ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Mailvox: speaking of unconstitutional discrimination

“The plaintiffs in the case, Washington and Minnesota, maintain that the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.”

"If that’s the case, then the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 is unconstitutional as well. That amendment favored Jews from the Soviet Union for immigration to the USA."

Sounds like religious and country-of-origin discrimination to me. Where was the 9th Circuit Court then? Of course, expecting coherency, let alone consistency, from the Left is a fool's game. It's all nonsense, which is why the God-Emperor should simply break the courts rather than pretend to take their legal games seriously.

Labels: ,

47 Comments:

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents February 11, 2017 2:06 AM  

"It's different when we do it" - Every leftist, ever.

Blogger Phillip George February 11, 2017 2:22 AM  

Discrimination is good. End of story.
A father discriminates in favour of his own children. End of story.

Extrapolate from home to nation.

An actual God discriminates in favour of an historical Jesus.

Truth does not equal lies. Islam does not equal Christianity. Hell does not equal Heaven. Your future is not the same as everyone else's.

Anonymous OurSociety February 11, 2017 2:35 AM  

Americans are increasingly sick of capricious rule by judges who don't even follow their own precedents, let alone the original meaning of the law.

Trump should persuade Congress to move the offices of the 9th Circuit from San Francisco to some place like Fresno, or possibly Idaho. It would cost the taxpayers less, and get the judges and their staff out of their little bubble.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable February 11, 2017 2:54 AM  

I agree. There is a case to be made that since everything below the Supreme Court derives its Constitutional authority from Congress, they are not equal and Trump could basically ignore them and see if their parent -- again, Congress -- would back them up.

Blogger Bob Loblaw February 11, 2017 3:00 AM  

These are not residents of the US. Constitutional protections don't apply to foreign nationals in foreign countries, and the extent to which the American left has been successful in making them apply undermines the basis of the US government.

Blogger SteelPalm February 11, 2017 3:01 AM  

Heh, I had never heard of that act before, but it's likely what allowed my parents to immigrate to the US when I was a child. Who knew?

Not sure it helped the Democrats, since I've seen sources that estimate first-generation Soviet Jews have voted 60-70% Republican over the last few national elections.

A quick search on Infogalactic also reveals that Obama repealed the act in 2012. Kek.

More to the point, I like Vox's suggestion of a direct defiance of the courts. However, I would be surprised if the God Emperor pulls the trigger on it.

Anonymous Otis the Sweaty February 11, 2017 3:04 AM  

I'm sorry if Vox has explained this elsewhere, but how exactly would Trump go about breaking the courts?

For whatever reason he has chose not to confront the courts at this time, although he is laying the groundwork by (rightfully) delegitimizing them with public attacks. I can't see our current cucked out Congress allowing him to get away with blatantly defying court orders.

It will take years to purge the Deep State of the globalists. I don't see Trump having the ability to defy the courts until well into his second term.

Anonymous JAG February 11, 2017 3:13 AM  

Otis the Sweaty wrote:I'm sorry if Vox has explained this elsewhere, but how exactly would Trump go about breaking the courts?

For whatever reason he has chose not to confront the courts at this time, although he is laying the groundwork by (rightfully) delegitimizing them with public attacks. I can't see our current cucked out Congress allowing him to get away with blatantly defying court orders.

It will take years to purge the Deep State of the globalists. I don't see Trump having the ability to defy the courts until well into his second term.


All Trump needs to do is simply ignore the ruling. Read up on Andy Jackson some time.

Anonymous User February 11, 2017 3:16 AM  

They overplayed their hand finding a 5th amendment due process right for aliens to enter the US. Even so the path is fraught for the God Emperor. I'm not foolish enough to say what he can or cannot do, I only wonder if and how he will punish this grave error.

Blogger Ezekiel February 11, 2017 3:17 AM  

Otis the Sweaty wrote:I'm sorry if Vox has explained this elsewhere, but how exactly would Trump go about breaking the courts?

