Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By lorrie
  • 2 Post By lorrie

Thread: S.S. California: Under The Command Of Clowns?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    S.S. California: Under The Command Of Clowns?

    S.S. California: Under The Command Of Clowns?

    Elitists running California into the ground are exempt from the repercussions of their own moronic actions.

    March 21, 2017 at 11:42am


    The Mercury News in California, a “new left” leaning news outlet, claimed in the caption of a photo regarding pending California Senate Bill 49, that “California should support Gov. Jerry Brown’s effort to build a green wall around the state.”

    California is arguably a leading example of political mismanagement of the resources of its people. Through the bungling of the State’s socialist-progressive politicians, California now faces several uber-monumental problems:

    First of all, it’s ludicrous to suggest that California’s government is even remotely holding its own financially.

    The fact is, California’s government is in an abyss of financial trouble, corralled with a $443 billion dollar wall of debt and sinking deeper! Being immersed in debt seems to typify the standard operating procedure of socialist politicians today, whereby being in debt seems to be almost viewed as a good thing, and going deeper into debt is now part of the progressive Democratic platform.

    Of course this only makes sense to socialists with a twisted logic that is related to their reckless mindset in regard to “other people’s money” and the stewardship of that money. And of course the idiotic concept of CALEXIT makes the list of dumbest ideas of all time, given the state’s dire need for federal support as well as the water from neighboring states. And it gets worse; if California Senate Bill 54 passes, California is at risk of losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, yet another hole in SS California

    The Ongoing California Water Crises:


    Then we have the California water crises, which regardless of recent record precipitation has just begun and has been conveniently blamed on the normal historical cyclical nature of climate change on earth. The facts do not support the excuses that progressive Democrats like to cite for their water management and policy follies and failures. The California water system allegedly manages about 40-million acre-feet of water, and according to a new study from the University of California Davis (“Water In The West“), even with normal annual precipitation, the state’s water system operates at a net loss of approximately 2-million acre-feet annually and that operating loss has not been materially changed by the recent above average precipitation. This means that even if California enjoys normal precipitation across the state for decades to come, it will continue to have less and less water available, as existing demand for water is unsustainable and growing due to failed planning and policies. Left as-is and uncorrected, there may very well be ensuing “water wars” in California.

    So as the leftist operating manual, Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, suggests, why waste a perfectly good disaster? Gov. Jerry Brown has been busily beating his drum for even more money.

    And even after raising a $7.5 billion water bond, allegedly to build and maintain more dams and water storage, he has virtually done nothing since then except try to raise even more money for his Twin Tunnel project, which would arguably enable the “appropriation” of water rights from the folks in the extreme north end of California and southern Oregon. By aggregating and connecting the waters from the far north of California via the Sacramento River to the California Aquaduct using the Twin Tunnels, water could be transferred to Los Angeles from as far north as southern Oregon. The perspective on such a move by those who see through this nefarious plan is that it is an outrageous act. But, given the seemingly open door policy for harboring criminals in the “sanctuary state”, such an act may be within normal political parameters? “Honor among thieves,” right?

    Sanctuary State – A Safe Haven For Criminals?


    The liberal clowns that call themselves leaders and politicians are also putting forth California Senate Bill 54, which seeks to establish California as a so-called “sanctuary state,” offering safe haven to illegal immigrants (criminals and potentially terrorists) who break our laws by illegally infiltrating into California and other states. It’s an interesting side note that the 3 million illegal immigrants already in the state of California use approximately 109 billion gallons of fresh water annually.

    According to another politically slanted article promoted by The Mercury News:

    Senate Bill 54 is perhaps the Legislature’s highest-profile act of defiance against the Trump administration, which is seeking to enlist the help of local police to carry out its promised crackdown on illegal immigration. The proposal would prohibit local and state agencies from using state resources to communicate with federal agents, with a few exceptions — such as task forces involving federal and local agencies.

    Usurping The Constitutional Power Of The President of The United States:

    Last but not least is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which Mark Levin has called the “9th circus of schlemiels.” Levin is an American lawyer, author, and the host of syndicated radio show, The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese.

    And considering the rate that 9th Circuit Court rulings are overturned, Levin seems well supported in his observation of “schlemiels” on that bench given that only 20 percent of their rulings are upheld on appeal.

    The Daily Caller
    also weighed-in on the 9th Circuit with this statement:

    “Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.”

    But wait! It seems that there are at least a few level heads on the California based 9th Circuit.

    In fact, in regard to President Donald Trump’s first executive order to help stop the infiltration of bad actors and terrorists into America, and the ruling made by the 9th Circuit to overturn the president’s order, a surprising condemnation of that ruling has been censored by leftist media outlets.

    But there are those people fighting the good fight, providing real news:

    According to Dan Abrams at Law Newz:

    In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban. The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta. Nobody other than the original panel came to the defense of the original panel decision, a less than promising start for future approvals of district court interference in Presidential immigration policy.”

    All the while, the “new left” is currently fumbling at the political controls of the grounded and now sinking ship of state, the SS California. These clowns obstinately maintain they are right and everyone else is wrong, as they plunge the state head-long into a condition that seems to lend credibility to the premise of the movie Idiocracy as it applies these leftists and their progressive agenda.

