Reason Roundup

Trump Supreme Court Pick Expected Today—On 14th Amendment Anniversary

Plus: Library group ditches Laura Ingalls Wilder, Trump takes on federal employee unions.

|

Ron Sachs/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom

July 9, 2018, marks 150 years of the 14th Amendment. We're also expected to hear tonight from President Donald Trump about his nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The convergence of these momentous events is appropriate," writes Jeffrey Rosen at The Atlantic. Kennedy, "more than anyone else in America, has defined the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment for the past three decades."

(More on Kennedy's 14th Amendment legacy here. "We cannot forget that he was one of the five justices who joined the Supreme Court's decision to invalidate a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, setting the stage for massive voter suppression around the country," writes Sherrilyn Ifill at Politico. "This and other setbacks hurt….But even with his unpredictability on matters of race and equality, Justice Kennedy gave us a reason to hope. To make our arguments. To expect that he might be persuaded to realize the Constitution's promise.")

The Fourteenth Amendment—greenlit by a 23rd state (and thus cleared for adoption) on July 9, 1868—says that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It was passed to grant citizenship and equal protection to freed slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War (and three years after the 13th Amendment formally ended slavery).

It's been at the center of a number of huge (and sometimes hotly contested) Supreme Court cases, including Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Lochner v. New York (1905), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and Loving v. Virginia (1967).

"Today the Fourteenth Amendment stands among the most often cited and most litigated of constitutional provisions," writes American Bar Association President Linda Klein. It "has supported and inspired landmark civil rights legislation, including laws that bar discrimination in education, employment, and housing. Rarely does a Supreme Court term pass without a major ruling that has its roots in the Fourteenth Amendment, including recent decisions on such noteworthy topics as affirmative action and voting rights. The amendment's section on public debt has even been cited in debates over raising the federal debt ceiling."

"An even broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment may reshape American society in the 21st century," suggests historian and New School lecturer Amanda Brickell Bellows.

But the Fourteenth Amendment didn't have such an auspicious start at the Supreme Court. It was "originally intended to allow Congress and the courts to protect three fundamental values: racial equality, individual rights, and economic liberty," writes Rosen.

But the amendment was quickly eviscerated by the Court, and for nearly a century it protected economic liberty alone. Justice Kennedy embraced all three values of the Fourteenth Amendment, invoking it to protect reproductive autonomy and some forms of affirmative action, as well as to establish marriage equality, but also to limit federal economic regulations, such as the Affordable Care Act. His replacement will determine which vision of the amendment prevails for decades to come.

According to the White House rumor mill as reported through myriad publications, Trump's top picks are:

  • Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 46, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • Judge Thomas Hardiman, 53, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
  • Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • Judge Raymond Kethledge, 51, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

"Trump had a strong favorable reaction to Kethledge, while Barrett was seen as a less likely choice. The president's interview with her was only about 30 minutes—shorter than with the others," according to Bloomberg.

FREE MINDS

Library group disassociates from Laura Ingalls Wilder. Over the past six decades, 23 people have been awarded the American Library Association's prestigious Laura Ingalls Wilder award, which "recognizes authors and illustrators whose books have created a lasting contribution to children's literature."

But going forward, the award will no longer bear Wilder's name. The author of the Little House on the Prairie series, Wilder's work "holds a significant place in the history of children's literature and continues to be read today," said the ALA's Association for Library Service to Children Board (ALSC) in a statement.

Wilder's books are a product of her life experiences and perspective as a settler in America's 1800s. Her works reflect dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities. ALSC works within the context of our society as a whole, where the conversations taking place inform our work and help us articulate our core values and support of diverse populations.

The late-June move has since sparked sympathy and indignation, along with a range of more nuanced grappling with Wilder's legacy.

FREE MARKETS

Federal employee unions vs. Trump. Executive orders issued in May will be implemented today, and are "likely to escalate tensions" between federal employee unions and the Trump administration. Though the rules are ostensibly "an effort to streamline a bloated bureaucracy and improve accountability within the federal workforce"—a cadre of some 2.1 million people—they're obviously being viewed with hostility by federal employee union officials. From The Washington Post:

The administration wants agencies to reopen collective bargaining agreements to reduce the on-duty time union representatives spend representing employees. Managers are directed to "monitor and carefully report" on the time and make the information publicly available. And agencies are directed to move swiftly to fire poor performers, renegotiating any contracts that allow for progressive discipline. The conflict appears headed for a showdown, either in federal court, where the unions have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the orders, or in Congress. The administration and the unions have courted Capitol Hill allies, with Republicans supporting Trump's tactics and Democrats backing the unions, a key constituency.

QUICK HITS

NEXT: The Trump Administration Should Conduct a "Disparate Impact Inventory"

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. NOTHING ABOUT THE BEIBER ENGAGEMENT?

    1. the kids wouldn’t stop talking about it and then: An El Paso cop was caught on camera pointing his gun at a group of children.

      1. Almost can’t blame the guy.

    2. Hello.

      Librarian’s are now woke.

          1. Did you just confuse SugarFree and Heroic Mulatto?

            [takes Lovecon89’s History of H&R Commenters 101 certificate, rips it up, and makes the pieces rain on Lovecon89’s head]

            1. Come on, lc’s doing the best he can with what God saw fit to give ‘im.

              1. I should just stick with citing the Constitution and getting as many people as possible to use “Lefties”.

            2. Damn! I fucked up didnt I? I thought it was SugarFree not HM.

              I deserve public shame.

  2. We’re also expected to hear tonight from President Donald Trump about his nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Whom he plans to fire.

    1. Speaking of somebody being nominated…Hillary wants to run in 2020? Seriously?

      PLEASE run her.

      1. I just don’t know what to think of that. Her baggage is out there and has been adjudicated. This time around she would have full cover in the press in order to stave off more of the Hitler we currently have in the White House and journalists would feel fully justified doing it.

        The Democrats right now don’t have a unifying figure palatable to that middle ground of voters who decide elections. She won the popular vote. If she’s capable of learning from her mistakes (and of finding time to visit Michigan and Wisconsin) and if her appearances are managed around whatever wobblies she’s suffering, it could yet be her turn.

        1. Her baggage is nowhere near all the way out there and Trump can insist on more investigations of her. Have the IRS take a gander at the Clinton Foundation books. Start to ACTUALLY prosecute her staff who violated law.

          She looks like an even dirtier and sleazier person NOW than she did in 2016.

          And her entire campaign was “Man, how bad will Trump be?” Well, people don’t seem to freaked out by him. She cannot play that fear again.

          Also, she is a thoroughly and utterly unlikeable person.

      2. Who else are the Dems going to run at this point? They’re still in the midst of their alignment transition to becoming the anti-white party, and no one is even close to having the fundraising machine that Hillary’s built up for 25 years. She’ll have plenty of people wanting to vote for her again who felt she was robbed by DUH RUSSHNZ of her birthright.

        The only other person in the party with her profile is Elizabeth Warren, and while I don’t doubt that Warren would like to run, she doesn’t have the guts to run against Hillary. 2020 will be the last gasp of the white Boomer leftists to hold on to whatever scraps remain of the political power they’ve attained since Watergate, before they’re pushed out and marginalized by the party’s minority and factionalized base.

    2. I hope she collapses on a debate stage and the multi-tentacled monstrosity that has been piloting her for the last however many years comes bursting out of some slimy orifice. Horrifying all spectators.

  3. For those of you about to give some other citizens’ statistics, who cares? Do we need more?

    Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
    About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

    Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

    1. Time for GOP to actually cut spending then!

      Ha Ha LMFAO! GOP cut spending?

      Won’t happen.

      1. Why set up a situation where spending would go up even more?

        1. I agree. I’m an Open Society, open borders guy. But if you provide an incentive to attract migrants expect them to pour in.

          If the GOP actually cut spending someday I would not be so critical of those useless bastards.

          1. It’s the republicans fault the democrats started welfare.

            1. So medicare expanded all on its own in 2003. Republicans may not create these abominations but they certainly love feeding them.

