Dismiss the Wall Complaint - non-justiciable issue

Feb 27, 2019 | Street Lawyer

[street_lawyer]

I ask this question over and over. Since the courts can only control the outcome if the states that are enacted are not specific the solution is always the same. The Constitution provides for governance that represents citizens. Apparently we have the kind of governance we have because this is what people want. Who’s mainly responsible for molding public opinion? The courts are just a symptom of the real problem and that problem has been ignored for two generations.

[street_lawyer]

Your comment is worth repeating:
There’s one other point to make.
Trump has already declared a national
emergency on the opioid epidemic.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/
For the rats to claim that moving money
from the military defense budgets creates
a hardship on the enforcement of drug
interdiction, it is not true. The money
is there for the opioid emergency declaration.
I believe it’s funded thru the dpt of health.

I agree. I wrote: I would argue that the States are not claiming any injury to date and the complaint should be dismissed as untimely. Argue that the States do not allege a sufficient connection (nexus) to some theoretical injury and the President’s decision to use certain funds. Simply put, the courts do not adjudicate hypothetical claims.

[street_lawyer]

Your comment is worth repeating:
There’s one other point to make.
Trump has already declared a national
emergency on the opioid epidemic.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/opioids/
For the rats to claim that moving money
from the military defense budgets creates
a hardship on the enforcement of drug
interdiction, it is not true. The money
is there for the opioid emergency declaration.
I believe it’s funded thru the dpt of health.

I agree. I wrote: I would argue that the States are not claiming any injury to date and the complaint should be dismissed as untimely. Argue that the States do not allege a sufficient connection (nexus) to some theoretical injury and the President’s decision to use certain funds. Simply put, the courts do not adjudicate hypothetical claims.

[Political Junkie Too]

Since as you say the courts are so corrupt that whatever the democrats want they get, then what do you suggest that conservatives do about it?

First, I would suggest that you quote me correctly. Maybe as a "street lawyer" you're used to putting words in someone's mouth and then arguing as if they said it?

I never said anything about the courts being corrupt, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

What I did say was that the Democrats would turn to the courts to try to change the results of the process that Congress put in place, when that process yields a result unfavorable to Democrats. This was in response to the original article that said that the Democrats would have no standing because there was already a remedy in place of Congress' making. I did suggest that Democrats won't accept any results that don't go their way, no matter if they created the process that led to the unfavorable result. I think that history bears that out.

We can debate about whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a favorable court for Democrats to run to. We can debate whether the Ninth Circuit Court, as YOU suggested that I suggested, is a court that gives Democrats whatever they want. We can debate about whether this is corruption or just politics.

All that said, to answer your question about what conservatives should do about it, I have been pretty bold in saying that the problem is weak-willed Republicans in Congress who cower from power, who are afraid to employ maximum leverage, who are inept and always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, who would rather throw a lifeline to Democrats to save them from the consequences of their own failures, who run away from media-manufactured gaffes and scandals designed to take down strong opponents of Democrats, and on and on. My homepage has my screed on this.

Conservatives need to work to nationalize every election, to form a national slate of candidates on the platform of supporting President Trump's agenda in Washington. The focus should be on the message of sending a team to Washington that will not work to get in the President's way, but will support the President. We need a primary strategy of national ads that list all the candidates as a slate, rather than state-by-state races where Mitch McConnell can control the messaging.

We need a message that demands new, young blood in Washington, people with a fire in their belly to replace the old and tired, get-along-to-go-along establishment GOP that prefers to ride in the back seat of the minority instead of leading the way.

I've said before that time will have its way, and that the entrenched GOP will eventually age out one way or another. The problem is that they are wasting precious time clinging to their personal power instead of grooming the next generation of Republican leaders. We need to fundamentally change the succession plan that gave us Baker to Dole to Lott to Frist to McConnell, and Michel to Armey to Hastert to Boehner to Ryan, and allowed the ousting of Gingrich and Delay.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Sorry for coming on so strongly at the beginning. I didn't recall that you were the original poster of the article.

-PJ

[street_lawyer]

it’s all good brother

[street_lawyer]

“Maybe as a “street lawyer” you’re used to putting words in someone’s mouth and then arguing as if they said it?”

Just a word of brotherly advice, arguably we are not public figures simply because we tweet or comment or post on a blog, and theoretically your comments are per-se defamatory. You just can’t suggest that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession. I get it that people generally don’t like lawyers, unless it’s someone who is going to save their ASSets.

Nevertheless, I apologize. After reading your comment more carefully, it seems you were criticizing the democrats. Now that you expanded on your comment, I understand much better. I have read your previous comments and I agree with most all of what you have written. Only I would add, and I’m sure you would agree, that all of what you suggested is made much more difficult by the mass media, which includes public schools, universities, and Hollywood, and I might also add, opinion polls, mold public opinion. How do you suppose they ended up supporting a radical agenda?

[Political Junkie Too]

Just a word of brotherly advice, arguably we are not public figures simply because we tweet or comment or post on a blog, and theoretically your comments are per-se defamatory. You just can’t suggest that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession.

I understand. Also, just because you chose a screen name of "Street Lawyer" doesn't mean that you are actually, in fact, a lawyer. Therefore, there is no defamation when there is no presumption of an actual business, trade, or profession being defamed on the simple anonymous say-so of a freestyle moniker. Especially when it was in response to a misquoting.

Nevertheless, I apologize.

Accepted. Thank you.

all of what you suggested is made much more difficult by the mass media, which includes public schools, universities, and Hollywood, and I might also add, opinion polls, mold public opinion. How do you suppose they ended up supporting a radical agenda?

Absolutely true.

Furthermore, I have said in the past that it is directly because of the media treatment of Republicans that they have, over time, become conditioned to react like abused spouses who cringe at the mere suggestion of attack, and self-censor their behavior to avoid conflict.

I have said in the past that Democrats play by "Fight Club" rules while Republicans play by Marquess of Queensberry rules. Republicans have a "kick me" sign on their behinds, and the Democrats always get a free kick at the Republicans, because Republicans are always shamed into not retaliating (accused of "whataboutism"), and the abused spouse will never throw the first punch.

Hollywood is atrophying. Their behavior is turning off box office attendance. They are making mostly the movies that they want to see (or that the Chinese want to see). Even professional athletes are falling into this trap - see how NFL attendance has dropped in the past year. Along with the newspapers and cable news, there is probably a loss-leader effect going, where somebody is funding the continuation of these enterprises despite break-even or net loss financial outcomes in order to keep the agenda out front (for increased future social gains).

Mass market entertainment (TV) has been increasingly inserting alternative lifestyles into their story lines beyond their statistical representation: in crime shows, the witness neighbors are a gay family; commercials are showing mixed-race or ethnic marriages; "good guy/bad guy" roles are being reversed. It used to be about everybody wanting to be left alone to be who they are, and now it's about normalizing marginal (not just minority, but fringe) behaviors as being more prevalent than they really are. This is intended to push acceptance as well as a bandwagon effect to join the new "cool" people.

Academia is a harder institution to address because it is not discretionary; we must send our children to K-12 schooling. Some have tried homeschooling, and public schools have tried to ostracize these families by excluding them from after-school sports and social clubs. as well as harassing them with inspections and challenges of competency to teach. Even charter schools are challenged wherever communities try to get them started.

What I hope has changed since the election of Donald Trump is this:

1. Widespread recognition that the media lies. Exhibit #1 is the unanimous polling that Hillary Clinton would not just win, but would win in a landslide. Many of us here who deconstructed the polls knew that the MSM was skewing the polls by at least D+9 just to get Clinton ahead by 1 or 2 percent. Reuters event went so far as the change their polling methodology midstream in the election after Trump pulled ahead just to put Clinton back in front to protect the narrative. It's my hope that the so-called independent middle begins to distrust polling - "Who are you going to believe, the poll or your lying eyes?"
2. Democrat overreach reaches extremes. Democrats always overplay their hands, and then shame Republicans into not taking advantage of their mistakes. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings were a "woke" moment for the middle. The fight over border wall funding, the shutting down of the government by Democrats and then blaming Republicans (again, the battered spouse being told its their fault that they other person is driven to hurt them, but if only they'd comply...), Democrats partying on the beach in Puerto Rico instead of staying in DC to solve the shutdown problem, delaying the SOTU speech, Pelosi flying her family to Belgium on Air Force planes... People see who the bad-faith actors are, the hope is that Republicans become confident enough and bold enough to hammer Democrats with this in campaign ads.
3. "Snowflakes" - the product of the schooling system is acting out in tantrums right now. Raised by helicopter parents, sheltered from disappointment, the consequences of low achievement, and competition, the next generation has an inflated sense of self-esteem that will not survive in the "real world" of jobs, careers, and family life. Being faced with high college loan debt, low job prospects, and a sense of entitlement to instant gratification, this generation isn't willing to enter the workforce, "pay their dues," and work from an entry point upwards with the goal of providing for a future family that hasn't been formed yet. Instead, they are rebelling against the society that raised them, driven to embracing counter-culture behaviors, and lured by the promise of social reward for just participating rather than achieving (socialism). It is my hope that when they grow out of their "terrible twos" and move into their thirties, get married, and have children, they will snap out of it (as Cher said in "Moonstruck").
4. Fake News. Covington Catholic boys, Jussie Smollett, the Mueller leaks, the Cohen leaks, the Stone leaks, the FBI leaks, Jim Acosta, photos of children separated at the border during the Obama administration attributed to Trump, the lockstep narratives... The MSM in constant crisis mode is desensitizing the middle to the cries of outrage from the journalists and pundits on the left. We can't change the ratio of left/right coverage, but I think we're changing the receptivity of the audience to the product called "news."
5. Social media de-platforming. The rapid, public, discovery of how Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube, PayPal, are silencing conservatives is resonating. It's another exhibit that everyday Americans can relate to, because they're seeing it happen. Businesses on the Facebook platform are being shut down, videos are being blocked, known celebrities are being banned. People who used to ask how the citizens of Germany in the 1930s had no idea of what was happening are now learning why. It was my hope that a new right-of-center social media platform would form to rival Facebook and Twitter. I thought that the recent merger of Blaze and Conservative Review (Beck and Levin) might lay the foundations to launch a comprehensive conservative social media platform instead of just a content push, but we'll see. There hasn't been any talk of this, just more LevinTV.
6. Trump. Democrats portray Trump as illegitimate, Republicans portray Trump as uncouth, radical leftists portray Trump as Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini, but heartland Americans portray Trump as a fighter who fights for them. Trump is acting as a catalyst who is separating out the true natures of our so-called elites. What's left is the "forgotten" who want their jobs back, who want their votes to count, who want promises kept, who want the dishonest punished, and who want those who were entrusted held to account. What we need more than anything else is a return to equal treatment under the law. What we have right now is a tiered justice system where Democrats are excused, Republicans are punished, foreigners are encouraged, and citizens are ignored and displaced. This leads directly back to your first reply asking if the courts are corrupt and the Democrats get anything they want. The answer is yes and yes. The courts are not corrupt in the sense that they are taking bribes to rule favorably, but they are aligned in sentiment with the left and are unashamed at making radical rulings outside of their jurisdiction to further the agenda. Why else are we suddenly seeing so many district court judges making sweeping nationwide rulings on highly impactful matters? It's because, Trump.

President Trump may be a "Howard Beale" incarnate, teaching us that we really don't have to take it anymore. He's certainly shown some Republicans that it's okay to fight back, that fighting back will not always result in worst-case disasters for Republicans, that the Democrats and MSM will ALWAYS exaggerate what they do no matter what (so don't worry about it anymore), that it actually feels good to win (witness the brief euphoria when Kavanaugh was confirmed).

What President Trump must do in the remaining two years is resist caving to Democrats, resist caving to Republicans who want to cave to Democrats, to keep making gains on keeping his promises, and try to restore a sense of law and order by moving to stop illegal immigration and the sanctuary city policies that permit lawlessness for foreigners at the expense of the citizenry. He needs to keep doing the rallies that show conservatives that they are not alone and that they are not small marginal groups.

Ultimately, we may need a massive conservative march on Washington, something on the order of the Martin Luther King, Jr. civil rights march that filled up the Washington Mall. Conservatives have been loathe to give up the time and expense to do these things like the liberals do, but a rally call from Trump to "the deplorables" might be what is necessary to swing the pendulum enough to knock down the seemingly insurmountable obstacles that you laid out.

But this is just me talking...

-PJ

[street_lawyer]

very well said