    Of course the “new left” elitists who are essentially running California into the ground are virtually exempt from the repercussions of their own moronic actions, and do not suffer the kind of personal and financial exposure that is created by their so-called political leadership in California. Unlike the vast majority of taxpayers, they have body guards (with guns), mansions with fences and guard dogs, limousines, jets, and enjoy special privileges and rights, all the while making a fortune off of the backs of hard-working California taxpayers.


    http://www.westernjournalism.com/s-s...ommand-clowns/
    artist likes this.


    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty
    by joining our E-mail Alerts athttp://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member lorrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    6,765

    Five 9th Circuit Judges Dish Out Ruthless Take Down to Anti-Trump Travel Ban Decision

    Five 9th Circuit Judges Dish Out Ruthless Take Down to Anti-Trump Travel Ban Decision



    8:56 am, March 16th, 2017



    In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban.

    The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta.

    Nobody other than the original panel came to the defense of the original panel decision, a less than promising start for future approvals of district court interference in Presidential immigration policy.

    The language of the opinion was almost Scalian: the five Ninth Circuit judges noted their “obligation to correct” the “manifest” errors so bad that the “fundamental” errors “confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.” The district court questioned any judge issuing a “nationwide TRO” “without making findings of fact or conclusions of law” on the merits of the matter and conducting published opinions on seminal matters of national security based on “oral argument by phone involving four time zones.”

    Aside from the procedural defects of the process, the five panel jurists then noted the deep legal problems with the panel’s order: its a-historicity, it’s abdication of precedent, and its usurpation of Constitutionally delegated Presidential rights. Mirroring much of the Boston judge’s decision, the five judges then detail and outline what other critics, skeptics and commentators have noted of the prior panel decision, including critical commentary from liberal law professors and scribes Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and Jeffrey Toobin.

    The original 3-judge panel “neglected or overlooked critical cases by the Supreme Court and by our making clear that when we are reviewing decisions about who may be admitted into the United States, we must defer to the judgment of the political branches.” Of particular note, the five panel judges note how the 3-judge panel decision in “compounding its omission” of Supreme Court decisions and relevant sister Circuit precedents, also “missed all of our own cases” on the subject. The 5 judges conclude the panel engaged in a “clear misstatement of law” so bad it compelled “vacating” an opinion usually mooted by a dismissed case.

    The five judges note some of the absurdities in the original 3-judge panel decision: claiming a consular officer must be deferred to more than the President of the United States; claiming first amendment rights exist for foreigners when the Supreme Court twice ruled otherwise; the claim that people here could claim a constitutional right for someone else to travel here, a decision specifically rejected by the Supreme Court just a year ago; and analogous Trumpian kind of immigration exclusion was uniformly approved by Circuit courts across the country in decisions issued between 2003 and 2008. As the five panelists conclude, the overwhelming precedent and legal history reveals a court simply cannot “apply ordinary constitutional standards to immigration policy.”

    The five judges don’t quit there, though. They go on to identify other “obvious” errors. As the 5 judges note, the 3-judge panel hid from the most important statute, noting the 3-judge panel “regrettably” “never once mentioned” the most important statutory authority: section 1182(f) of title 8. Additionally, the 3-judge panel failed to even note the important Presidential power over immigration that all courts, Congress, and the Constitution expressly and explicitly gave him in all of its prior precedents.

    Unsatisfied with that harsh condemnation, the five judges go even further. The judges concur with the Boston judge’s understanding of “rational basis” review, and condemn the Seattle judge’s and the 3-judge panel’s misapplication and elemental misunderstanding of what “rational basis” is. As the 5 judges note, “so long as there is one facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the President’s actions, our inquiry is at an end.” The issue is whether a reason is given, not whether a judge likes or agree with that reason. That means the executive order sufficed, and no further consideration of the reasons for Trump’s order were allowed.

    The five judges still weren’t finished. Next up, the ludicrous suggestion the President had to produce classified and national security information to explain and explicate publicly all the empirical reasons he felt the order needed for safety rationales. As the five judges panel note, judges are not New York Times editors here to substitute for the President at their unelected will. A gavel is not a gun; a judge is not the commander in chief. And, again the 5 panel judges noted the Supreme Court specifically condemned just this kind of demand from judges — demanding classified information to second guess executively privileged decisions. As the court concluded, “the President does not have to come forward with supporting documentation to explain the basis for the Executive Order.”

    The panel wraps up its ruthless condemnation of its fellow 3-panel decision by noting their errors are “many and obvious,” including the failure to even “apply the proper standard” of review. As the five judges wisely note: “we are judges, not Platonic guardians,” and the great losers of the 3-panel decision are those that believe elections matter and the rule of law deserves respect, as both were sacrificed for results-oriented judges who ignored the law and evaded the historical precedent to try to reverse the policy outcome of the recent election.

    Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney
    whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law

    This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/five...-ban-decision/
    Judy and Beezer like this.


    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty
    by joining our E-mail Alerts athttp://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. These Clowns Are Dragging Us Into War
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2014, 06:18 AM
  2. D.C. clowns won’t fix immigration
    By Ratbstard in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 12:46 PM
  3. Cue the clowns following N. H.
    By CitizenJustice in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 09:56 PM
  4. What is it that these clowns do not understand?
    By loneprotester in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 02:34 AM
  5. Clowns in the Senate
    By moosetracks in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 11:57 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •