At the same time, "liberal democratic capitalism itself has become weak, corrupt, and oblivious to its own ailments," argues Moyo. "As they confront these challenges, leaders of liberal democratic capitalist nations are hobbled by the quirks of their own political systems," like satisfying the short term demands of the masses. This leads to short-term thinking and responses. And "the short-termism that clouds policymaking leads politicians to embrace inferior policies"—such as protectionism in trade and capital flows and the growth of welfare policies.

"The defining challenge of our time is to create solid and sustained economic growth that continues to meaningfully improve people's lives," suggests Moyo. "Edge of Chaos argues that liberal democracies of the sort prevalent in the West simply cannot deliver this growth without substantial reform," yet it "insists on the promise of liberal democracy."

Rather than turning away from liberal democracy, nascent democracies need to prioritize creating growth over the immediate devotion of some paradigm of democratic perfection. And established democracies must put their own houses in order by passing aggressive constitutional reforms. Above all, policymakers must face up to the facts of the twenty-first century. In an interconnected world of anemic growth, other countries' crises will become our crises, whether they take the form of terrorism, income inequality, refugees, the resurgence of infectious diseases, or illegal immigration, and governments will grow ever more fragmented and weak, further undermining an already fragile international community. For Americans, and policymakers in the world at large, protectionism and isolationism are no remedy.

QUICK HITS

  • U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) sent a letter yesterday to three U.S. megabanks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank) along with several European banks pressuring these finanical institutions to disclose any business with Russian oligarchs or political leaders.
  • Maryland just banned not just guns with so-called "bump stocks" but even owning bump stocks on their own. The package of laws also creates a process for family members to request gun seizure of someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and one that would make people convicted of domestic violence provide evidence that they don't own any (legal) firearms. Gov. Larry Hogan called them "common sense, bipartisan measures."
  • Coming out of its worst quarter yet, Bitcoin may be back on an upswing, having jumped in value by about 20 percent in the past week.
  • Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has ordered that musician Meek Mill be released on bail. "As we have said all along, Meek was unjustly convicted and should not have spent a single day in jail," said his attorney.
  • The Treasury Department is congratulating itself on the deregulatory direction it says it has been taking under Secretary Steve Mnuchin. But outside observers are skeptical there's as much going on there as Mnuchin and company claim.
  • Finland is ending an experiment with universal basic income.

NEXT: Why All Libertarians Should Hope that the Supreme Court Throws Out Trump's Travel Ban

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. DACA down, travel ban on trial.

    DACA NO MAGA

    1. Lyrics from a new Kick Rock song?

    2. Hello.

      “…Now another signature part of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration scheme”

      Sigh.

      1. anti-immigration scheme

        I.e. Attempting to execute the law as written.

  2. even owning bump stocks on their own.

    Let’s play it safe, no more bumper crops either. Kind of like a windfall profit so 2 birds 1 stone.

    1. Also ban penny stocks. They are risky.

      1. No pump and dump stock schemes either. Oh wait, that’s already illegal.

  3. Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    Well? Which is it?

    1. The first one’s right out, and since there’s only like four Republicans in Maryland i have my doubts about the second.

  4. U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D?N.H.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D?R.I.) sent a letter yesterday to three U.S. megabanks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank) along with several European banks pressuring these finanical institutions to disclose any business with Russian oligarchs or political leaders.

    Dear Banks:

    Please help us justify our hysteria.

    Signed,
    Dipshits

    1. If these idiots want to make Russia a pariah nation such that its citizens are not allowed to do business with the rest of the world, then they need to say it and explain why they think doing that is a good idea. And if they are so concerned about evil Oligarchs, whatever that is, having bank accounts, why aren’t they saying anything about the Chavez and Castro families and the literally billions of dollars they have stolen by starving and oppressing the people of Cuba and Venezuela? Russia is not a very nice place and I would not want to live there but I would take living in Russia long before I would take living in Cuba or Venezuela.

      1. Or how about Saudi Arabia using some of the billions they earned from us to preach hatred in their schools around the world.

        Pricipals, not principles

        1. Good question. Russia’s mistake was bothering with Twitter trolls. They should have started funding universities and running conferences at vacation spots where various journalists and poobahs can be invited to speak in return for free travel and a nice honorarium. Do some of that and make it clear saying bad things about the hosts will get you off the invite list and watch how positive coverage of Russia becomes. These people are so corrupt and easy to manipulate.

          1. They should have started funding universities and running conferences at vacation spots where various journalists and poobahs can be invited to speak in return for free travel and a nice honorarium.

            Incidentally, this is why the press has its lips firmly planted on Prince Alaweed’s posterior.

            1. And why no one ever says much about China being a threat to US interests.

      2. The DNC laid out the case in their lawsuit against the Russian Federation, the Trump Campaign, and various individual co-conspirators.

        The narrative is that the Russians — led by the notorious Vladimir Putin — are every bit at war with the US as the terrorists are.

        Americans are asking “Why do they hate us?” They hate what they see … in [the West]: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

        That’s why the nefarious Russkies hacked the 2016 election. That’s why they oppose the the altruistic support of Wahhabi freedom fighters in Syria by US, UK, French, and Saudis. That’s why they interfere with the wholly virtuous good works of NGOs in Russia and bordering countries.

        The terrorists particularly hate our freedom of religion. The Russian oligarchs particularly hate our democracy because they fear a glorious democratic color revolution that would be the end of their ill-gotten gains. They have seen how wonderfully successful America’s democracy promotion has been in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Ukraine, and Georgia, and they don’t want it to happen in Russia. Led by the treacherous Putin, the Russian oligarchs are stereotypical Bond villains in real life.

        Only a treasonous Russophile like Trump would fail to understand this.

      3. Nothing says solid idea like making a country with plenty of nukes an economic pariah internationally for no actual reason. No chance they’d sell nukes or the like to others.

        Hell, at least with McCarthy there WERE Communists in government. What we have here is, literally, nothing. This is hitting Palmer raids levels of idiocy.

    2. “pressuring these finanical institutions to disclose any business with Russian oligarchs or political leaders.”

      Gee, I hope they can stand up to the pressure.

    3. As always I have wonder what are the portions af stupid and evil in the continued farce.

      Russia should be a fairly natural friend of the U.S. in world affairs. Both as a counter-weight to Chinese power and in the containment of Islamic aggression. Is that why the Left is so dedicated to demonizing them?

      Or, are they really just dumb and think the “Collusion” story will eventually stick. And nobody will notice the Russian collusion of the Clintons, Brennan, Mueller and the rest?

      1. Except for the whole “threatening everybody around them in order to remain relevant as their economy descends into third world status” thing, I suppose we could have friendly relations with them. It was certainly looking possible before Putin set out to reassemble the USSR.

      2. Russia abandoned Marxism. The left will never forgive them.

        1. Good point. They did it wrong and then gave up – what a bunch of assholes.

    4. They should look into the banks in Cyprus like Mueller is doing. That is where the Trump campaign laundered Russian mob money.

      They are too stupid for that though.

      1. Nice story at The Federalist about something:

        http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/
        bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-
        campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

        1. Yea, but that implicates Her Shrillness, so obvs ///fakenews.

        2. So basically the FEC is just confirming what Donna Brazile already pointed out?

      2. “That is where the Trump campaign laundered Russian mob money.”

        The tin-foil hat actually improves your appearance.
        Sort of make you ignore the drool dripping off the corner of your mouth.

        1. This stuff really does rise the level of thinking that Barry was an islamo-fascist manchurian candidate, rather than just an incompetent empty suit.

  5. The package of laws also creates a process for family members to request gun seizure of someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others…

    Let the SWAT-ing of family members begin!

    1. The next step is to encourage children to tell their teachers if they overhear Daddy and Mommy talking about evil guns.

      1. I have absolutely no doubt that is happening somewhere in this country right now. They already made it a rule for doctors to ask you if you own a gun and put it in your medical records. And of course, your medical records are now digitized and easily accessible by any government agency who wants them. They effectively created a gun registry without telling the public. Having kids rat their parents out to their teachers about guns seems pretty likely. Indeed, guns are dangerous and allowing children access to them neglect. Imagine the child who tells his teacher that his parents keep a loaded gun in the house. I imagine that would get the parents a visit from CPS more often than not.

        1. Even back when i was kid in the 60’s my parents told us if anyone ask about our guns we don’t talk about it. of course with todays facebook etc everyone wants to brag about everything and are to stupid to keep silent about anything

          1. I publicly brag about everything on facebook, just to make the things I don’t brag about seem unlikely…

            1. Brett Baltimore all like “Check out this dump i just took! I went down a whole pants size! #blessed #highfiberdiet #nodulcolax”

        2. Another instance of government using 1984 not as a warning, but as an instruction manual.

        3. They already made it a rule for doctors to ask you if you own a gun and put it in your medical records.

          I’ve seen this in various places before, but I’m not sure it’s true or maybe it’s only true if you’re on Medicaid or medicare. I say this because I’ve have multiple yearly doc appointments and haven’t been asked yet.

          It’s a good thing, as they will not like my reply, but given I’ve read this in a lot of places, I’m surprised I haven’t been asked.

  6. But outside observors are skeptical there’s as much going on there as Mnuchin and company claim.

    I think you’ll find that if you look closely you’ll find the answers in the mnuchia.

    1. There should be a ‘dons sunglasses’ in there somewhere.

  7. must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications
    Trump doesn’t need to rescind regulations. He can just issue EOs deferring action for violations. Future presidents can’t end the deferments.

    1. Or, he could just say, “I’m ending DACA regardless of your ruling” and move forward anyway. The idea that judges can block a President from rescinding an executive order established by his predecessor is a pretty dangerous precedent for degrading the separation of powers. Judges who think they can legislate from the bench might not like the way this ends.

      1. I don’t think he will do that but there’s a part of me that kind of hopes that he does.

        1. He needs to.

          Because, rest assured, his EO about 2 regs rescinded for every one enacted will not be be forced to be honored by courts in the future.

          The appeal should just be “Fuck you. I am doing this.”

      2. rescinding an executive order

        *sigh*

        DACA was not established via executive order

        1. It was only a department memorandum.

        2. It’s not the law regardless.

      3. “”Or, he could just say, “I’m ending DACA regardless of your ruling” and move forward anyway.”

        I hope he does.

  8. And “the short-termism that clouds policymaking leads politicians to embrace inferior policies”

    There have not been many better descriptions of all politics forever.

  9. pressuring these finanical institutions to disclose any business with Russian oligarchs or political leaders.

    We all know it’s fun to marvel at political parties argue for the thing they were against in recent memory but to see the Left embrace their own version of the red scare is almost too much fun.

    1. It’s always fun until lives get ruined.

      1. That’s always been my motto.

  10. Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    Only in the land of marys.

  11. … Bitcoin may be back on an upswing, having jumped in value by about 20 percent in the past week.

    I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

  12. http://www.rollcall.com/news/p…..elosi-says

    Pelosi says Democrats will be all about “Dreamers” and gun control if they take the Congress. All the Democrats have to do is pretend not to be crazy for a few months. And they can’t even do that.

    1. The Democrats are far from “crazy.” Americans are sick of the GOP’s white nationalist, NRA agenda and that’s why November will be a #BlueWave.

      1. Yeah, how are those special elections working out since the Democrats went on a gun control bender?

        1. Remind me what happened again? Republicans just won somewhere in Arizona in a district they always win? Whatever. Democrats will control the House this time next year.

          1. OBL, becoming the mask. I’m consistently impressed with your work, ma’am.

      2. I’m impressed at your discipline of staying in character.

        Be careful because you may just become a progressive you’re that good at it.

        1. I am too. You have to wonder if this kind of method acting won’t start to have a real effect on whoever is doing this.

        2. We can always count on OBL to say something and then opposite will happen.

          Its a talent to be wrong 100% of the time. Good job OBL.

          1. Still not willing to realize that OBL is a parody, huh.

  13. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has ordered that musician Meek Mill be released on bail.

    So long as he’s released in his appropriate voting district.

  14. GQ says Bible one of 21 classics ‘you don’t have to read before you die’ and Fox & Friends loses their shit

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018…..e-die.html

    1. If you are not familiar with the Bible, you are an uneducated buffoon. You can’t understand Western Civilization and culture without understanding the Bible. It is not about religion. It is about being educated and understanding the world around you. You don’t have to be a Hindu to understand the importance of the Mahabharata if you want to understand India.

      1. I am very familiar with the Bible but it is tedious, repetitious, and pointless.

        I do like Ecclesiastes though.

        1. It is a difficult and dense book. To intelligent people, that makes it interesting. To stupid people that makes it hard and something to be avoided.

          1. When I saw One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest a long time ago I recognized that it was based on the Jesus story. Sure, a working knowledge of the basic element’s is essential for a well educated person to have.

            1. That is good. So are a lot of things. But, more than just obvious stories of sacrifice and martyrdom.

          2. To intelligent people, that makes it interesting

            Not really, that’s just what people who style themselves as intelligent tell people to avoid the reality that it’s basically garbage.

            1. No. Only stupid people think the Bible is garbage. That is not a statement about theology or metaphysics. It is a statement about your and those like you’s intelligence and level of education. You are Philistine. Telling yourself otherwise doesn’t make it any less true or obvious to those who are not.

          3. I read half the book, i get the idea behind it and moved on

        2. And it is actually pretty easy as religious texts go. Really only the Jewish law books like Deuteronomy are tedious and difficult. Genesis and Exodus are great literature. And the New Testament is by far the strangest and most interesting religious text ever written. It reads like no other religious text in that it is completely disjointed and makes all kinds of choices in the narrative that make no literary sense. The claims it was made up after the fact ignore how weird it is and how anyone writing a fabrication would have made the fabrication much more consistent and approachable the way other myths are.

          If you think the Bible is tedious try reading the Mahabharata outside of the Bhagavad Gita. Or worse, the Koran. The Koran is totally unreadable. It is not strange like the Bible, it is just long and utterly tedious and boring.

        3. PB: “I do like Ecclesiastes though.”

          Vanity of vanities. All is vanity. If the shoe fits

        4. Try reading Job sometime. That is a great story and utterly problematic for theists. God and Satan making bets on some poor bastard.

        5. tedious, repetitious, and pointless

          So THAT’s where you got the idea for your posts.

          1. A ass of biblical proportions.

      2. If you are not familiar with the Bible, you are an uneducated buffoon.

        Is it not at all possible to be familiar with it without reading it?

        1. Not without reading some of it. You don’t have to read all of it. Honestly, anyone who does not have a divinity degree or who isn’t an Orthodox Jew who claims to have read the entire Old Testament is likely lying. I am a believer in great books. Do you have to actually read the Illiad or War and Peace to be familiar with them to some extent? No. But can you claim to understand those books if you haven’t? I don’t think so. Same is true of the Bible, though you don’t have to read all of it to understand it. But, I think everyone should read the Four Gospels, Acts and Genesis and Exodus at a minimum if they want to call themselves an educated person.

          1. I’ve read a lot of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology so I’m familiar with the parts of the Bible that were stolen from them. I’ve also browsed through bits and pieces of it and found it ridiculously tedious.

            But, I think everyone should read the Four Gospels, Acts and Genesis and Exodus at a minimum if they want to call themselves an educated person.

            Whatever you say, cap’n.

            1. I’ve read a lot of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology so I’m familiar with the parts of the Bible that were stolen from them. I’ve also browsed through bits and pieces of it and found it ridiculously tedious.

              No, you are not. If you were, you would understand the difference between the two and not be so easily duped into believing they were stolen. You don’t have to believe it is real to understand how different it is. But you do have to actually read it and understand it.

              1. Whatever you say, cap’n.

                1. Your loss. I don’t think I have ever regretted reading any book. There is something to be gained from all of them, even if it is only a full understanding of why you don’t like it. Also, I do not think you can claim to understand people who believe in a book, whether it is liking a novel or believing in a religious text if you haven’t read the book and judged it for yourself.

                  The fact that you haven’t actually much or any of the Bible makes you a pretty typical atheist. And it is further evidence of how the quality of thought today on both sides is not what it once was.

                  1. The fact that you haven’t actually much or any of the Bible makes you a pretty typical atheist.

                    I suppose it does. And your claims of ‘you are uneducated and just don’t understand’ makes you a pretty typical follower of a religion.

                  2. I’m always a little irritated that I read Catch 22. I do not get why people like that book.

                    1. I’m always a little irritated that I read Catch 22. I do not get why people like that book.

                      OMG! Me too!

                      That book was a terrible, steaming pile of shit.

                    2. It’s the same joke over and over and over.
                      I’ll flip forward 50 pages…
                      …and over and over and over

        2. Familiar yes, but it leaves you vulnerable to missing the point or not catching whenever it’s misrepresented.

          The Bible is a foundational work of Western literature. Saying ‘what’s the big deal?’ and not needing to read it is to invite people to BE ignorant. And this is unacceptable. Heck it’s evil.

          But whaddya gonna do? The progressive left have to play this shtick since they have to refashion and reengineer Western history in their image.

          1. The Bible is a foundational work of Western literature. Saying ‘what’s the big deal?’ and not needing to read it is to invite people to BE ignorant. And this is unacceptable. Heck it’s evil.

            Whatever you say, cap’n.

            1. You seem almost terrified of reading it. I would think you would want to read it out of curiosity if nothing else. The actual Gospels and the important parts of the Old Testament are not that long. I find it odd that someone who thinks they are important enough to have a strong opinion about them, which you clearly do, would not be curious enough to actually read at least the important parts. I honestly can’t understand that sort of thinking.

              1. You only need to read one of the four Gospels since they are all derived from the same Greek scholar or two. (Even though there are differences in what actually happened.)

              2. As I said, I’ve read bits and pieces of it and found it ridiculously tedious. I didn’t find it to be some overwhelmingly thought-provoking piece of inspired literature. Sorry I don’t care for your chosen religious treatise.

              3. He hasn’t read it, but the knows the parts that were stolen from the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.

              4. He also seems flippant about it given his response.

                1. Flippancy? On Hit’n’Run?!?? NOOOOOOOOO

                2. He also seems flippant about it given his response.

                  *gasp* Not FLIPPANT!

                  Tell me which of these books you’ve read:

                  Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
                  Critique of Practical Reason
                  On the Genealogy of Morality
                  Thus Spoke Zarathustra
                  Utilitarianism
                  On Liberty
                  Republic
                  Personal Knowledge
                  Meditations on First Philosophy

                  Because if you haven’t read them all then you’re basically an uneducated backwards hick.

                  1. So, what’s with these lame veiled insults? Just tell sparky he’s a poorly read ignoramus if that’s what you’re getting at.

                    He isn’t, and he’s right about the Bible, but you’re all pretty clearly trying to insult him so grow a pair and get to it if you think he’s “evil” as someone suggested.

                  2. I have read every single one of those Sparky. I was a philosophy major in college. No kidding.

          1. Stole my joke.

            So let me link to the GQ article that started all this.

            The Bible-bashing is of course boring and derivative.

            The article also suggests to the reader that (s)he read LeGuin’s Earthsea series instead of the Lord of the Rings.

            I observe that LeGuin herself said:

            “For example, Tolkien’s references to places, people, events (often of long ago) that are not part of the immediate story: these give the reader a conviction of the reality of the immediate scene ? because it is shown to be part of a much greater landscape, a long history, a whole world of which it is only a glimpse. This is a strong technique for making an imagined world plausible. This is a technique which one can imitate, performing it in one’s own way.”

            1. I see they don’t like Dracula or Gulliver’s Travels either.

            2. The Bible-bashing is of course boring and derivative.

              I don’t know that anyone is bashing the Bible, just saying it’s pretty boring and shouldn’t be considered required reading.

              1. Saying it’s better to read some “new-wave” European novel than to read the Bible sure sounds like bashing to me.

                1. Oh, you were talking about the article.

                2. My confusion is more with the comparison. Why those two? If I wanted to suggest an instead of for the Bible I think I’d say the Koran, or Confessions. Something still religious.

                  Same with replacing Franny and Zooey with Death Comes for the Archbishop. The comparison just seems arbitrary.

            3. I actually love Lonesome Dove, but I’m convinced that the cowboy mythos, with its rigid masculine emotional landscape, glorification of guns and destruction, and misogynistic gender roles, is a major factor in the degradation of America.

              I must say, I’m perhaps a little less convinced of that, and also think their analysis of the cowboy mythos is a bit shallow sounding. Especially with regards to gender roles, considering the strong homesteading woman stereotype stood quite athwart many sensibilities of the era.

              1. Agreed, but that’s sort of true of everything historically. Look at your heroes close enough, suddenly they’re human and humans aren’t all good or all bad or all knowing or always wrong or all any one thing regardless of how the narratives were/are written.

            4. So, some of those books I like, some I dislike. I think for more than half I see no obvious link between the book rejected and the book recommended. A lot of those, I say just read both.

              Also, people say unreadable too easily.

    2. GQ says Bible one of 21 classics ‘you don’t have to read before you die’ and Fox & Friends loses their shit

      To be fair, the people reading GQ, let alone taking their literary advice, are morons. Put down GQ and read both Twain *and* Douglass.

      The only way GQ publishing a list of books you shouldn’t read could be more laughably idiotic is if they did it in tandem with a Rolling Stone piece advising tween girls what not to wear.

      1. I think this is the exact way I felt about this. If you take your list of required reading from GQ, you will probably not be able to appreciate the Bible on any level.

  15. Nothing about the right-wing, possibly Russian-influenced hacking attack on Joy Reid?

    It turns out that, emboldened by their success hacking a presidential election, some people who operate on the “Dark Web” managed to plant homophobic comments on Joy’s old blog. Even managed to fool the Wayback Machine. This is very alarming and I think it’s at least worth a mention.

    1. This is the first I’ve heard of this and yet I find it totally in character for you to bring it up.

    2. Just to save time: is there any bad thing that happens in the world that wasn’t done by the Russians?

      1. Pearl Harbor. That was the East Germans.

      2. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs was done by the Atlantians.

  16. “If I was black I’d be picking cotton, but I’m white so I’m picking U 4 prom?”

    The worst part is he used the language of Prince.

    1. Some people pick their noses,
      Some people pick the flowers,
      I’m picking you for prom,
      ‘Cause I heard you’ll fuck for hours.

    2. “I am so sorry you found that offensive.”

      This kid sounds like a peach.

    3. “I am so sorry you found that offensive.”

      This kid sounds like a peach.

      1. Also a Prince song.

  17. Finland is ending an experiment with universal basic income.

    No one wants to be a basic bitch of wage earners, not even a Fin.

    1. Looks like their little experiment………..

      (Don’s Fist’s sunglasses and drinks his milkshake)

      ……….is Finished

      1. WTF? “Don’s”? What is wrong with me?

        1. I offered you a chance at a great one and you blew it.

  18. But now alternative models, such as authoritarianism, state capitalism, and illiberal democracies, have proliferated, offering formidable challenges to liberal democratic capitalism’s model of achieving growth.

    Welcome to the eternal pendulum.

    1. My nickname still.

  19. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t adequately justify its declaration that DACA is illegal, and he gave the agency 90 days to “better explain its view.”

    Clarence Thomas must be at Antonin Scalia’s grave with a bottle of champagne. We did it, Nino, we’ve gotten Chevron overturned. So much for this agency “deference” nonsense.

    1. That is the thing about Chevron; it gives deference to the judgment of bureaucrats. That is a bad thing in a lot of instances, except that who on earth other than a judge is dumb enough to believe giving that deference to judges is going to be any better? What is a judge but just another unelected bureaucrat?

      1. An unelected bureaucrat with life tenure, who can jail people who don’t act sufficiently deferential.

  20. And countries that have sent terrorists?most notably Saudi Arabia, the home of many 9/11 hijackers?aren’t on the list.

    Look, if you want to cover the income politicians get from Saud, they’d be happy to put them on the list.

  21. “If I was black I’d be picking cotton, but I’m white so I’m picking U 4 prom?” Stories in national news outlets let to outrage over the distasteful “promposal” that went far beyond Sarasota, Florida’s Riverview High School.”

    I’d like to suggest that a few hundreds tweets from his peers reading something like: “Hey Noah, you’re a fucking retard” would be far more effective and allow the 1A to live another day.

  22. So an arbitrary Executive Order like DACA can’t be rescinded by an arbitrary Executive Order? Is that the special “ratchet” clause of the Constitution where things can only be moved leftward, never back?

    1. Yep, comes right after the FYTW Clause.

  23. 10 greatest Stones songs that never got mainstream radio airplay (in no particular order)

    Winter
    Stray Cat Blues
    Let It Loose
    Moonlight Mile
    100 Years Ago
    Jivin’ Sister Fanny
    Live With Me
    Salt of the Earth
    Rip This Joint
    Starfucker

    1. 10 greatest Stones songs

      I found your mistake.

      1. Surprising as it is, I totally agree with SparkY on something.

        1. Yet another piece of the PB psychosis is revealed… a Stones fan.

      2. Sparky,

        You are making me agree with Shreek. You really are the worst.

        1. The Rolling Stones are average at best. Nothing they’ve produced should ever be considered great.

          1. The same goes for Led Zeppelin.

            1. You know what one dead-head said to the other when they ran out of dope?

              This music sucks!

            2. You’ve lost any credibility that you ever might have had.

          2. Satisfaction was a pretty ground-breaking song for its time. But they’ve been coasting on faux-rebellion ever since.

          3. I like them. The Beatles are the band that I never got. While Gimme Shelter, Exile on Main Street have stuff that I feel has some real power.

            Also, Rip This Joint is a good song.

    2. Time For Livin’

      Time for changin’, re-arrangin’
      No time for peace, just pass the buck
      Rearrangin’, leader’s changin’
      Pretty soon he might not give a fuck

    3. I’m with you on Stray Cat Blues. Not so much on the rest. And you missed Bitch.

      1. You are correct about the greatness of Bitch and its brass section no question.

        But Wikipedia says

        “Bitch” is a song by the English rock band the Rolling Stones from their 1971 album Sticky Fingers, first released one week before the album as the B-side to its advance single, “Brown Sugar”.[1] Despite not being used as an official single by itself, the tune has garnered major airplay from classic rock radio stations.

        Back when there were singles the B Side got lots of attention.

    4. I really can’t argue with you here. That is a pretty good ten. I might put Respectable or Before they Make Me Run on the list but overall, pretty solid.

      1. I like both “Before They Make Me Run” and “Happy”. Richards doesn’t get a lot of respect as a lyricist/vocalist, but I’d say both of these are highly underrated, they’re funny and catchy tunes. They’re staples in live shows (I assume to give Mick a break) but I can’t recall ever hearing them on the radio.

        “Gonna find my way to heaven, ’cause I did my time in hell. I wasn’t looking too good but I was feeling real well.”

        I’m guessing that pretty much sums up Richards life.

        1. A lot of the new wave country people are massively influenced by the Stones. I always thought that one of the guy country singers should do a cover of Before They Make Me Run. It would be a sure fire hit.

  24. DHS “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” ruled Bates.

    It really is something else that we have judges forbidding the current executive from ending unconstitutional diktats put into place by the previous executive.

    1. It really is. And it just begs for a Constitutional crisis and further erodes people’s respect for the courts and the law, which is nothing but a recipe for disaster. Judges have become so arrogant that they really think they can tell the country FYTIW without any consequences. It never seems to occur to them that the public can tell them the same thing and that their power stems entirely from people’s respect for their institution.

      And shame on Reason for cheerleading this nonsense. Libertarians of all people should understand the dangers of tyranny and not be seduced by it just because it gives them what they want. You today, me tomorrow is a cliche for a reason. It is true.

      1. diktats

        Hey John, you’ve got a dickfor on your head.

        *shh, no one tell him – it’ll be hilarious*

        1. I have no idea what that means Crusty.

          1. Dude, seriously, you should get that dickfor taken care of.

            1. You are just jealous it is so much bigger than yours.

            2. It’s a huge throbbing dickfor, John. You should see a doctor immediately.

              1. Yeah, John. I mean, get that dickfor looked at. It can be a cause of serious health issues. Take it to a specialist, see if he can tell you what you should do about your dickfor.

            3. Seriously, if anyone suffers from having a dickfor on the forehead, a little updog will take care of it almost immediately

        2. Hey, dumb ass. I didn’t use the word “diktats”. It is not in my post. I think you perhaps are trying to make a joke about my spelling. That is fine, except that you appear to be making a joke about my misspelling a word I did not use. If it is not that, I am utterly dumbfounded. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about or what the joke is supposed to be.

          1. It’s not a joke, John. He’s genuinely worried about your health, seeing as you have that huge throbbing dickfor on your head. He was only reminded of it by Rhywun’s post and your subsequent response, and figured now is as good a time as any to discuss it.

            Seriously, John, we’re worried about you. You need to check out that dickfor.

            1. I still have no idea what you are talking about. It is nice that you two have your own little secret language. But, it doesn’t mean anything to me. So, try expressing your concern in words that other people can understand.

              1. We’re talking about your dickfor, John! You need to get that dickfor examined!

                1. That is nice.

          2. Hey, dumb ass. I didn’t use the word “diktats”. It is not in my post. I think you perhaps are trying to make a joke about my spelling. That is fine, except that you appear to be making a joke about my misspelling a word I did not use. If it is not that, I am utterly dumbfounded. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about or what the joke is supposed to be.

            OMG!

            1. This is no longer interesting.

              1. Oh come on, John. It wasn’t interesting to begin with.

                1. Touche Sparky, Touche.

                  1. That’s something a guy with a dickfor would say.

  25. http://www.washingtonexaminer……vestigated

    I had no idea Robert Mueller was the head of the criminal division at the US Attorney’s office in Boston during the time that John Conelly had made the local FBI office into an arm of the Winter Hill gang. Funny how the media never bothered to mention this fact as they assured the country he was beyond reproach. There there is this little tidbit

    An FBI agent, who is now in prison, was tipping off Whitey Bulger as to who might testify against him so that these individuals could be killed. He also tipped off Bulger, allowing him to escape and remain on the lam for 16 years. What responsibility, if any, did Mueller, who was in key positions of authority and capable of preventing these horrible miscarriages, have in this sordid incident? A former member of the parole board ? a liberal Democrat who also served as mayor of Springfield, Mass. ? swears he saw a letter from Mueller urging the denial of release for at least one of these wrongfully convicted defendants. When he went back to retrieve the letter, it was not in the file.”

    Maybe reason should drop the TDS and talk about this. It seems like something that teaches some lessons valuable to Libertarianism.

    1. Wikipedia completely leaves this off his bio. Wikipedia is not the end-all for facts but Wikipedia does have a tendency to omit embarrassing info from friends of the left.

  26. Maryland just banned not just guns with so-called “bump stocks” but even owning bump stocks on their own. The package of laws also creates a process for family members to request gun seizure of someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and one that would make people convicted of domestic violence provide evidence that they don’t own any (legal) firearms. Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    Okay, so Maryland got their “just a few common sense gun control laws”. They’re done with that now, right? That is, after all, all the Left wanted. They said so! If you can’t trust the Left, who can you trust?

    1. How does someone provide evidence of a negative?

      1. Guilty until proven innocent.

      2. Enough with the logicsplaining! You’re not validating their feelings!

  27. Reminder: It is not April 1st:

    “Last Word: Are you cooking with gas?”
    […]
    “The many avid cooks in my circle of friends swear by their gas stoves, but in the state’s march toward a clean energy economy, they must go. The California Energy Commission will vote May 9 on new building energy efficiency standards that, if approved, point to electric cooktops as the future.”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/
    article/Last-Word-Are-you-
    cooking-with-gas-12861713.php

    It IS California…

    1. I would think that gas stoves are more efficient. Its direct gas to heat conversion

      Running the same gas through a electric power plant and then distribution system loses a lot of energy

      1. Also electric stoves are just the worst.

        1. unless they’re induction, inductions is the best of both worlds (no idea about efficiency tho)

        2. unless they’re induction, inductions is the best of both worlds (no idea about efficiency tho)

        3. unless they’re induction, inductions is the best of both worlds (no idea about efficiency tho)

      2. Our house had a very nice glass top electric stove when we bought it, so we haven’t been able to justify going out and buying a gas stove.

        I hate it with an abiding passion. Only the part of the pot directly over the little circle gets heated, and I worry about cracking the top.

        It’s back to gas as soon as we can afford the unnecessary expense.

    2. Where do they think electricity comes from?

      1. Not nuclear energy, the cleanest and most environmentally friendly source of energy, thanks to the same idiots who want to ban gas stoves.

      2. Very warm and fuzzy feelings!

      3. Rubbing a balloon on a kid’s head.

        1. What about after they ban balloons because plastic?

          1. More warm and fuzzy feelings!

    1. I can only imagine the media furor in NJ if this was a Christie loyalist when he was governor.

    2. Anyone with a badge thinks they are immune from traffic stops. And the truth is they usually are. You have to be a first class, clueless dickhead to show a badge to a cop and still have them write you up. This woman apparently is just such a dickhead.

      1. It helps that she stood directly in front of the police car camera and microphone.

        1. It makes you wonder how awful she must be normally. You don’t just become that abusive and stupid. It is more of a lifestyle choice.

          1. She’s a leftist power-seeker. I’m sure this is normal behavior for her.

    3. She’s just upset the cop didn’t have a ‘promposal’ for the girl. Very upsetting to be left out.

  28. Can we get over this bullshit that black people are the only people to ever be enslaved, or that what Africans went through at the hands of white people was unique in history? The slaves that were sold to North Africa and the Arab world were treated far worse, and fewer than 5% of Africans who were sold to slave traders (by black warlords and kings) wound up in America.

    This notion that pre-colonial Africa was a free and prosperous continent, that white people “stole” black people from Africa, and that the plight of black people in America historically unique is historical revisionism no different than white Southerners denying slavery had anything to do with racism and the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

    1. So you won’t be signing up at blackpeoplemeet.com?

      1. I actually had my credit card stolen one time and among the charges was a charge to blackpeoplemeet.com, funnily enough.

    2. Secession was about slavery. The war was to establish federal dominance over the states.

      1. Secession was about tariffs that were being used by the mostly Republican north to plunder the mostly Democratic south. The Lincoln admin. never wanted to end slavery. It only didn’t want it to spread into new territories so as to limit the influence of and effectively neuter the Democratic party of the time. For that matter, he didn’t want black people to move into the new territories period and spent his entire presidency working on a plan to deport them from the country.

  29. Inside the Intense, Combative World of Covering the Trump White House

    One of the most unintentionally funny things you will ever read. Give it clicks so we can get more!

    Just wow.

      1. Quit fat-shaming that sad middle aged lady, Crusty. She’s doing the best she can with what little she’s got.

      2. You, my good sir, are a heartless monster.

    1. “There is that natural tension that exists between the press and the people we were covering, but it was never like this,” Acosta says. “We were never called ‘fake news.’ We were never called ‘the enemy of the people,’ and that just created a totally different climate and environment that we are all trying to make sense of and trying to figure out: How do we cover the news in that kind of toxic environment?”

      In many places being a journalist who asks the wrong question will get you killed or thrown in prison. And these assholes think they have it hard because the President says mean things about them on Twitter. How exactly does someone become that self-absorbed?

      1. The guy’s on camera all the time. Being self-absorbed is a requirement.

        1. Yeah. He didn’t become that way. He is that way or he wouldn’t have the job he has.

      2. Unless you worked for Fox. Then the White House said you didn’t work for a real news organization and declined your credentials. But whatevs.

    2. “There is that natural tension that exists between the press and the people we were covering, but it was never like this,” Acosta says. “We were never called ‘fake news.’ We were never called ‘the enemy of the people,’ and that just created a totally different climate and environment that we are all trying to make sense of and trying to figure out: How do we cover the news in that kind of toxic environment?”
      Translation:
      ‘We never had these problems when we were Obo’s lap-dog!’

    3. at a time when political journalists and the First Amendment are under siege

      *facepalm*

  30. “As Reason’s Shikha Dalmia points out, immigrants from these countries “have killed precisely zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. And countries that have sent terrorists?most notably Saudi Arabia, the home of many 9/11 hijackers?aren’t on the list.”

    Countries that Obama listed.

    1. Immigrants from those countries did HURT but did not kill Americans or WANTED TO HURT Americans in various terrorist attacks or planned terrorist attacks.

      The open border people want to pin their hopes to the fact that terrorists from those countries tried and failed to actually kill but hurt Americans. Yea, good luck with that.

      In the end, more and more Americans are siding with tougher border security and immigration rule changes.

  31. It’s funny how liberals get outraged over a dad holding a gun in a joke picture with his daughter’s prom date as a dangerous symbol of gun culture, yet ignore the blatant worship of murder and guns in hip hop.
    Meek Mill was twice caught with an illegal gun. I don’t think he should be in jail, but the hypocrisy is insane, and dangerous. Any crackdown on guns in this country will just throw more black men in prison, since they are far morely to murder somebody, commit a gun crime, and have an illegal gun.

    This isn’t just a right-wing talking point, and anybody who brings it up is called racist.

    1. ignore the blatant worship of murder and guns in hip hop

      They don’t ignore it, they reward it.

      1. The patronizing of black people in this country is blatant racism. It is absurd. Casting black people as the victims of gun violence, while ignoring that they are even more likely to be the perpetrator of gun violence, has reached comical levels of delusion. They’re basically saying that if there are guns around, black people will shoot each other. It’s not their fault. They just can’t help themselves.

      2. Imagine if some white country singer started talking about killing FBI and BATF agents and treating women the way rap stars talk about cops and women. The media would want the guy locked up for life. I wonder if they are so stupid they don’t realize how hypocritical they are or just so arrogant they think no one notices it.

        1. I wonder if they are so stupid they don’t realize how hypocritical they are or just so arrogant they think no one notices it.

          Yes

    2. It’s funny how liberals get outraged over a dad holding a gun in a joke picture

      Who got enraged? Name a couple.

      I also hate Strawman Progressive, btw. He wants to take your Bible and kill your babies.

  32. “San Francisco lax in dealing with sexual assaults, women say”
    […]
    “A short time later, she said, she passed out in the man’s bathroom and later woke to find him raping her in his bed. She then lost consciousness, according to court records.
    […]
    Sutton, who now works for a federal government contractor doing security clearance investigations, said she was told her blood and urine samples did not show any traces of “date rape drugs.” The man’s DNA was found on her neck, but not in the vaginal swabs collected at the hospital, records show.
    […]
    “Society needs to have a paradigm shift before juries will convict” in a case of her type, Sutton recalled the prosecutor saying.”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/
    San-Francisco-lax-in-dealing-with-sexual-
    12859161.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Or maybe she needs to come up with more believable stories.

    1. I love how they actually went through the process and the correct procedure, and she’s still pissed. There are plenty of academics declaring science and facts to be inherently sexist and racist, and that feelings and “lived experiences” should be more important.

      1. And imagine the gall of the guy refusing to have his name drug through the mud over something he says didn’t happen.

  33. make people convicted of domestic violence provide evidence that they don’t own any (legal) firearms.

    “make people provide evidence that they don’t own any (provocative) literature.”

    “make people provide evidence that they don’t possess ‘unusual’ amounts of fertilizer.”

    “make people provide evidence that they don’t plan to drive over people on the sidewalk.”

  34. Finland is ending an experiment with universal basic income.

    Nick Gillespie and the gaggle of fake libertarians at Reason were probably awake all night crying big time over this one.

    If a “basic universal income” can’t even work in Finland, a miniscule, almost all white, socially cohesive country, it’s pretty much impossible to see how it can ever work anywhere.

    1. fake libertarians at Reason

      See Mikey run. Go Mikey go.

      1. I know you’re one of the ones still crying Dave.

        How does it feel knowing that there will never, ever be a “basic universal income” here in the U.S.? Cry, bitch, cry!!

  35. Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    Whenever anything is bipartisan, you can be sure it is terrible. Because bipartisan simply means the left getting their way. Like Ayn Rand said, in any compromise with evil, evil always profits.

  36. “If I was black I’d be picking cotton, but I’m white so I’m picking U 4 prom?”

    Still less distasteful than every promposal involving the threat of arrest.

  37. Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    Gov. Larry Hogan just shot himself in the foot.

    1. Northeastern Republicans are in some ways worse than Democrats. The Democrats are at least honest about their tyranny.

  38. Where is it written that the Executive must give an explanation for rescinding an executive order? If that exists where is it stated that there’s even a legal standard to be met and judged by the judiciary? Executive orders are overreach in the first place. To rescind them is the prerogative of the Executive.

    1. It is not written anywhere. The court’s decision is absurd. You have to go through a process to justify a regulation. But this is not a regulation. It is an executive order. An EO is just the President telling the executive how he wants something done. An EO is invalid only to the extent it exceeds the President’s authority. As long as it is within the President’s authority, the EO is valid. The President doesn’t need to show his work the way an agency does when writing a regulation.

      1. In addition, the idea that a President’s statements surrounding an EO can make it invalid is even more absurd. The first rule of statutory interpretation is that the statute stands for itself. You only look at history and intent if the statute in unclear. In this case, the statute is very clear and nondiscriminatory on its face. It doesn’t ban Muslims from traveling. It bans everyone from certain countries from traveling. It is nondiscriminatory on its face. So to say it is invalid, you have to say that the President does not have the power to ban travel or immigration from certain nations. And he clearly does and has been held to have such power by every court in history. Even this court doesn’t deny that. It just pretends that an EO must be justified and that a statute that is nondiscriminatory on its face can be considered so because the President said mean things. The decision is an outrage. The fact that the lawyers at Volokh, who clearly should know better, support it, means there is no reason to ever take their views on the law seriously again. They clearly are just hacks who will buy any decision that gives them a result they like or they wouldn’t be supporting this one.

        1. I had my rant on this topic the other day at the VC blog.

          The “religious freedom” angle to this is clearly specious. Nobody is even secretly pushing this ban because of religion. It is because of a political ideology that is endemic to that region. Now, that political ideology happens to advocate a theocracy and the violent overthrow of western institutions, but it is the political ideology and affiliation that is concerning, not the religion.

          Trump has clearly picked up a cudgel to do a scalpel’s job here, but claiming religious discrimination is just plain dumb. Trump clearly couldn’t give a rat’s butt who anyone prays to.

          The real test should be “could you ban people from countries that have ideological underpinnings of being at war with the US”. So could Trump ban people from North Korea from entering the US? The have a political identity that is wrapped up in being at war with the US. Surely one could exercise a little added caution with respect to immigrants from this country.

          Countries with a heavy presence of Islamists should be no different.

          1. Lots of countries have a state religion. If the US went to war with one of those countries, you could by this logic argue banning travel to and from a country we are at war with is “religious discrimination”. VC seems to be applying some kind of disparate impact test to actions of the executive. Their argument seems to be that since the countries are majority Muslim and Trump said some bad things about Muslims, the disparate impact that an otherwise facially nondiscriminatory action is now discriminatory because it has a disparate impact on a particular religion Volokh claims the President doesn’t like. It is like Griggs v. Duke Power replacing Chevron.

            There is no way in hell Volkh would ever agree to such bullshit logic in any other context. They only are doing so here because they don’t like Trump and they have a fetish for immigration. It is a very sad statement about their intellectual integrity. They are not journalists who are just too dumb to know better. They know this is bullshit but support it anyway and pretend it isn’t because they like the result. It is just disgraceful. I don’t always agree with them but I have always respected them. Their hackish idiocy on this subject has caused me to lose pretty much all of that respect.

          2. I noticed that folks might not get my meaning when I say “Trump clearly couldn’t give a rat’s butt who anyone prays to.”

            Trump said “Two Corinthians” when trying to pander to Christian voters. Two Corinthians. The guy claims a Christian background but says “Two Corinthians”. Very few self-proclaimed atheists would make that mistake. The guy clearly doesn’t spend any time thinking about religion.

            1. I think you are right about that Cyto. I think Trump’s wife might be a decent Catholic but not him. He is not hostile to religion and is willing to stand up for religious people’s rights but otherwise isn’t interested in the subject. And that at least to me seems like a good quality in a President. People who want to save souls should join the Church.

    2. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. They are here illegally. What part of deporting an illegal alien possibly fails to pass any constitutional test?

      i’m also confused about the Reason take. We are “open borders libertarians”. Ok, but what does supporting legal immigration have to do with taking the position that the executive branch cannot enforce the law as written and deport illegal aliens? Because Obama super-promised that if you came here before you were 18 you could stay? Does that in any way have the force of law? How could that possibly supersede the actual law?

      Libertarians are often policy and legal pedants. Why are we tossing out our normally debilitating social disorders on this one? Don’t we usually die on the hill of strict interpretation of letter of the law on principle as well as the actual law? Is it because Trump is the protagonist who happens to be asserting the law as written?

      It is perfectly possible to be in favor of increased or even unlimited legal immigration while at the same time recognizing that DACA was not only unlawful, it was an awful and counterproductive policy that explicitly encouraged minors to enter the country illegally, while also acknowledging that Trump is a giant douche and yet he’s legally correct on this one even if he is on the wrong side of this issue.

      In fact, that kind of “a pox on all of your houses” holier than thou attitude is the classic libertarian milieu. What happened to you guys?

      1. Remember, when Obama did this, Reason was all about “prosecutorial discretion”. They argued that Obama could do it because the President has such authority under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, that he could effectively amend it and allow entire classes of otherwise illegal aliens to have legal status by exercising his prosecutorial discretion not to deport them. Okay, now Trump is President and is exercising that same discretion to deport these people. And now Reason is all about how the President doesn’t have that authority. How do people make these arguments with a straight face?

      2. “”We are “open borders libertarians”.””

        Unless reciprocity is demanded. I question the term.

        I could be for open borders where we have an agreement. If people can cross freely from Mexico to the US, then persons in the US can cross freely into Mexico. If it’s not that way, then we don’t really have an open border.

        People who think an open boarder is only where people openly cross into the US, would not be a libertarian.

  39. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t adequately justify its declaration that DACA is illegal, and he gave the agency 90 days to “better explain its view.” If it can’t, DHS “must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications,” ruled Bates.

    1. Ugh, squirrels.

      How does the judge have the power to demand the President do anything in regards to Executive Orders? The Judiciary has no power to compel a coequal branch to do a damned thing.

      1. anything in regards to Executive Orders

        Constitutionally, a judge could stay an eo that amounted to the exec. creating law, which is what the original DACA eo arguably did. This whole thing is totally fucked, and I thought the striking of the travel ban was pretty grotesque
        usurpation. This is worse.

        1. The president either gets to use the pen and cellphone or not. Obama did it, then so can Trump.

          The result will be tougher immigration laws by Congress to keep lefties from doing this type of stuff in the future.

    2. “U.S. District Judge John D. Bates”

      I wonder what his butler calls him.

      1. Son?

  40. DACA down

    A judge ruled that the president cannot repeal an executive order of a previous president, which is the opposite of what is legal. This is very dangerous territory we are entering.

    1. Rest assured the U.S. Supreme Court is never, ever going to allow “Block Insane Yomomma good, Trump a big giant poopyhead” to stand as the law of the land. Not going to happen.

    2. Judge John D. Bates said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t adequately justify its declaration that DACA is illegal, and he gave the agency 90 days to “better explain its view.”

      Look on the bright side, R.S. This could be applied to *anything*.

      Give the IRS 90 days to “better explain its view” that the federal income tax is legal.

      Give the Supreme Court 90 days to “better explain its view” that refusing to take on a case is legal.

      1. Because tyranny from the bench is good tyranny.

    3. A judge ruled that the president cannot repeal an executive order of a previous president, which is the opposite of what is legal. This is very dangerous territory we are entering.

      The worst part is these progressive activist judges can’t possibly fathom “First me, then you.”

      If there were some manner of White Nationalist Socialist Christian Caliphate looking to seize the reigns of power, it’s pretty clear which positions they should seize.

      1. Given that Bates is a George W. Bush appointee, I’m rather skeptical he’s a “progressive activist.”

        1. Really?

          In what ways was W not progressive?

    4. You know, the President being able to overrule the legislature was one of the key deficiencies in Weimar Germany. It was an inherently bad idea.

      …yeah, let’s do that shit here.

  41. U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D?N.H.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D?R.I.) sent a letter yesterday … pressuring these finanical institutions to disclose any business with Russian oligarchs or political leaders.

    Team Blue is continuing to go all in on this nonsense. I suppose they do not realize how they are contributing to the collapse of their house of cards. Should be fun to observe.

  42. make people convicted of domestic violence provide evidence that they don’t own any (legal) firearms.

    Guilty until proven innocent.

    Gov. Larry Hogan called them “common sense, bipartisan measures.”

    That phrase does not mean what he thinks it means. Christ, MD is such a shithole.

  43. Finland is ending an experiment with universal basic income.

    But did they learn anything? And will American leftists learn anything? ///probablynot

  44. Saving democracy

    I’d rather not.

  45. Can we at least agree on a common set of facts regarding DACA?

    1. DACA was not established via Executive Order, it was established by a change of policy at DHS.
    http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/as…..ildren.pdf

    2. Agencies which issue “rules” are subject to laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which gives courts some judicial oversight on these rules and the rule-making process.

    Now, was the creation of DACA a “rule” subject to the APA? Is the rescission of DACA a “rule” subject to the APA? And even if these two statements are true, are the requirements for judicial review of rules according to the APA met by the present circumstances?

    Those are some of the issues being litigated right now. Trump can issue whatever EOs he likes, and no, courts can’t really challenge that. But if those EOs result in rules at agencies, those rules CAN be challenged subject to the above qualifications.

    IANAL so I don’t know all the details. But I have read enough of the judicial decisions to know that the merits of the arguments are more substantive than just “lol I don’t like Trump so I’m overturning your EO”.

    1. DACA was created through an exercise of executive action, specifically created when then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instructing them to utilize prosecutorial discretion for “certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.” Prosecutorial discretion is the power a government attorney has to decide whether or not to bring criminal charges in a given case. In DACA, Secretary Napolitano was instructing government agencies and officers who oversee immigration proceedings to defer action against persons who illegally entered the US through the actions and choices of their parents or other adults.

      No, it looks like we can’t agree, since your description of what happened is factually inaccurate.

      1. “exercise of executive action” =/= Executive Order

        Yes, creating rules and policies in the Executive Branch qualifies as “executive actions”.

        If DACA was created by an Executive Order, then please cite the EO number that created it.

        1. Yes, creating rules and policies in the Executive Branch qualifies as “executive actions”.

          Sure but not every executive action is subject to review under the APA. That is what you seem to not understand.

          1. Sure but not every executive action is subject to review under the APA. That is what you seem to not understand.

            No, I understand that completely. Some are subject to review under the APA, but some are not. That’s one of the current issues under discussion.

            1. There is nothing to discuss. What is and what is not subject to review under the APA is settled law. And policies are not. It is only “under discussion” because a judge with the support of people like you decided to ignore what the APA clearly says.

              1. What is and what is not subject to review under the APA is settled law. And policies are not.

                Then perhaps you could persuade us all of this instead of just asserting it.

                1. I know it is true because I do this sort of work. And if it is not true, then go find me another example of a policy being reviewed under the APA. You won’t find one. Moreover, I gave multiple examples above of policies and government decisions that are not reviewable under the APA.

                  It is okay that you don’t know this stuff. it is a fairly obscure subject. But, there is no excuse for wanting to remain ignorant to confirm your desired outcome. And that is what you are doing here.

                  1. Then quote the relevant sections of the law. Don’t just do a lame argument by authority.

                2. And you are not fooling anyone by your complete failure to respond to my points below. You are a fucking moron Jeff. And you seem to like being that way.

                  1. Gee, John, I don’t sit at H&R all day.

                    But perhaps you can show us all the sections of the law that support your argument.

    2. 1. DACA was not established via Executive Order, it was established by a change of policy at DHS.
      http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/as…..ildren.pdf

      Which is just another form of executive order. An EO is just a policy that comes from the President. An agency policy is just a policy that comes from the head of the agency. They are both the same except that an EO can overrule an agency policy. Both serve the same function explaining how the exectutive will operate and are inferior to both a Regulation and a Statute. And neither requires the legal process of public comment that a regulation requires.

      2. Agencies which issue “rules” are subject to laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which gives courts some judicial oversight on these rules and the rule-making process.

      No, they are not. Agencies which issue regulations are subject to the APA. Policies and orders are not. The APA requires a formal comment and fact-finding process for regulations and decisions in particular matters. The APA does not require such things for policies that implement regulations. You don’t go to court to get review under the APA for policies. You ask for review for specific decisions that affected you or for regulations. If you could, things like policies relations to how the IRS or DOJ prosecutes people. You could review any policy. And that is not what the APA does.

      1. I’d also ask when was fact-finding process, etc ever occurred for DACA. I don’t remember much of a time for comment on it.

    3. Now, was the creation of DACA a “rule” subject to the APA? Is the rescission of DACA a “rule” subject to the APA? And even if these two statements are true, are the requirements for judicial review of rules according to the APA met by the present circumstances?

      No. And why do we know that? Because Obama said it was an exercise of Prosecutorial discretion when he did it. If the recision is subject to the APA, then the initial rule would be as well. Of course, it wasn’t and no one on either side claimed it was. The objection to DACA was that it took the discretion given the executive to refrain from prosecuting individual cases and expanded it to mean they could refrain from prosecuting entire classes of cases and effectively amend the INA without going to Congress. If anyone had tried to stop DACA on the basis of the APA, its supporters would have rightly laughed them out of court. For them to now to try and hide behind the APA is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy I have ever seen.

      1. If the recision is subject to the APA, then the initial rule would be as well.

        Whether DACA itself was subject to the APA was never actually litigated.

        If anyone had tried to stop DACA on the basis of the APA, its supporters would have rightly laughed them out of court.

        Arpaio did. His challenge was dismissed based on lack of standing, not based on the merits of the claims themselves.

    4. Even if #1 is technically correct, DHS doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change federal statute as duly passed by Congress and signed into law by a sitting president, nor does a federal agency have the authority to decide they’re not going to enforce said federal statute.

      Your hero the Obamessiah publicly admitted this himself before he went ahead and had his peeps do it ahead anyway.

      1. DHS’s policy regarding DACA was it declaring a significant portion of the INA null and void. If people like Jeff think that is proper, then why can’t the EEOC decide that it is no longer going to pursue racial discrimination cases under the CRA. It would be exactly the same sort of exercise of power over the CRA that DHS exercised over the INA. Jeff and his ilk would, of course, have a stroke if Trump’s EEOC did that. Basically, there are no rules for people like Jeff other than his side always wins.

        1. Lawyer question: does this judge’s ruling set any sort of legal precedent? If it does, the proggies who are cheering it now may be crying in their organic beer in a few years time, when it transpires that President (whichever lefty hero du jour) can’t undo a horrible executive action of Trump’s.

          1. Only with regard to whatever findings of fact he made regarding this particular case. His findings of law, which is all this case is, are in no way binding on any other judge.

        2. I never claimed that DACA was proper. Don’t lie, John.

  46. …”arbitrary and capricious,” a federal judge yesterday blocked the White House’s plans to deport young immigrants who had been allowed to stay here under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative.
    Speaking of arbitrary and capricious. This court decision is another bad decision that clearly violates the separation of branches of government. Congress gave the power of to control immigration to the president or Obama’s DACA plan is completely unconstitutional.

    These lefties cannot have Obama use a pen and phone to authorize the DACA and then say trump cannot use HIS pen and phone to de-authorize the DACA.

    1. Sure they can. They just did and the morons who write for Reason are cheering about it.

      1. Most people who claim to be libertarians really aren’t, and most people claim to believe in the rule of law, but really don’t.

    2. “”These lefties cannot have Obama use a pen and phone to authorize the DACA and then say trump cannot use HIS pen and phone to de-authorize the DACA.”‘

      I usually say what is created by EO and be ended by EO. In this case, what is created by memo, can be ended by memo.

  47. Part of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 706, says:

    To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall?
    (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
    (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be?
    (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
    (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
    (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
    (D) without observance of procedure required by law;
    (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
    (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706

    1. And the term “agency action” is defined in 5 USC 551, as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act”.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/551

      So it appears that the APA does not just cover formal regulations, but can also cover a diverse range of actions that an agency may take. So once again how would the implementation of DACA, or its rescission, not fall under the purview of the APA?

      I will freely admit that I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the relevant caselaw, so perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable can give a clear explanation on this.

  48. The rule of law is DEAD in this country. The judicial branch is out of friggin’ control!

    “arbitrary and capricious” could ALSO be used to describe Obama’s decision to completely ignore federal law as passed by congress! The very notion that a president needs to justify his revoking a previous executive decision is patently ridiculous on every level. This stuff is completely out of control. Whether you agree or not with the decision, to illegally block it on grounds that make no sense is literally ignoring rule of law in the worst possible way. If I were Trump I’d order them to NOT renew any of this shit and ignore the illegal court order. Then I’d start by deporting a few DACA kids immediately, and then tell the Dems to come back to the negotiating table or the rest of them are going next.

    Half the country would FLIP OUT, but the other half would throw a party. I’d be throwing a party. I’m part Mexican on my moms side, but this shit has got to end.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.