For whatever reason he has chose not to confront the courts at this time, although he is laying the groundwork by (rightfully) delegitimizing them with public attacks. I can't see our current cucked out Congress allowing him to get away with blatantly defying court orders.

It will take years to purge the Deep State of the globalists. I don't see Trump having the ability to defy the courts until well into his second term.


Tom Kratman had some ideas... if things get drastic enough/become an obvious matter of national survival.

9th circuit had better *pray* that SCOTUS heels to the God-Emperor.

Blogger Megamerc February 11, 2017 3:24 AM  

We all know that when it comes to the left what's good for the goose is bad-think feelzbads for the gander. But it is so satisfying to rub their pedo-face noses in realtalk.

Incidentally, here's a link from CH with a little more context for Vox's post:

Jewish Censorship

Anonymous Cyclone Bob February 11, 2017 3:33 AM  

"the order violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.”


The hell it does. Preventing persons of a foreign, hostile, false religion from invading and taking root here does not violate the Establishment Clause.

He has no choice but to ignore the courts. If he accedes, then we have no immigration policy, and next to go will be The Wall. And next after that, everything else he wants to do, that might rub some cistranny's nuts the wrong way.

It was a mistake to appeal the absurd court ruling to... another court. Doing so was a tacit admission of the judicial branch's authority uber alles, which is not written anywhere in muh muhfuckin constitution.

Anonymous Kreator February 11, 2017 4:05 AM  

RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow wrote:Theres no historical record or proof of Jesus

Rule #2 of this blog: Provide direct proof of your allegations or face deletion and spam of your comments.

Blogger praetorian February 11, 2017 4:22 AM  

For whatever reason he has chose not to confront the courts at this time,

Here, have a reason...

Blogger VD February 11, 2017 4:34 AM  

RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow, you're banned for a) being ludicrously off-topic, and b) lying. You clearly know nothing about history or historical evidence.

Go your own way now.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 11, 2017 4:37 AM  

RmaxGenactivePUA Mgtow wrote:Theres no historical record or proof of Jesus

Fake christian historians use quotes from romans as some sort of proof

Any historian quoting rumours started by early christans is a fruad

For over 2000 years no solid proof of a jesus has ever been discovered, which is not surprising as he's a fictional character concocted by rome ...


Define "historical record or proof". I suppose there's not if you set your standard unreasonably high. Prove that Erasmus existed. Hell, prove that Darwin existed.

In point of fact, there is more historical record of Jesus than any other non-Emperor of classical antiquity, and considerably more than some of the Emperors, of whom we only have a name and a date or two (if they lived that long).

Prove to me that you exist. All the record I have is idiot statements on an internet forum.

Certain gullible Atheists believe any shit shovelled at them by fellow Atheists, no matter how illiterate, unthinking, or just plain stupid, as long as it feeds their hatred and unwarranted sense of superiority.

Anonymous Mycroft Jones February 11, 2017 4:37 AM  

Test 4. If this message shows up, please delete it. The problem is with the Brave browser.

Blogger Some Dude February 11, 2017 5:21 AM  

If you challenged that Zion would find a semantic reason to maintain that, but knock down terrorist filtering. Zion always wins, when you choose to play its game. The trick is to make Zion play your game - bypass media like trump, tax or bring cases against jew industry, ignore their laws and even talking openly about how jews control everything for their benefit and are trying to create a world government. That's 'irrational' behaviour and hard to model for them.

Blogger Some Dude February 11, 2017 5:23 AM  

Remember they are the 1%. They are scared that one day the remaining non pozzed whites wake up and throw off their chains. Thats why anything less than cuckold right politics of free love is 'extreme'. Their paranoid schiz tendency is a self fulfilling prophecy. By pushing free love so far, they get the reaction that perhaps deep down, they desired on some level, to vindicate their deep hatred of the white.

Blogger Some Dude February 11, 2017 5:27 AM  

I also find it amusing that people like Vox or Heartiste still use 'left' and 'right' as functional terms anymore. The 'left' is against neverending war on theatre terrorism and the only real people pointing out Zion's apartheid in Israel were 'extreme leftists'. Funny how you can be an 'extreme' leftist by pointing out forced demolition of arabs houses and resettlement, but 'mainstream' when advocating open borders for gentiles. Its a racket. See beyond the labels. There are many on the 'extreme left' that are no friends of the real common enemy of civilisation - The Locust People.

Blogger Some Dude February 11, 2017 5:30 AM  

Gamma gamma we shall not fail. Your schemes and lies will not prevail. Our lands are threatened by marauders nigh, soon the Locust will learn to fly.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 11, 2017 5:57 AM  

If he's smart, Trump is waiting for another Orlando or San Bernardino. There's zero chance Muslims are suddenly going to start displaying impulse control and dial things back for four years. Once he's got his major crisis, he's got the rhetorical high ground for almost anything.

Worked for Bush.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 11, 2017 6:03 AM  

He should just issue a blanket ban on foreigners. Then no need for the court to worry their little heads over racial or religious discrimination.

Blogger Cynic In Chief February 11, 2017 6:27 AM  

If he just ignores the courts now, he's ceding the moral ground. Every President has had to deal with the courts, and I doubt Congress and most of the voters would let him get away with it right now. He has to obey them for now, at least on paper (if some departments "go rogue" he can't be blamed).

What will change this is if the ruling is overturned (either by the Supreme Court or the entire 9th circuit) or if we have another terrorist attack or two by immigrants. If the ruling is overturned, he could issue a broader order (i.e. a real Muslim bar) and have the ammo to convince Congress to break up the "too big and historically wrong" 9th circuit. If we have another attack, than he'll have the moral ground to ignore the court or issue a blanket immigration ban (so he's not "discriminating") to protect the American people.

Anonymous Laz February 11, 2017 6:48 AM  

"Worked for Bush."

I doubt Trump would collude with Muslim terrorists.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 11, 2017 7:05 AM  

His oath was to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Judicial branches powers are located NOWHERE in that document. They are entirely self-awarded.

The judiciary overstepped it's bounds with Roe but Nixon was too politically crippled to resist it. Carter liked it and Reagan wasn't interested in the fight. The Bushes were of course the biggest Cucks on the planet. Clinton and Obama both liked what the courts were doing wanted them to do more of it.

It's time to stand up to the Judiciary. The 9th has an 80% reversal rate before SCOTUS. On the basis of that it should be disbanded and it's judges struck from the bench.

Anonymous Rocklea February 11, 2017 7:11 AM  

"Malfeasance in office", may apply to the 9th Circiut court. It stems from 13th century english common law, where it called malfeasance in public office.

From Infogalactic:
"Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted not, to do."

In my understanding, the Plaintiff can be anyone who has been adversely affected by the malfeasance in office. This takes the focus off the President and means the people have standing in this decision. Multiple State's Attorneys' General could decide to prosecute, and given that these are criminal charges, I see no reason why they could not be prosecuted in lower courts.

I may be equating this too much with the English version, and I haven't looked at any case law in America. But the media shit storm surrounding such actions could be helpful. The media once again would have to openly come out against the people.

Blogger Eric Mueller February 11, 2017 7:53 AM  

Games only work when everybody follows the rules. SJWs are GREAT at coming up with insane rules. They're not so great at anticipating those who either won't follow those rules, or won't play the game.

Anonymous Anonymous February 11, 2017 8:14 AM  

So, can we file in the 9th Circuit to get Julia Ioffe, the Gessen siblings, et al deported?

Blogger James Dixon February 11, 2017 8:15 AM  

Trump has a number of options. He can ignore the court ruling entirely. That's unlikely, but possible. Something I have not seen pointed out anywhere is that the district courts have limited jurisdiction. Their rulings are only valid within their district. So alternatively he can simply ignore they're ruling anywhere outside their district.
He can flood the court with equivalent but slightly differently worded executive orders. He can appeal the case to the entire 9th district court or to Kennedy. Or he can simply issue a total ban on all immigration and refugees in the interests of national security.

There's a good reason to take the case to the entire 9th district court. A self provided list of traitors is always a good thing to have.