              1. No joke. Bush may have been a nice and compassionate guy.

                He wasn’t conservative.

                Neither is Trump, he is just more of one than Bush with his push to end regulations.

              2. RINOs sabotage budget cuts. RINOs tend to be Democrats who cannot win elections without saying that they are Republicans.

                Top 25 RINOs

            2. No, but it’s absolutely their fault for campaigning on promises to fix it, gaining a majority in both houses of congress along with the presidency, and not doing it.

              1. The Republicans cannot pass a fiscal bill that guts budgets. Some Democrats need to vote in the Senate to get 60 votes and they refuse to vote for a bill that cuts budgets.

                Its not 100% Republican’s fault. They had to compromise.

                With that being said, the many RINOs in the GOP refuse to cut budgets like Libertarians would so there’s that. Even the fiscal conservative in the GOP would probably never cut budgets like Libertarians would.

          2. I don’t even know if it’s that. A greater proportion of immigrants also live in places with a lot of welfare being offered. I wish I knew where my old post where I analyzed that paper more. There’s a lot of details in that paper that are very interesting.

        2. Why set up a situation where spending would go up even more?

          You mean like building a pointless wall?

          1. The wall may very well do nothing. It will be a drop in the bucket compared to welfare spending.

            1. I’m always amazed walls cannot work — but green energy? THAT shit is money and guaranteed!

              1. Is there someone here arguing in favor of ‘green energy’?

              2. How about a solar-powered electric fence? Would that satisfy everyone?

            2. Really? What do you expect the government to do, just build the wall and walk away? How about maintaining it? How about staffing it with border guards? How much will this all cost?

              And this is not even considering that, like with all prohibitions, (1) people find more and more clever ways around the prohibition, and (2) the ratchet of enforcement must steadily crank upwards. Even if a border wall reduced undocumented migration via direct crossing of the border, those determined to come here would just find alternative means of coming here. And then they’d wind up on welfare as you complain. And WE the CITIZENS would be subject to ever more intrusive deprivations of our liberty in order to stop the ‘illegal invaders’. How much will THAT all cost?

              1. It will cost less than all the court hearings illegals receive and chasing down the same illegals over and over.

                Border security costs money. So does national defense.

                1. Hey, here is a thought – stop chasing down the undocumented immigrants and throwing them into cages! That will save money too.

                  1. Hey, here is a thought–end the welfare programs and undocumented immigrants will stop coming to take advantage of the gibs. That will save money on both the front end and the back end.

                    1. I agree with ending the welfare programs.
                      But even if we did that, there would still be undocumented immigrants coming for economic opportunity.
                      Then what?

                    2. But even if we did that, there would still be undocumented immigrants coming for economic opportunity.

                      Not nearly as many as before.

                      But, please let the record show that I proposed a solution that would save taxpayers money,

                      As long as the welfare programs exist, the money will not be saved.

                      presumably because it didn’t treat undocumented immigrants harshly enough.

                      Yeah, it’s super-harsh that we should expect these hard-working immigrants to feed their own kids and pay for their own healthcare rather than have the state do it.

                      As you inadvertently pointed out, ending these programs would be a punishment for them all on their own, as well as their in-group citizen brethren.

                    3. I proposed saving money by not expending scarce resources tracking down undocumented immigrants and throwing them in cages. You rejected that.

                      The argument about “but they cost me money” is just a ruse. You don’t want them here at all, welfare or not, despite the cost.

                    4. I proposed saving money by not expending scarce resources tracking down undocumented immigrants and throwing them in cages. You rejected that.

                      As long as the welfare programs exist, the undocumented immigrants will be thrown in cages.

                      The argument about “but they cost me money” is just a ruse. You don’t want them here at all, welfare or not, despite the cost.

                      You’re right, I don’t want more welfare recipients coming here if we’re stuck with the programs, since they cost me money (and result in increasingly shittier schools and trashy neighborhoods). End the programs, and then we can talk about open borders.

                    5. Oh just be honest for once. The welfare costs are just the motte in a motte-and-bailey argument. I’ve seen enough of your postings to come to the conclusion that you just don’t want more Hispanics here, period, whether they consume welfare or not. I strongly suspect that if I could wave a magic wand and end the welfare state tomorrow, you would find some other reason to object to open borders.

                    6. The welfare costs are just the motte in a motte-and-bailey argument. I’ve seen enough of your postings to come to the conclusion that you just don’t want more Hispanics here, period, whether they consume welfare or not.

                      You’re right, I don’t want more welfare consumers here. That you don’t seem to have a problem with it is hardly the fault of the programs themselves.

                    7. You’re right, I don’t want more welfare consumers Hispanics here.

                      There, FIFY

                      And I do have a problem with more welfare consumers here. I also have a problem with the state throwing innocent people in cages. I’m able to advocate being against both at the same time. You however cynically use the welfare argument as a more polite justification for throwing innocent people in cages.

                    8. We. Do. Not. Want. Open. Borders.

                      Full stop.

                      You’re advocating completely open borders.

                    9. But, please let the record show that I proposed a solution that would save taxpayers money, and RRWP rejected it, presumably because it didn’t treat undocumented immigrants harshly enough.

                    10. You’re proposal to save money was to allow them to use welfare, indefinitely, and have literally no controls over entrance as we shouldn’t imprison people only for crossing the border illegally.

                      Seems like an invitation for millions to be added to the welfare rolls, which seems to violate any efforts to cut spending.

                    11. You’re proposal to save money was to allow them to use welfare, indefinitely, and have literally no controls over entrance as we shouldn’t imprison people only for crossing the border illegally.

                      Well, it’s cool to see you just asserting what he’s saying, even if it’s not what he’s saying. It takes a powerful man to do that.

                    12. Except that we’ve had welfare for decades and decades. And what we used to see wasn’t as much illegal immigration, it was seasonal workers.

                      To put it simply, illegal workers aren’t bringing their families over for welfare. They’re bringing their families over because border security makes it hard to go home to their families. Welfare is incidental to their decisions. The real incentive is a job.

                    13. And what we used to see wasn’t as much illegal immigration, it was seasonal workers.

                      To put it simply, illegal workers aren’t bringing their families over for welfare. They’re bringing their families over because border security makes it hard to go home to their families

                      So end the Hart-Cellar Act.

          2. That wall will scarcely be pointless in a few years, when Mexico is following Venezuela down the toilet. Indeed, we’ll have to put armed troops all along it to avoid being overrun by starving hordes.

            1. Even crazier is those starving hordes will still be popping out babies.

      2. Republicans try and cut spending all the time.

        Democrats and RINOs whine about it non-stop and the media backs them up.

        1. Republicans try and [sic] cut spending all the time.

          Well over half of Republicans voted for the 2018 Omnibus. A similar proportion of Democrats voted for it. A Republican president signed it into law.

          Maybe you should consider the possibility that the Republican Party really isn’t fiscally conservative.

          1. lc1725? Consider that the Republican Party isn’t perfect? Shut yo mouth!

          2. Fuck, they haven’t been fiscally conservative since, briefly, in 1994 when they first won back the House.

            Then those first three months ended and so did the conservatism.

          3. Sure they are – as long as they have no power to act like it.

          4. Many Republicans are fiscally conservative. The GOP platform advocates fiscal conservatism.

            Might be the RINOs in the GOP that are Democrats hiding to win elections that they cannot win as Democrats. They vote against budget cuts.

            1. When a majority, including the leader of the party, ascribe to a philosophy that allows the 2018 Omnibus to pass, then I’m afraid that means the fiscal conservatives are the true RINOs. The party has left them, and you, behind on this subject.

              1. They’re not going to vote to take money out of their own budgets.

              2. The GOP platform lists fiscal restraint.
                GOP platform
                The Republican path to fiscal sanity and economic expansion begins with a constitutional requirement for a federal balanced budget. We will fight for Congress to adopt, and for the states to ratify, a Balanced Budget Amendment which imposes a cap limiting spending to the appropriate historical average percentage of our nation’s gross domestic product while requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions only for war or legitimate emergencies. Only a constitutional safeguard such as this can prevent deficits from mounting to government default.

                Republican budgets will prioritize thrift over extravagance and put taxpayers first. We support the following test: Is a particular expenditure within the constitutional scope of the federal government? If not, stop it. Has it been effective in the past and is it still absolutely necessary? If not, end it. Is it so important as to justify borrowing, especially foreign borrowing, to fund it? If not, kill it.

                The fact that many RINOs are leaderships does not change the fact of what the platform says about fiscal conservatism.

            2. I am a Libertarian and I know how wishy-washy Republicans can be on fiscal restraint.

              Libertarians would be very restrictive on budgets while Republicans like to fund their projects.

              Its the Lefties hiding among the LP and GOP that sabotage fiscal conservatism. Gary Johnson found this out firsthand as Governor of NM. Rand Paul know this by being in the GOP.

              1. Saying Republicans as a group are “wishy-washy” on fiscal restraint is like saying Democrats as a group are “wishy-washy” on gun control.

                1. All fiscal bills need 60 votes in the Senate and Republicans do not have enough on their team to pass the bills.

                  Democrats refuse to vote for any fiscal bills that massively cut budgets. Schumer demanded things in that Omnibus bill.

            3. If you have to resort to No True Scotsman, you should probably reconsider your stance.

              1. Even among Scotsman there were British saboteurs.

                I thinks it funny that some people consider RINOs and LINOs as strong Republicans and Libertarians.

                You have to ask why would an anarchist want to be among Libertarians.

                Why would a Democrat want to be in the GOP?

      3. Cut? Weren’t Democrats wailng about planes falling out of the sky and tainted food entering the market the last time the Republicans proposed simply to increase spending at a slower rate?

        1. The House works on a simple majority vote and controls the budget.

          The GOP fully controls the House.

          Anyone with a 10th grade civics textbook should know this.

          BUT ITS THEM DEMOCRATS FAULT doesn’t work in the Age of the Con Man.

          1. RINOs are mostly Democrats hiding in the GOP. They vote against budget cuts.

            Evidently, the majority is Democrats, RINOs, and LINOs vs Libertarians and Republicans.

              1. I collect more Lefty tears, the more you speak.

              2. Useful idiots like Butthole hate the truth being exposed and openly discussed.

            1. The RINOs are the Rand Pauls and the Justin Amashes who actually want to cut spending.

              How many failures to cut spending will it take for you to understand that The Republican Party itself doesn’t stand for cutting spending?

              1. Fiscal restraint is a GOP platform item.

                If you are not a fiscal conservative, then your are a RINO.

                Rand Paul is a Republican. He has Libertarian qualities but he has disappointed us Libertarians many times.

                1. And I’m sure Mitch McConnell was reading the Republican platform when he passed the Omnibus bill, right?

                  Republicans put all sorts of crap into their platform in order to fool the rubes into thinking they believe in ‘fiscal responsibility’. But the reality is, they spend just as badly as Democrats when they are in charge.

                  Who broke the sequester spending caps? It was PAUL FN RYAN

                  1. chemjeff radical individualist|7.9.18 @ 11:01AM|#
                    And I’m sure Mitch McConnell was reading the Republican platform when he passed the Omnibus bill, right?
                    Republicans put all sorts of crap into their platform in order to fool the rubes into thinking they believe in ‘fiscal responsibility’. But the reality is, they spend just as badly as Democrats when they are in charge.
                    Who broke the sequester spending caps? It was PAUL FN RYAN

                    All fiscal bills require 60 votes in the Senate.

                    Democrats currently need to vote for budgets.

                    1. Right so it’s the Democrats’ fault that Republicans overwhelmingly voted in favor of the most recent Omnibus spending bill.
                      Or the one before that.
                      Or the one before that.

                    2. Its mostly Democrat’s fault and partly Republican’s fault to not cut budgets.

                2. When 90% of an organization is “not really part of the organization”, your organization has a problem.

                  1. RINOs are a problem for the GOP alright.

                    The GOP doesn’t kick anyone out of the party.

                    People like Trump know the difference between Republicans and that is why he supports their Republican opponents sometimes.

                    1. Why you, the “libertarian”, spend so much effort trying to defend the indefensible GOP record on spending, is beyond me.

                      Oh wait no it’s not.

                    2. I counter the nonsense some of you people spout.

                      I would also counter the nonsense that Democrats are not socialists, if you tried to peddle that.

                      Trump wanted to gut various agencies and submitted his budget. Some Republicans supported it, RINOS were mostly against it, and Democrats were nearly 100% against it. The massive cuts failed.

                      Republicans need Democrats to vote for a budget to pass. Republicans get blamed for government shutdowns. Republicans compromised in a horrible Omnibus bill that did not cut spending.

                      I suspect Trump is playing the long game and wait for Republicans to sweep Democrats in election 2018. Then he will pressure a 60 Republican Senator majority and House RINOs to pass massive budget cuts.

    2. Frankly, I don’t trust any stats on this issue. The organization behind cited study has an agenda, just like the organization that runs this website has an (opposite) agenda.

      1. It is worse than that. CIS is lying about their own numbers. See the comment below.

    3. Here’s some more statistics for you

      From the caption to Table 8:

      Table 8 shows how the difference between immigrant and native welfare costs varies depending on the controls. The first row gives the baseline estimate with no controls other than an indicator for immigrant status. In the no-control scenario, immigrant households cost $1,803 more than native households, which is consistent with Table 2 above. The second row shows that the immigrant-native difference becomes larger ? up to $2,323 ? when we control for the presence of a worker in the household. The difference then becomes gradually smaller as controls are added for education and number of children. The fourth row shows that immigrant households with the same worker status, education, and number of children as native households cost just $309 more, which is a statistically insignificant difference. The fifth row shows that immigrants use fewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children.

      But that is just some leftie or Cato open-borders reference, right?

      1. The fifth row shows that immigrants use fewer welfare dollars when they are compared to natives of the same race as well as worker status, education, and number of children.

        It’s hilarious that you think that pointing out that Hispanic immigrants using less welfare dollars than Hispanic natives is some sort of argument for importing more Hispanics into the country.

        1. Who here is in favor of “importing” anyone?

          1. Tell us some more how more Hispanic immigrants will lower welfare program usage.

            1. I didn’t say they would. All I said is that they aren’t the bogeymen that you and CIS make them out to be.

              Once again, who here is in favor of “importing” anyone?

              1. I didn’t say they would. All I said is that they aren’t the bogeymen that you and CIS make them out to be.

                No, you said that they use less welfare than their Hispanic native brethren. So how exactly is being open-borders and bringing in more Hispanic immigrants going to lower welfare program usage?

                Once again, who here is in favor of “importing” anyone?

                You are.

                1. No, you said that they use less welfare than their Hispanic native brethren.

                  Actually, that was CIS’s own statistics which came to this conclusion.

                  So how exactly is being open-borders and bringing in more Hispanic immigrants going to lower welfare program usage?

                  It probably won’t, in the short term. But hey, guess what, I can advocate simultaneously for two things at once that will increase human liberty: ending welfare AND opening borders.

                  And you seem to be confused about the distinction between “encouraging people to come here” (aka “importing”) and “not initiating violence against people wanting to come here”.

                  If the state doesn’t throw you in a cage for visiting a store, that is not equivalent to the store’s owner “importing” you into the store. Get it?

                  1. Actually, that was CIS’s own statistics which came to this conclusion.

                    Doesn’t change the fact that you think it’s an argument in favor of increased immigration.

                    It probably won’t, in the short term. But hey, guess what, I can advocate simultaneously for two things at once that will increase human liberty: ending welfare AND opening borders.

                    That you think those immigrants are going to support the ending of those programs shows how delusional you are.

                    If the state doesn’t throw you in a cage for visiting a store, that is not equivalent to the store’s owner “importing” you into the store. Get it?

                    Right, a society is just like a business. No wonder you think there’s no social or economic costs to increasing immigration from third-world shitholes.

                    1. Doesn’t change the fact that you think it’s an argument in favor of increased immigration.

                      I think it’s an argument for not treating Hispanics as some type of immigration bogeymen.

                      You seem to be under the misconception that I am “pro-immigration”. I am actually pro-liberty. Whether the exercise of liberty results in more immigration, or less immigration, is immaterial to me.

                      No wonder you think there’s no social or economic costs to increasing immigration from third-world shitholes.

                      Of course there are costs. There are also benefits. But those are immaterial to me. What is important is increasing human liberty. If we are going to make the exercise of liberty contingent on whether the outcome is ‘good’ or ‘bad’, then that is the statist position, not the libertarian position.

                    2. You know it’s always you guys that add race to this debate, right? As if you think that all people from Central and South America are a single race. As if you think ‘hispanic’–an ethnicity–is a race.

                      Why is that?

                      Is it because the only ‘argument’ you have is to scream ‘racist’ at anyone who disagrees with you like the lowest of gibbering SJWs?

      2. Welfarism is a function of race?

        1. The alt-righters seem to think so.

          But don’t you dare mention whitey getting SSDI checks.

          1. “Keep yer gubmint hands off my draw checks!”

          2. “Alr righters”…? Try again Chem. If we’re talking about poor people, all colors, creeds and sexes want to be re-compensated for paying into social security. Arguably, it’s one of the reasons they’re all still poor. The least they could do is expect to get back what was promised to them.

    4. Ph, Longtorso. Quoting the Center for Immigration Studies on immigration statistics is like taking an Abstaining From Masturbation class from Crusty.

      1. Is that why he’s Crusty?

  4. According to the White House rumor mill as reported through myriad publications, Trump’s top picks are…

    …not literally Hitler, which is what they are according to the Twittersphere.

    1. Well, only because the President probably won’t appoint himself. We’ll have to settle for literally Mussolini.

      1. What about Literally Mengele?

        1. I think literally Blondi would make a fine choice.

        2. Literal Mengele,
          His dangling participle,
          Actually dangling.

      2. Shouldn’t it be literally Freisler?

        1. Eichmann?

          1. Freisler was President of the People’s Court and participant in the Wannsee Conference.


  5. The vicious circle of Islamist terrorism and far-right extremism

    While Islamist terrorists get close scrutiny, their far-right counterparts often do not. But that is changing, especially as studies show jihadists and the far-right not only reflect each other, but feed off each other.
    …..

    The study in Germany by the Jena Institute with the London Institute for Strategic Dialogue looked at far-right and Islamist content online between 2013 and 2017 on Facebook and Twitter, as well as on gaming apps and secret channels.

    The study’s authors say the two groups utilize similar rhetoric and symbols, historical references, and memes ? an attempt to extinguish middle ground and recruit new members to their cause by offering a sense of identity.

    They often co-opt each other’s language. Far-right groups have called for “white jihad,” for example. And Robert Timm, the leader of white nationalist group “Identit?re Bewegung” in Berlin and Brandenburg, refers to himself as an “ethno-jihadist” on his Twitter profile.

    https://goo.gl/oX8Q9S

    Beware of your far right political kin, Trump-tards.

    1. Yet the Muslims kill and rape FAR more people.

      But, hey, they both do memes, so they’re equally bad.

      1. No, they’re not equally bad.

        Islamo-fascists are worse than our lame-o Xtian fascists.

        1. Yes, it seems logical that somebody killing and raping is just as bad as somebody making bad memes.

          1. I mean, since BOTH are fascists and all, they are still equally bad.

            Given your choice of the word “fascist” as meaning “something unpleasant”.

      2. Yeah, memes are terrible. Bombs are fine, of course, but fuck, memes?

        1. Far right extremists have set off a number of bombs in the USA since 1990. I lived two miles from one in Atlanta where some Aborto-Freak bombed a womens clinic.

          1. It would be better had you been closer.

          2. Feel free to list them.

            THEN compare them to Islamic bombings.

            Hell, then compare them to far left ones, like Earth First et al.

            1. The environmentalist and anti-war far left was fond of terrorist bombing in the 60s and 70s.

              Then the right went whacko during the Clinton years beginning with the OKC bombing as revenge for Ruby Ridge and Waco. There have been over 70 deaths since 2006 at the hands of far right domestic terrorists.

              The left has backed off the bombing since the 70s.

              1. Then the right went whacko during the Clinton years beginning with the OKC bombing as revenge for Ruby Ridge and Waco. There have been over 70 deaths since 2006 at the hands of far right domestic terrorists.

                I’d love to see the data of these studies.

                Given that the press still claims the Giffords shooting was “right wing”.

              2. Nazis are leftists. Timothy McVeigh was a Nazi sympathizer.

                Did islamo-socialists bomb the Marine barracks in the 1980s?

                Didnt Lefty Ted Kaczynski bomb from the 1970s to the 1990s?

                Please tell us more about how peaceful Lefties have been since….never.

                1. McVeigh was a leftist?

                  Your stupidity knows no limit.

                  I’m done with you except for insults.

                  1. McVeigh was a Leftist Nazi sympathizer.

                    He was also a religious cult sympathizer.

                    He was also a hater of the Police -State.

                    Ironic though, that after his bombing the Police-State got bigger and more powerful.

                    1. In Lovecon89’s brain, “leftist” and “evil” mean the same thing. He cannot distinguish between those two terms.

                    2. Actually it’s noting National Socialist’s penchant for having the State own or control the means of production, having the State micromanage the economy, having the State in control of speech, the media, the education system, the health system.

                      Basically how precisely national socialism falls within the stated definition of socialism–which is proudly leftist.

                      And then pointing out that McVeigh liked Nazis, not Ayn Rand.

                    3. In Baculum’s brain, leftists are NOT bad people who want to kill you, control you, hurt you, boss you around, and take your stuff.

                      Evil is a subjective term.

  6. National Review executive editor Reihan Salam explores whether Americans should “really want a truly independent FBI,” and whether an “independent FBI in keeping with America’s constitutional order.”

    how about competing FBIs, then? they can present their findings on msnbc and fox

    1. Investigational cage matches.

      1. Given his experience in the WWE, that would be perfect for Trump.

  7. The U.K. is considering its own version of “FOSTA/SESTA,” the U.S. legislation making online prostitution ads a federal crime.

    It will call for CCTV cameras pointed at everyone’s computer screen.

  8. Democrats Love Socialism Because They Want To Take Your Stuff And Enslave You
    Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot, like all adolescent socialists, so she qualified to be the Great Pinko Hope for a party in decline. Here’s how bad she is ? she apparently went to college, got a degree in economics, and still ended up a socialist. If she went to med school, she would have probably left a chain smoker.

    …But I bet smart people like Gulag Barbie can totally make socialism work this time, and you’ll be prosperous and free and have your own pet unicorn.

    I’ll name mine “Chet.”

    They are always sure to stick the “Democratic” in front of the “socialism” when they try to sell it to the suckers, but that’s a grift. Do they contend that if we vote in socialism and find that it sucks ? as every single country that has tried it has found ? we can vote it out again? Yeah, uh huh. Seems legit.

    1. s/chain smoker/vivisectionist/

    2. Make sure to mind those young people that modern Socialism is the same tyrannical socialism as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, The Kim Dynasty in North Korea, Franco in Spain, and EU Socialism.

      Sometimes Socialism has constitutions and more liberty minded people to get through first.

      1. Will those young people have even heard of those you list?

        ‘History class’ is full of Maya Angelou, Nelson Mandela and Caesar Chavez, but kind of light on the subjects you’ve brought up.

        These kids have NO historic perspective.

        1. That scares me a lot.

    3. I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence that one of her top issues is student loan debt “forgiveness”.

      1. Tax university endowments to pay off the loans.

        1. Allow bankruptcy to remove the loans and force the schools to pay half of the damages due to poor information provided to students.

          Banks would be raked over the coals if they advised people getting a mortgage half as poorly as colleges advise 18 year olds taking student loans.

          1. But muh educatun is the futur!

          2. Half? A tenth. Maybe a hundredth.

            “You, just barely out of high school (and with increasingly less and less experience, as childhood is increasingly swaddled in bubble wrap) with precisely zero experience and the earning potential of a gnat, should take on somewhere between $80,000 and $500,000 worth of debt, with absolutely no consideration as to the potential of what you’re spending the money on to be able to remunerate you to pay for said debt.”

            If “payday lenders” are a plague on people because of their potential to entrap people of… low economic sophistication, then the student loan scam is a thousand times worse.

            1. Payday lenders are far more likely to provide a service.

            2. I left college with around $30k in debt. And I thought that was a bad deal. How does anyone decide that 6 figures of debt for a college degree is a good plan?

  9. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait goes all-in on Trump-Russia collusion.

    i hope this mueller investigation never ends, which seems the likeliest of all things.

    1. It does seem like it won’t wrap up until about the same time as the high-speed rail project in California.

      1. The sooner he wraps up, the sooner he is out of a job. Why hurry?

  10. An El Paso cop was caught on camera pointing his gun at a group of children.

    He feared for his life. Haven’t you seen Children of the Corn?

    1. “Why, those children weren’t even *caged*!”

      1. Damn free range children. Were they at least on his lawn?

  11. The lefties hate that the 14th Amendment makes sure that states need to set a minimum protection for US Constitutional rights, like the 2nd Amendment.

    California and New York are violating the 2nd Amendment and 14th Amendment by restricting Arms in any way.

    1. Its you far-right wingnuts that hate the 14th with its birthright citizenship, you fool.

      You need to work on your trolling.

      1. Yet birthright citizenship has been followed by Republicans for 150 years.

        In fact, didn’t Republican pass the 14th Amendment?

        Oh that’s right, the Democrats opposed the 14th Amendment. Makes sense, since they hate the 1st and 2nd Amendment too.

  12. Should We Invade Mexico?
    When the 125-million-man criminal conspiracy that is Mexico falls apart completely, as it will, we are going to have to deal with the consequences. Watch the flood of illegals become a tsunami, a real refugee crisis instead of today’s fake one. Watch the criminal gangs and pathologies of the Third World socialist culture they bring along turn our country into Mexico II: Gringo Boogaloo. And importing a huge mass of foreigners, loyal to a foreign country and potentially susceptible to the reconquista de Aztlan rhetoric of leftists, both among them and among our treacherous liberal elite, would create a cauldron for brewing up violent civil upheaval right here at home.

    1. My goodness, Kurt Schlichter is a hysterical loon.

    2. Is there a version of Betteridge’s law of headlines where you very much hope the answer is ‘no’?

      1. The answer to your question is yes.

        From the article:
        “Still, no. Invading Mexico is a bad idea. It would convert the problems of Mexico, created and perpetuated by Mexicans, into our problems. We tried that in the Middle East. It doesn’t work. Making Mexico better for Mexicans is not worth the life of one First Infantry Division grenadier.”

        “So no, we should not invade Mexico. There are no good military options, and none are necessary or wise today, but we may eventually have to choose between bad options. Mexico is failing more and more every day. We are not yet at the point of a military solution, but anyone who says that day can never come is lying to himself and to you. We need a wall, but more than that, we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent. The issue is very clear, and we need to be very, very clear about it when we are campaigning in November. Border security. Period.”

        1. we need the commitment to American security and sovereignty that a wall would physically represent.

          Republicans For Police States!

          1. Anarchists for no state!

    3. Not sure how invading would improve anything. Unless the plan is to do some kind of scorched earth DMZ in northern Mexico. But that might cause a few moral and economic concerns.

      1. Conquer Mexico, steal their oil, and use them as slaves to build a YUGE border wall.

        Don’t you go to his rallies?

        1. Where is all this stolen oil being kept. I mean we stole Iraq’s oil, and now they are oil-less. What did BusHitler do with it? I think Drumpf might be planning to store his stolen oil in Gillibrand’s district just so she will shut her trap.

          1. Look, the Con Man doesn’t actually DO the shit he tells his brain-dead sycophants he will do. That is the beauty of the con.

            1. Obama the con man is no longer president, so he can do no more harm. Trump is rolling back most of Obama’s horrible ideas.

            2. …is this another instance where Palin’s Buttplug finds himself advocating for something horrible, like rape, simply because people with different politics say it’s a bad thing?

            3. Well, yeah, OK, but we stole Iraq’s oil. Where did BusHitler put it?

            4. Also, Reagan was supposed to start WWIII. We must have won decisively and with no casualties.

              Also, we barely escaped WWIII under Goldwater, although we did have that nasty bit of trouble in VietNam but at least it wasn’t WWII.

              1. Yeah, Reagan really let us down there.

    4. Should We Invade

      FULL STOP. Fucking no, No, fucking NO.

      Warmongers are the worst.

  13. The administration wants agencies to reopen collective bargaining agreements to reduce the on-duty time union representatives spend representing employees.

    There should be ZERO on-duty union representation.

    Let the UNION pay their people to represent the UNION. Don’t demand I do it.

    1. Agree. I don’t see why this is even a thing, other than the fact that the unions thought they could get away with it, and the people notionally intended to keep them in check were asleep at the switch.

    2. Really. I thought that was why the unions insist that they have to force non-members to pay dues, to pay for such activities. Apparently that money is going somewhere else.

  14. National Review executive editor Reihan Salam explores whether Americans should “really want a truly independent FBI,” and whether an “independent FBI in keeping with America’s constitutional order.”

    Not if it means another abysmal season of The X-Files.

    1. Poor Scully looked like she had been kidnapped and held by aliens for the past 20 years.

  15. No hockey, no bikes, no chalk drawings, you name it: This B.C. neighbourhood has declared a war on fun

    That first one is liable to result in a state of emergency being declared.

    1. Everyone with kids moves out. Sounds like a great place to live.

      1. Wouldn’t that be a violation of the FHA?

        1. It’s in Canada, so not a thing about it matters.

          1. Heh… right.

  16. Library group disassociates from Laura Ingalls Wilder.

    maybe i’m being naive, but this is just a decision to not user her name on the award, right? if it’s left there, it doesn’t seem like a destructive move worthy of concern about safe spaces. am i wrong on this?

    1. I don’t think it’s so much a “safe spaces” thing as trying to sanitize history. They don’t seem to be pulling all her books from the shelves or anything. But celebrating an author doesn’t mean you endorse every idea and attitude she had.

      1. Yeah if it was an award for “recognizing diversity and inclusiveness in children’s literature” then sure, don’t name it after her. But objectively you can’t suddenly decide that a work of literature didn’t have a “lasting contribution” just because it has aspects you find offensive

        1. Yeah, Little House on the Prairie made a rather large impact on literature. I doubt anything they would approve of today will have similar impact.

        2. How do they feel about Mark Twain?

          1. Thought they hated the language used to describe Jim, even though Jim was the most decent and noble person in his books.

            1. Wait until those ALA prudes discover that Jim and Huck spent most of their time on the raft naked. Problematic AF.

            2. The whole point of Huck Finn is to show the evils of racism. This culminates in Huck’s decision not to turn Jim in, even though he fully believes he will go to hell, since that is what the church taught back then. That scene also shows the difference between true morality, born of empathy and our biology, and religious morality, born of the desire to control others.

      2. “They don’t seem to be pulling all her books from the shelves or anything.”

        Not yet.

        1. The burnings will continue until diversity improves.

    2. There is no history before Our Betters came along. God forbid we have past failures to learn from.

      1. they aren’t removing her books or even saying dont read them, just not naming an award after her.

          1. The smarter Block Yomommatards have figured out that its better to boil the American frog slowly.

            The same exact thing as how once they’ve successfully removed all vestiges of the Confederates from history, they’re going to start doing it to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson next.

            1. A simpleton, a bigot, and Mikey walk into a bar. He orders a drink.

              1. Clearly you understand that I’m talking about assholes like you!

          2. I am sure that Gillespie, Welch, and other Reason staff will come along and advocate this since the SJWs never move from historical statutes and historical texts to eliminating all unfavorable historical references.