They need to get Gorsuch confirmed so he can appeal to the entire Supreme Court if necessary. He could also ask Congress to disband the 9th district court in its entirety, removing all the judges, then create a new district court with judges he appoints. That would take time, but it is doable. And he undoubtedly has options I haven't even thought of.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 11, 2017 8:39 AM  

I thought this column was interesting:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/judge-judges-second-guessed-president-trump-article-1.2969495

I’ve read the Court of Appeals decision refusing to disturb Judge Robart’s ruling. The court’s reasoning is totally unconvincing. The problem is that the real victims of Trump’s order — poor people who live in Syria and other countries and want to come here — don’t have any rights under the U.S. Constitution.

The court got around that by sleight of hand. It said the order also applies to people like green-card holders who are already here and do have rights. The Government said “but we won’t enforce the order against those people” and the court said “why should we believe you?” And on that basis, the courts have shut down the whole order, as applied to everybody.

Blogger Joe Doakes February 11, 2017 9:23 AM  

Revoke this order, write a new one suspending all immigration until there is no failed country, no disorder, anywhere in the world. Only then can we be certain that every refugee is given the same treatment. Might take a while.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler February 11, 2017 10:13 AM  

Anti-discrimination is a Jewish value. It is NOT Western Culture or Western Civilization. The Spartan-Roman-Christendom continuum has always practiced discrimination based on prudence and national values and goals. Neither is it a Christian teaching.

""As the war began to draw to a close, however, Jewish activists began to shift from their short term project of helping victims of foreign anti-Semitism to the longer-term goal of attacking domestic anti-Semitism. At the same time, they broadened their scope, viewing anti-Semitism as simply one part of a larger problem--racial and religious prejudice. In the words of a an early JLC report, "Anti-Semitism, anti-Negroism, anti-Catholicism, anti-French or anti-English [sentiments]... and union-smashing are all part of a single reactionary crusade of hatred and destruction"."

Anti-Discrimination is Jewish. People need to reject that. As you can see the hatred and destruction is happening against the people who do not discriminate.

Anonymous Be Deplorable, Not Afraid February 11, 2017 10:31 AM  

@12 "He has no choice but to ignore the courts. If he accedes, then we have no immigration policy, and next to go will be The Wall. And next after that, everything else he wants to do(...)"

The God Emperor certainly has to prevail on this, though he might be able to do so without ignoring the courts. How he manages to do that, only He Himself knows. Ignoring the courts, while it may have historical precedent, is a setup for impeachment. The problem is that the courts still have sufficient moral authority that FakeStream Media can quite likely whip up a malfeasance frenzy out of open defiance.

What really galls me is that I strongly suspect the founders were never considering Islam when they wrote the establishment clause, only different sects of Christianity, because this nation as created was a nation of white and Christian people. I strongly suspect when they wrote "religion," they meant that to mean different Christian denominations.

To believe otherwise would be to suggest that the founders would have welcomed openly militant atheists into the nation which openly confessed the existence of God in the Declaration of Independence.

Anonymous TheHiss February 11, 2017 10:43 AM  

@23. "He should just issue a blanket ban on foreigners."
That would discriminate against ME!
But then I'm a well-educated Englishman with lots to offer. I wouldn't be allowed in anyway.

Blogger JWM in SD February 11, 2017 11:10 AM  

Correct. I can't believe that is not being pointed out more even alternative media.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 11, 2017 11:21 AM  

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:Ignoring the courts, while it may have historical precedent, is a setup for impeachment.

Impeachment? Then war. No more compromises.

Anonymous Susan February 11, 2017 11:46 AM  

CTH has a post from yesterday that goes along with what VD is saying here. Trump has maneuvered the entire democrat party and the 9th circus into the public position of supporting terrorism over Trump's efforts to protect this country.

Secondly, CTH also had the paperwork that the 3 idiots have filed with the rest of the court. They are asking not only for a rehearing, they want to spread the blowback they have received to the rest of the court.