            1. Yeah, those guys are always advocating book bans and censorship.

              1. They were for tearing down historical markers because they were statues that SJWs didnt like.

                1. I don’t think that quite accurately summarizes their takes on that question.

          3. Actually, book ban requests almost always come from parents who are objecting to sexual or other “immoral” content.

            Such requests do not originate from the ALA or other literary associations.

    3. It is shameful to pick on a blind woman. Where is the ADA in all of this?

      1. Laura wasn’t blind. It was her sister Mary.

        1. But… Laura was a woman, I think. It is shameful to pick on a woman, even one who is abled. Where is title 9 in all of this?

  17. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait goes all-in on Trump-Russia collusion.

    THERE’S NO WAY THE WORLD’S MOST PERFECT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE LOST THE ELECTION ON HER OWN.

      1. I think she should pick Ruth Bader GInsburg as her VP running mate. They will be unbeatable.

      2. I saw that yesterday and laughed out loud.

        “IT’S MY FUCKING TURN GODDAMNIT!”

      3. The new LaRouche?

      4. Isn’t it supposed to become Chelsea’s turn soon? Is Chelsea going to have to shut down her mom?

    1. In any objective history, that piece will stand as a pillar of TDS literature.

  18. Large-Scale Riots Continue In France For 4th Night
    As GEFIRA reports, for four nights straight, there have been riots between African migrants and the French police in the city of Nantes. The riots began after the police stopped and shot an alleged criminal, named Abubakar.

    On Wednesday the police declared that they shot the African young man in self-defense after he tried to overrun a police-officer.

    1. Just throw a German police officer in the mix, the French will surrender immediately.

      1. These are not “traditional” Frenchmen who are doing the rioting – I’d bet most of them aren’t even French citizens – so they wouldn’t have the same genetic fear of the Bosch.

        And given the sorry state of German manhood today – they failed to beat Mexico and South Korea this last World Cup – they probably couldn’t strike fear in non-Frenchmen, either.

        1. Its soccer. The sport of pussies.

    2. If you are going to over-run something French, it should be the Army.

      1. The French army is bush league. Especially the female conscripts.

    3. Doesn’t he play for Columbus Crew?

    4. Rioting in France, huh? Dog bites man.

  19. “…the promise of racial equality and justice remain unfulfilled.”

    State that “promise” in measurable terms and I might care, unless of course they try to measure outcomes.

  20. DOJ Racks Up 90% Failure Rate In Inauguration Protest Prosecutions, Dismisses Final Defendants https://t.co/DD2jdIxmo7
    ? AMERICA’S LOUDEST PATRIOT (@TimCushing) July 9, 2018

    Hope they’ve at least been keeping a runny tally.

  21. Rotherham whistleblower explains why sex abuse ring was covered up
    …One understands that those at fault would prefer to be damned as liberals rather than bigots, but both of the offical reports state that the council, social services and local police failed to act because the blame was placed on the girls ? some as young as 11 ? who were thought to be responsible for their own fates. Senior’s account is a rough-and-ready book by a woman who is not a natural writer, but it is a valuable snapshot into a very British kind of denial….

    Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
    He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

    1. All politicians are assholes. Vote everyone out, every time.

      1. Vote professional assholes out, get amateur assholes instead.

        Not much of an improvement but at least more fun.

      2. Yeah, but we need to vote the office out of existence, too.

    2. That’s exactly what they want. Dilute the whites and make ’em all bleed into one.

    3. He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

      Well, they’re not being quite as coy about it these days, are they?

      “Magic soil is real! We can bring the entire Third World into a First World country and the socio-economic structure will remain intact!”

  22. “recognizes authors and illustrators whose books have created a lasting contribution to children’s literature.”

    Or we could just memory hole them because they didn’t think exactly like we do in 20-woketeen. Yeah, much better idea

    1. We have always been at war with Little House.

      1. Today’s winning comment.

      2. The local PBS station has been broadcasting LHOTP reruns for years now.

        Who knew that public television would be the propaganda arm for the White Male Cis-Het Patriarchy?

        1. Why would anyone watch or listen to PBS or NPR?

          Mostly propaganda. No thanks.

          1. “Sesame Street”; “Mr. Rogers”; “Car Talk”; “Wait! Wait! Don’t Tell Me!”; “Sneak Previews”; “Fresh Air”, when Terry Gross is interviewing musicians; and many more really good TV and radio shows.

            OK, I’ll leave “Prairie Home Companion” off the list, as Garrison Keillor was unabashedly political, and as Homer Simpson put it, many people believe it needed to “be more funny.” I’ll also concede Terry Gross, when she is touching on any political subject. Also, there’s just a lot of uninteresting politically-heavy filler on PBS.

            As a libertarian, I do have to say that all of the above classic PBS shows could easily have found success on commercial TV or radio. “Sneak Previews” is proof of that, as it made the jump to “Siskel & Ebert & the Movies” on ABC. Sesame Street has a huge merchandising franchise. They did try to make a TV show out of “Car Talk” starring George Wendt; it didn’t catch on, but it had the potential to.

        2. You’re not aware of Koch Foundation funding of PBS?

  23. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait goes all-in on Trump-Russia collusion.

    Uday and Qusay Trump plus most of his staff colluded with Russia in meetings all over the place.

    The question is this – Is collusion illegal?

    No one has posted the law that says it is.

    1. Must find Moose and Squirrel.

    2. Lol.

    3. Was it Uday or Qusay who ran into traffic to help a woman last week?

      I cannot remember which one it was.

      1. Oogie and Queasy assumed ambient temperature almost 15 years ago, courtesy of the 101st Airborne. They’re not going to be rescuing anyone anytime soon.

  24. “setting the stage for massive voter suppression around the country”

    But he gave you abortion so we’re all square, right?

    PS. cite f’ing needed

    1. I actually meant to say “gay marriage” not “abortion”. More coffee…

      1. “I meant to say ‘Please pass the salt’ but it came out ‘You bitch, you fucked up my entire life!'”

        1. One of the best jokes evah!

    2. I’m sure it was “massive”. You know, “studies”. And faith. And the narrative. Don’t question the damn narrative.

  25. “Thirty-three pregnant Cambodian women hired to act as surrogate mothers were formally charged with surrogacy and human trafficking offenses.” … “Developing countries are popular for surrogacy because costs are much lower than in countries such as the United States and Australia, where surrogate services can cost around $150,000.”

    This is creating a real trade deficit issue with Cambodia. We need tariffs to protect our national security and put American wombs back to work again!

    1. Make America Gravid Again.

  26. An El Paso cop was caught on camera pointing his gun at a group of children.

    The video is rage-inducing. I mean, how hard is it to turn your phone landscape?

    1. Hold your phone gansta style!

  27. ObamaCare still dying:

    “WASHINGTON?The Trump administration on Saturday confirmed it is suspending billions of dollars in payments expected by insurers under the Affordable Care Act, saying the halt is necessary because of a federal judge’s ruling in a lawsuit over the program.

    The ruling prevents the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the program known as risk adjustment, from making further collections or payments, including amounts for the 2017 benefit year, until the litigation is resolved, the agency said.

    The amount frozen for the 2017 benefit year is $10.4 billion, according to a statement from CMS.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/tr…..530992052?

    They say submissions for 2019 rate increases will go up, but we’re still weren’t seeing anything like competition driving rates down. They all submit for the biggest increases they think they can justify anyway. Yeah, some of them have a greater justification for rate increases now, but that’s hardly the issue. Even without risk adjustment dollars, the system was still circling the drain.

    1. If you like your adjustment dollars, you can keep your adjustment dollars.

  28. “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”

    Emphasis added. Why should a newborn of a non-citizen be so subject?

    1. Serious question, not snarky: How is anyone, except possibly someone with diplomatic immunity, who is inside the boundaries of the United States, not subject to our jurisdiction?

      1. They chose not to be subject to our jurisdiction by coming illegally. Had they chosen to follow the rules, they wouldn’t be here.

        1. No, actually they chose to be subject to our jurisdiction. They just hoped to avoid getting caught. They can be charged with illegal crossing and deported. If that’s not being subject to jurisdiction, then nothing is.

          1. This was pretty much my point. It’s not like coming here illegally somehow grants you immunity to the law. (Well, not yet, anyway.)

    2. Also is bedeviling “accidental citizens “, who are now on the hook for U.S. taxes (or at least the paperwork) even though they don’t consider themselves Americans.

      1. Which should very much be illegal. The government has zero claim to any income you derive if you do not actually work inside the US.

    3. Because US vs Wong Kim Ark says so.

      There are originalist arguments against that decision though, based on debate during the drafting of 14A.

    4. Why should a newborn of a non-citizen be so subject?

      Well the parents are most certainly and clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Otherwise they couldn’t be charged with immigration violations or deported. So it seems to follow that their child would also be so subject.

  29. Justice Kennedy embraced all three values of the Fourteenth Amendment, invoking it to protect reproductive autonomy and some forms of affirmative action, as well as to establish marriage equality, but also to limit federal economic regulations, such as the Affordable Care Act.

    I’m starting to get the idea that the 14th Amendment means whatever a supporter of intrusive federal government wants it to mean.

    1. Unlike any other amendment.

      1. Well, they are called “amendments”.

    2. Pretty much that. Remember that it has been read to mean the government not only can but must intrude in private life in all kinds of ways in the name of “equal protection”. Yet, the one clause that was intended to strictly limit the powers of the states, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, has been virtually read out of the Amendment. The Courts have made the Amendment nothing but a tool to enable expansive government.

    3. I think the problem stems most from the idea that the general police power is unlimited except when it intrudes into some well defined right. Bad enough that the states have such a thing, let alone that it accretes to the federal govt.

      The battle for limited govt was lost in that part of the Federalist papers.

    4. This seems fitting, as always in these types of discussions. Basically, the law is so convoluted that it can be interpreted to support just about any position that someone can preconceive.

  30. Like most of the worst outrages, this one is bipartisan. Unfortunately, it has been true going back to the common law that citizens cannot leave the country without the permission of the sovereign. This remained true under American law and the Constitution. It is an enormous hole in our rights. And something that frankly isn’t protected by the Constitution but should be. This needs to be addressed. Unless someone is wanted for a crime or can be shown to be leaving the country to engage in sedition with the nation’s enemies, I do not think the government has a right to prevent citizens from leaving. Thanks to both sides supporting this, we now have a situation where non citizens seeking to enter the country are afforded more rights and due process than citizens seeking to leave it. And that is completely backward and wrong.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/301466/

    1. Outrageous but hardly surprising. We all know where the government’s real interests lie.

    2. Glad you finally recognize the fundamental right of movement, John.

      1. For citizens to leave to places that will have them, sure. But the right to leave here does not mean that you have a right to demand someone allow you in somewhere else.

        Are you really this stupid? Seriously, can you not understand the difference?

        1. The right to leave a first place implies a right to enter a second place.

  31. move swiftly to fire poor performers

    LOL someone doesn’t understand the entire purpose behind unions.

  32. Welcome back from vacation ENB!

  33. National Review executive editor Reihan Salam explores whether Americans should “really want a truly independent FBI,” and whether an “independent FBI in keeping with America’s constitutional order.”

    Yet more unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats with power – what could go wrong? The elected and accountable government officials we’ve got now are bad enough, do you seriously believe the ones with no oversight would be better? I just really cannot understand the mindset of people who believe that the solution to government abuses of power is to give the government more power.

    1. I honestly can’t understand how anyone could think to have any part of government unaccountable to elected officials is a good idea or in anyway compatible with a free Republic. This is even more true of law enforcement organizations. These idiots seem to actually want a secret police. They have lost their minds.

      1. I don’t get how a conservative publication can actually have pieces published under their heading saying “You know what we REALLY need? MORE unaccountable government bureaucrats!”

        1. It is Trump derangement syndrome. They are so angry that voters ignored them and voted for Trump, they have stopped thinking rationally and just want revenge.

          1. When Cooke has turned into a voice of reason, you might have concerns.

          2. You might be right about the revenge plan. I tended to chock up Lefty TDS to insanity but it does seem like they are trying to lash out and see which revenge plan works.

      2. Yeah. “A police organization which explicitly has no oversight” is on the list of things that are inclined to make me think it’s time to start shooting.

  34. Wanna see some real jackhole behavior on Wall Street?

    This takes the cake!

    “The Commodity Futures Trading Commission took an interest last year when Blackstone’s GSO Capital Partners LP disclosed it had taken out insurance on bonds issued by Hovnanian Enterprises Inc., HOV -0.57% wagering the home builder would default on its debts. Blackstone offered Hovnanian a low-cost loan and persuaded the builder to miss a small interest payment in exchange, which would trigger payouts on $333 million in Blackstone’s credit-insurance contracts and yield the firm tens of millions of dollars, depending on market factors.

    The insurance contracts Blackstone took out, known as credit-default swaps, typically pay out when a company defaults, usually reflecting dire financial straits. But Hovnanian was healthy enough to pay its debts, so a default would be opportunistic.”

    I’m not exactly praising the regulators, here–although it may have been perfectly libertarian for the government to warn Blackstone, Hovnanian, or any other interested party that they might be subject to a fraud investigation.

      1. (yawn) More fascism by you.

        1. You are up late, Mary.

    1. I’m shocked the insurance policy didn’t have a “suicide” clause, effectively making it not pay out in the event of an intentional failure.

      1. It is designed to protect the bond holders, not reward collusion.

        Someone should go to jail for fraud.

  35. the ALA’s Association for Library Service to Children Board (ALSC) in a statement.
    “Wilder’s books are a product of her life experiences and perspective as a settler in America’s 1800s. Her works reflect dated cultural attitudes toward Indigenous people and people of color that contradict modern acceptance, celebration, and understanding of diverse communities. ALSC works within the context of our society as a whole, where the conversations taking place inform our work and help us articulate our core values and support of diverse populations.”

    Writing out incorrect modern displeasure with history is going as planned. The horrors of Socialism as historical fact, will be nothing but rainbows and unicorns soon.

    1. So a bare-chested Stalin on a unicorn riding double with Mao in a rainbow pride parade?

      1. Riding the same white horse as Trump.

        1. Hihn < Mao + Stalin

    2. Like your Fascism?

      Right – Left = Zero

  36. Only about 11 more hours or so until the leftards’ ongoing ragefest kicks up another gear.

    Their capacity to always have a higher rage gear is almost impressive.

    1. I am so giddy about the lefty tears. Especially if Trump picks a person from the Trump list that was not thoroughly discussed by media over the last two weeks.

      The media never say Gorsuch coming and I am sure that Trump has the same plan for the new justice nominee.

      1. You’re a moronic cousinfucker who gets all of his ideas from the asshole of some fat wombat-headed fascist.

        1. Thanks for the lefty tears, you idiotic motherfucker.

          1. Thanks for your serious interest in the future of your community. Oh no wait you just want other people to suffer.

            And for the political leadership to behave the same.

            Totally sane. Definitely don’t have sex with close blood relatives.

            1. Someone’s butthurt over SCOTUS.

            2. You are a prime example of how having sex with your mother creates retarded people.

              1. lc, have you met the fruits of Tony’s sexual congress with his mother?

                1. He discusses his motherfucking here all the time.

        2. That, sir, is an insult to wombats.

  37. Federal employee unions vs. Trump. Executive orders issued in May will be implemented today, and are “likely to escalate tensions” between federal employee unions and the Trump administration. Though the rules are ostensibly “an effort to streamline a bloated bureaucracy and improve accountability within the federal workforce”?a cadre of some 2.1 million people?they’re obviously being viewed with hostility by federal employee union officials. From The Washington Post:

    Time to clean house.

    1. The first major suit against SEIU post-Janus is filed and, damn, it is a doozy. Home care workers suing to get the money replaced that was taken out. Since they didn’t have to opt-in for the deductions, if courts rule for them, unions are going to BLEED money something fierce.

      And given that public unions exist solely to fund Democrats, that could be bad for the Dems.

      1. Home healthcare workers do not make a lot of money. The money the union took from them was very significant to them.

        1. Yeah, home healthcare workers are competing with illegal aliens.

          One of the reasons they might organize is in the hope of making hiring anyone who isn’t licensed a crime.

          Joke’s on them. Hiring illegal aliens is already a crime. No one gives a shit.

          1. The origin of minimum wage was white, unionized workers wanting to protect themselves from southern niggers who would work for less money. Now we’ve got white people wanting to keep southern spics from taking their jobs.

            Only difference is that a hundred years ago, racists were honest about their hatred.

            1. You don’t think that there any northern negroes wanting to keep southern spics from taking their jobs?

            2. Keeping Southern ‘Spics’ from undermining our Rule of Law is racist too.

              Only difference is that a hundred years ago, racist open border anarchists were honest about their hatred for everything Constitutional.

        2. Wait until lavishly-paid pubsec workers get it in on that action. I haven’t actually seen or thought about this angle. And these types are used to getting retroactive pay increases, too. Oh man, this could be huge.

  38. Trussia: Repeat it as often as you can and it becomes ‘troot’.

    As Red Foreman used to eloquently say: Dumbass.

    Hilary keeping her mug in the media makes sense now. She’s planning to run and she has to stay in people’s minds.

    Hilary’s moto: By Mennen.

    1. IT WAS HER TURN!

    2. In all honesty, the Democrat bench isn’t very deep.

      Between St. Bernie, Liz “Dances with Lies” Warren, and Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton might be the strongest candidate.

      . . . which is pathetic.

      1. In all honesty, the Democrat bench isn’t very deep.

        Republicans no longer have a bench at all. REAL libertarians remain the only hope for America. But, while a large majority of Americans self-identify with libertarian values, Cato reports that 90% of THEM reject the libertarian brand, a movement which now rejects those libertarian values.

        1. …do you even do research anymore or do you just post angry assertions?

          1. Hihn < Mao + Stalin

            1. Youre down to 90%?!? Im not mad, Michael. Just disappointed. I still believe in you, though. You can reverse this trend.

              Proof you got this here!

  39. Ratemyprofessors dot com is dropping the chili pepper from their ratings–which was an indication of whether a professor was “hot” according to student reviewers.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliar……nq7Vn0XOk

    They’re saying it was sexist.

    FWIW, the hotness rating applied to male professors as well as women professors–the “hotness” of male professors to women students may have been just as or more important than they were to men.

    Also, I’m not sure talking about the hotness of a professor is any more sexist than talking about the hottest men or women on TV. In fact, it may even be relevant to the educational experience–for the same reasons. There are plenty of shows on TV people pay attention to because actors are “hot”. They wouldn’t pay attention otherwise. I’d have fallen asleep in a number of lectures for sure if it weren’t for . . .

    I took a Latin class from a Roman goddess. I got an “A”. No reason I should have gotten an “A” in Latin.

    You’re gonna be spending an hour and half in class twice a week for months on end studying something because it’s required. It’s like booking a room in a resort and telling people they’re not allowed to inquire about the view.

    1. P.S. I understand the Israeli Defense Forces have used attractive female instructors in their training for a long time for this reason.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0hm-VBANxA

      Men of a certain age compete with each other for the attention and approval of attractive women. If there’s anything sexist going on here, it’s trying to make men of a certain age feel like there’s something wrong with that.

      1. Men-haters tend not to be good looking women, so it makes sense to destroy beauty-related social qualities.

        Same reason to make all men out to be rapist-pedophiles.

        Its about CONTROL.

        1. Put another way, misandrists are fugly.

        2. Says the guy who comes in his pants at the though of CONTROL when the people being controlled don’t have the proper government papers.

          Principals, not principles.

          1. Sarcasmic wants no government because he’s an anarchist. Everyone else is a tyrant compared to him.

            Even Libertarians. Remember that folks. Anarchists hate Libertarians because we support small and limited government.

            1. Tony is not a tyrant compared to sarc?

              Michael less than zero Hihn is not a tyrant compared to sarc?

            2. Yeah, the idea that all of humanity can operate with no government at all is a laughable fantasy. Even if 80% of humans could get by just fine, you’ll always have to somehow deal with the 20% of humanity that is looking to survive by harming others.

              1. Even if 80% of humans could get by just fine, you’ll always have to somehow deal with the 20% of humanity that is looking to survive by harming others.

                I believe that’s referred to as “the right to self-defence”.

      2. Don’t forget the trainer in Top Gun.

        1. That wasn’t a true story.

            1. People used to say Kelly McGillis was a man.

              1. Let’s see what she’s up to nowadays…

                (checks Wikipedia)

                Oh, oh, guys, bad news…

    2. There are plenty of shows on TV people pay attention to because actors are “hot”. They wouldn’t pay attention otherwise. I’d have fallen asleep in a number of lectures for sure if it weren’t for . . .

      I took a Latin class from a Roman goddess. I got an “A”. No reason I should have gotten an “A” in Latin.

      On the flip side, if you actually care about and want to learn the material, the “hot” rating might lead you to conclude that you should take a rating with a grain of salt. I once took a US history class with a “hot” feminist socialist professor. I dropped it immediately (she literally used the words “dead white men” in the first class), but she had great reviews on ratemyprofessor

      1. Instead of getting rid of the chili pepper, maybe they should add a hammer and sickle.

        When you see the hammer and sickle, you know to stay away . . . or that you want to take that class, I guess.

        1. It’s funny you mention that because I actually had an idea during college to create a website that was like ratemyprofessor but rating the professors and school for political slant. Someone with more time and ambition than me should do it.

          1. That would be a lot more useful for people who actually want to learn something.

    3. It’s sexist because women claim to be above that.

  40. The real influence on Trump’s SCOTUS pick is the spiritual founder of the alt-right, Ron Paui. It’s not just the 14th Amendment that Ron rejects, it’s also the 9th strict limits on the 10th — as first expressed by southern racists and the KKK. His treasonous denial of the founders’ division of power, though checks and balances among THREE co-equal branches, is the heart of Trump’s Imperial Presidency. That’s wny Rand is so shameless a suckup to the Donald, to acivate the homophobic agenda of the Paulite Cult.

    1. Please describe, in detail, and with particularity, Ron Paul’s rejection of the proposition that the 10th amendment is subject to, or constrained by, the 9th amendment.

  41. I checked out 18th century publisher John Newbery, namesake of one of the ALA’s other children’s-book awards, the Newbery Medal.

    Here’s what I saw on Wikipedia:

    “Newbery’s prosperity did not just come from publishing; he was one of the most successful merchants in England at the time. Some of his fortune came from the patent and sales of Dr Robert James’s Fever Powder, a medicine which claimed to cure the gout, rheumatism, scrofula, scurvy, leprosy, and distemper in cattle. This product became successful due in part to Newbery’s advertisements for it in his literature. In Goody Two-Shoes, the heroine’s father dies because he was “seized with a violent fever in a place where Dr James Fever Powder was not to be had.””

    Marketing dubious drugs to children? It seems they might look at renaming this medal, too.

    1. snake oil salesmen are OK, they have good intentions

  42. It seems they have a medal named after Dr. Seuss, too.

  43. They have a medal named after Andrew Carnegie. I wonder if they cleared that with the AFL-CIO

    1. ALA: “You don’t understand, children everywhere benefited from what he wrote.”

      STRAIGHT MAN: “What did he write?”

      ALA: “Checks!”

    2. Even most diehard anti-American socialists will reluctantly admit that Carnegie did some good things in terms of what they call “giving back to the community”.

  44. I bet the 14th Amendment is really excited, wondering what it will get for an anniversary present.

    “He better not have gone to one of those cut-rate Justice dealers and gotten me another Souter.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.