They are begging the rest of the judges to defend them. Why would Trump cede his high ground back to the Left? He has them on the ground, his boot is on their judicial/political throat. Next week should be very interesting as Hillary and Schumer try and walk their positions back.

Blogger tim February 11, 2017 12:54 PM  

Exactly what Limbaugh mentioned yesterday. I'm sure Trump's taking notes and strategizing.

Blogger tim February 11, 2017 1:04 PM  

Exactly what Limbaugh mentioned yesterday. I'm sure Trump's taking notes and strategizing.

Anonymous BBGKB February 11, 2017 2:24 PM  

I doubt Trump would collude with Muslim terrorists.

All he has to do is push their buttons. I will volunteer to have my picture taken with TRUMP while wearing a shirt that says "Moohamad Blows Pigs"

Blogger The Remnant February 11, 2017 3:45 PM  

Indeed, and he should invoke the precedents set by Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln when doing so. I'm not a fan of Lincoln in particular; however, he is considered the patron saint of the Union and the modern presidency, so Trump can surely explain that there is a national emergency that the courts cannot legitimately tie his hands to deal with.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable February 11, 2017 3:58 PM  

Cyclone Bob wrote:It was a mistake to appeal the absurd court ruling to... another court. Doing so was a tacit admission of the judicial branch's authority uber alles

Certainly I favor just ignoring an unlawful judgement, but I haven't built a multi-billion dollar empire, much less won a Preidential election campaign, so my tendency here is to wonder what he might be up to.

By appealing to the 9th, he set them up the bomb; by upholding the denial of the stay of the stay, they have made their time. Now if they are once again overturned by the Supreme Court, he can point to their 80% wrongness to argue for Congress to dissolve it, accompanied by mass impeachment and the releasing of every zig.

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:What really galls me is that I strongly suspect the founders were never considering Islam when they wrote the establishment clause, only different sects of Christianity, because this nation as created was a nation of white and Christian people.

No, they didn't expect it to be twisted to do the opposite of their intent -- and how could they? It was perfectly obvious at the time that different states favored different Christian sects, and that they needed a gurantee that the Federal government wouldn't elevate one over another, so that each state would remain free to practice its own different preferred discrimination. And now, in a disgusting perversion, it is being used to deny states that authority. Our polity is deathly ill.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 11, 2017 6:16 PM  

Be Deplorable, Not Afraid wrote:I strongly suspect when they wrote "religion," they meant that to mean different Christian denominations.

I'm pretty sure you are right. From reading their letters and papers, to our founding fathers, ``religions'' meant what denominations means today. Mohammedans were infidels, not another religion. There was never any thought among the FF that other faiths, such as Mohammedanism or Judaism or Zoroastrianism, would be a part of this nation, except as conveniences for travelers in port cities.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable February 11, 2017 7:06 PM  

SciVo de Plorable wrote:By appealing to the 9th, he set them up the bomb; by upholding the denial of the stay of the stay, they have made their time. Now if they are once again overturned by the Supreme Court, he can point to their 80% wrongness to argue for Congress to dissolve it, accompanied by mass impeachment and the releasing of every zig.

P.S. Under this mental model, the "sua sponte, en banc" motion to have it reheard by a larger panel is a poison pill.

OpenID obaoghill February 11, 2017 10:03 PM  

1833 educational moment:

Story, Joseph, LL.D., 1833 (1991), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
Book III, Pg. 730-731, Section 1873, Rothman, Littleton, CO. ISBN 0-8377-2648-8

"1873. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government
all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in
others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendency, if the national government were left free to create a
religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would
have been imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be
acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit
down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable February 12, 2017 4:18 AM  

Phillip George wrote:Discrimination is good. End of story.

A father discriminates in favour of his own children. End of story.

Extrapolate from home to nation.

An actual God discriminates in favour of an historical Jesus.

Truth does not equal lies. Islam does not equal Christianity. Hell does not equal Heaven. Your future is not the same as everyone else's.


You aren't wrong. I will try to make a note of it the next time you are, which is inevitable because you're human. But that's right.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts