I'd say we've hit peak hypocrisy , but the day and the year are both still young

/

In case you don’t care to go back two posts to refresh your memory about the actions of Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan and her actions assisting defendant Eduardo Flores Ruiz escape arrest by ICE agents, here’s the relevant summary:

“This guy was in court being prosecuted by a state prosecutor for domestic violence battery. He had beat up two people, a guy and a girl, beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly, they both had to go to the hospital.” 

The victims “were sitting in the courtroom with the state prosecutor, the judge learns that ICE was outside to get the guy because he had been deported in 2013, came back in our country, commits these crimes and is charged with committing these crimes. Victims are in court, the judge finds out” ICE is there to arrest him, “she goes out in the hallway, screams at the immigration officers, she's furious, visibly shaken upset, sends them off to talk to the chief judge. She comes back in the courtroom, takes the defendant and the defense attorney back in her chambers, takes them out the private exit and tells them to leave, while a state prosecutor and victims of domestic violence are sitting in the court room.”

That’s not a good story line for Democrats to use in their “Constitutional Crisis” schtick, just as “Maryland Man’s” history of wife beating, human trafficking and drug dealing proved so uncomfortable, so they ignore it completely and simply stick with the Trump is a Nazi theme that’s so popular among their illiterate subjects.

Do you remember when the Leftists spent their time shrieking that “No one is above the law”? They hope you don’t, because their concern was never genuine, and served merely as a tool to bash Trump. They care no more about that moral position than they did about “due process of law” while Obama was deporting 3 million illegal aliens during his watch — without individual hearings for all three million, as is now being demanded by the Democrats and their judges.

Just because it’s fun to detour down Memory Lane, here’s a clip of The Light Bringer from back during his reign, boasting about his accomplishment, and the importance of protecting our borders:

Even pipsqueak Congressmen chimed in,

And washed-up old movie actors. Will we hear from Neil Notsoyoung next?

Repartions

/

Two commenters on the above Tweet take issue with it, claiming that is has nothing to do with race. Here’s a link to the actual bill: you decide for yourself.

25HB 1696

…Finance programs. …special purpose credit programs created under this section to black, indigenous, and people of color and other historically marginalized communities in Washington state,

Sec. 1. RCW 43.181.040 and 2023 c 340 s are each amended to read as follows: (1) As part of the covenant homeownership program, the department shall contract with the commission to design, develop, implement, and evaluate one or more special purpose credit programs to reduce racial disparities in homeownership in the state by providing down payment and closing cost assistance. The contract must authorize the commission to use the contract funding as follows:

….

(4) To be eligible to receive down payment and closing cost assistance through a special purpose credit program authorized under this section, a special purpose credit program applicant must:

  • Have a household income at or below ((100)) 120 percent of the area median income for the county where the home is located;

  • Be a first-time homebuyer; and

  • Be a Washington state resident who:

  • (A) Was a Washington state resident on or before the enactment of the federal fair housing act (Title VIII of the civil rights act of 1968; April 11, 1968, and was or would have been excluded [go ahead and prove that one — Ed] from homeownership in Washington state by a racially restrictive real estate covenant on or before April 11, 1968; or

  • Is a descendant of a person who meets the criteria in (c)(i)(A) of this subsection;

Hang her high

/

Here's More from Pam Bondi About the Illegal Alien Judge Dugan Was Helping Evade ICE

“This guy was in court being prosecuted by a state prosecutor for domestic violence battery. He had beat up two people, a guy and a girl, beat the guy, hit the guy 30 times, knocked him to the ground, choked him, beat up a woman so badly, they both had to go to the hospital.” 

The victims “were sitting in the courtroom with the state prosecutor, the judge learns that ICE was outside to get the guy because he had been deported in 2013, came back in our country, commits these crimes and is charged with committing these crimes. Victims are in court, the judge finds out” ICE is there to arrest him, “she goes out in the hallway, screams at the immigration officers, she's furious, visibly shaken upset, sends them off to talk to the chief judge. She comes back in the courtroom, takes the defendant and the defense attorney back in her chambers, takes them out the private exit and tells them to leave, while a state prosecutor and victims of domestic violence are sitting in the court room.”

And of course …

Judicial warfare continues

/

In theory, federal cases are assigned at random to particular judges, but there can be no doubt that the current judicial warfare against Trump and his actions is being conducted with the cooperation of the courts, acting in concert with the various leftists by allowing them to cherry pick their preferred, biased judges. “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action". Every time, is war.

Federal judge Boasberg, he of “bring them back” fame, is one example; Juan Merchan, who presided over the mockery of the “Hush Money” trial in NYC is another. Here are two more who were in the news just this week:

Judge who blocked Trump from cutting funding to sanctuary cities has deep ties to Democratic Party

An Obama-appointed federal judge in California who issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding to sanctuary cities has deep financial ties to the Democratic Party, records indicate.

The judge has also spoken at events in support of former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama and held leadership roles on committees to elect Obama and John Kerry.

Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a ruling on Thursday that said President Donald Trump’s executive orders against sanctuary cities are unconstitutional.

Orrick said that Trump’s orders instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities and counties that do not cooperate with federal immigration law would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause, as well as the Fifth and 10th Amendments. 

….

According to donation records stored in the Federal Election Commission database, Orrick, who was nominated by Obama in 2012, has donated $113,600 to Democratic candidates and committees throughout the years.

Democrats that Orrick has donated to include Obama, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Diane Feinstein.

Orrick made two donations to the Obama Victory Fund of $2,300 and $28,500 in 2008. He has also contributed a total of $53,500 to the Democratic National Committee and made a $3,000 donation to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and a $2,000 donation to the Iowa Democratic Party.

Besides his financial contributions, a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire further reveals that Orrick served as co-chair of the Bay Area Lawyers to Elect John Kerry 2003-2004 as well as the Bay Area Lawyers to Elect Barack Obama 2006-2008.

Yesterday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship in federal elections. Here are some of her previous rulings, per Wikipedia:

  • On March 19, 2009, in response to a joint lawsuit brought by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction whereby she blocked a rule that would permit visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons. The change of rule which she blocked had been enacted by the United States Department of the Interior after being supported by 51 members of Congress and passing an extended public comments period. She stated that her decision to block the change of rule was because there was no environmental analysis performed and therefore the Interior Department "ignored (without sufficient explanation) substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts" of the rule.

  • On March 7, 2016, she denied a requested preliminary injunction against Washington, D.C.'s discretionary issue of concealed carry permits, thereby allowing DC police chief Cathy Lanier to continue denying concealed carry permits to law-abiding citizens in most cases.

  • In 2017, Kollar-Kotelly presided over ACLU v. Trump and Pence.

  • On October 30, 2017, Kollar-Kotelly blocked the enforcement of President Donald Trump's ban on transgender individuals from serving in the military.

  • On May 14, 2024, Kollar-Kotelly sentenced Lauren Handy to 57 months in prison and three years of supervised release for her part in blocking access to an abortion clinic, a violation of the FACE Act.

  • On May 31, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sentenced Paulette "Paula" Harlow to two years in federal prison and 36 months of supervised release for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) during a pro-life demonstration at an abortion clinic in 2020. During sentencing, Kollar-Kotelly addressed concerns raised by Harlow’s husband, John, and her attorney, who pleaded for leniency due to her rapidly declining health, warning that imprisonment could endanger her life. In response, the judge referenced Harlow’s religious beliefs, stating:

  • "I would suggest that, in terms of your religion, one of the tenets is that you should make the effort, during this period of time—when it may be difficult for your husband—to do what is necessary to survive, because that's part of the tenets of your religion."

  • In October 2024, Kollar-Kotelly found Dominic Box, who participated in the January 6, 2021 United States Capitol Attack, guilty on six charges. Before Box's scheduled sentencing date, he was pardoned by Donald Trump. Kollar-Kotelly criticized Trump's blanket pardons for those involved in the January 6 Capitol attack.

  • On February 6, 2025, Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary ruling limiting the Department of Government Efficiency's access to the Treasury Department's payment system, which plaintiffs allege would allow the Department to access the personal information of millions of Americans. She arranged a hearing for February 24, 2025 to consider a preliminary injunction.

  • In a 120-page ruling on April 24, 2025, Kollar-Kotelly blocked part of Trump's executive order that would require people to prove U.S. citizenship before registering to vote. She wrote that the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to regulate elections.

Trump is trying to accomplish by executive order what Congress should have done decades ago: overrule Griggs v Duke Power, but he can’t do it alone.

/

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled in the 1971 case of Griggs vs Duke Power that the discrimination prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights act can be demonstrated by “disparate-impact”: proof of a lack of intent to discriminate was irrelevant.

In that era, the focus was on racial discrimination, but the term rapidly expanded to encompass discrimination against anyone except able-bodied white male cisgenders, so it can be said that Griggs began the dismantling of all merit systems in hiring, education, law enforcement and, really, just about every facet of American society. DEI is just its latest metastasis. Now, Trump has issued an executive order seeking to reverse that; he may have some limited success, although legal challenges will probably keep it tied up for years, but it’s only a temporary fix at best, and it will be up to Congress to fix it “permanently” — until the next time the Democrats regain control of the government, that is.

Hot Air’s John Sexton explains:

Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy." The basic point of this is to undermine what is known as disparate-impact theory.

….[T] he order requires several actions which are summarized in an accompanying fact sheet published by the White House.

  • The Order revokes presidential actions that approved of disparate-impact liability and sets in motion broader reform.

  • It directs all agencies to deprioritize enforcement of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability.

  • The Order instructs the Attorney General to repeal or amend all Title VI (racial nondiscrimination) regulations that contemplate disparate-impact liability.

  • It directs the administration to assess all pending investigations, lawsuits, and consent judgements that rely on a theory of disparate-impact liability, and take appropriate action.

City Journal's Heather Mac Donald has more: she argues it's the "most important step" to restore meritocracy in America.

…. Disparate-impact theory holds that if a neutral, colorblind standard of achievement or behavior has a disproportionately negative effect on underrepresented minorities (overwhelmingly, on blacks), it violates civil rights laws. It has been used to invalidate literacy and numeracy standards for police officers and firemen, cognitive skills and basic knowledge tests for teachers, the use of SATs in college admissions, the use of grades for medical licensing exams, credit-based mortgage lending, the ability to discipline insubordinate students, and criminal background checks for employees and renters. It has been used to eliminate prosecution for a large range of crimes, including shoplifting, turnstile jumping, and resisting arrest; to end police tactics such as proactive stops (otherwise known as stop, question, and frisk); and to purge safety technologies like ShotSpotter and speeding cameras from police departments.

In none of those cases has it ever been demonstrated that the disfavored standard was implemented to exclude blacks or other minorities from a position, opportunity, or right. The genius (if a diabolical one) of disparate-impact theory was that it obviated any need to show discriminatory intent on the part of a targeted employer or institution. Discrimination was inferred simply by the effect of the colorblind standard.

Disparate-impact theory preserved the hegemony of the civil rights regime long after the original impetus for that regime had all but disappeared. One would be hard-pressed today to find any mainstream institution that discriminates against blacks in admissions, hiring, or promotion. The reality, in fact, is the opposite: every mainstream institution is desperate to hire and promote as many remotely qualified blacks as possible; it is white males who are disfavored and excluded from positions based on their skin color.

….

Disparate-impact analysis was the linchpin of the “systemic racism” argument, since the only present-day proof of racism in American society is the underrepresentation of blacks in the professions and their overrepresentation in the criminal-justice system.

Meantime, the real cause of disparate impact—the yawning academic skills and crime gaps—was kept assiduously offstage.

Now all that may be changing. The presidential Executive Order of April 23, 2025, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” sets out the policy of the United States to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.”

To that end, it starts the process of repealing disparate-impact regulations accreted to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subsequent administrations and requires the cataloguing of state laws that impose disparate-impact liability, among other actions.

Most momentously for law enforcement, the executive order initiates the review of federal consent decrees that rely on disparate-impact analysis (i.e., almost all of them), with the implied goal of dissolving those decrees. (A consent decree is a negotiated settlement, overseen by a judge and his representative, binding a government entity to an elaborate set of reforms.) Dissolving such decrees will not only liberate police departments from a costly yoke of superfluous red tape but will also defund the federal monitor racket, whereby monitors earn millions of dollars declaring for years on end that the overseen police department has yet to comply punctiliously with an average of 200 or so mandated reforms, often regarding paperwork.

Left-wing groups are understandably up in arms. They charge the administration with a “fundamental shift in legal philosophy.” That is true, but it was disparate-impact theory itself that constituted a radical departure from the premises of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Donald Trump merely restores the 1964 law to its original understanding. That pioneering legislation banned intentional discrimination only; disparate-impact theory was a judicial amendment made six years later in response to how, even in 1971, finding invidious intentional discrimination was becoming too difficult to satisfy the advocates.

The Left complains as well that Trump’s’ executive order embraces a “formalist, colorblind conception of equality.” Yes—and so does the Constitution.

McDonald closes with this warning:

President Trump and his Cabinet must move quickly. His executive order can be reversed by a hostile successor administration; the disparate-impact regime can be resurrected with another flip of the presidential pen. The White House needs to persuade Congress to clarify that civil rights mean freedom from discrimination—not the legitimization of “reverse discrimination.” Congress must amend 1960s-era statutes to confirm explicitly their original colorblind intent.

Cos Cob sale

/

49 Indian Mill Road, 216 days on market, has closed at $4 million. It began at $4.6 back in September, but the sellers should still have done well; they paid $1.250 in 2014, and even including the cost of razing the existing home and replacing it with this one, there should have been ample room for profit.

Nice house, nice street, abutting Mianus River Park (very handy, but the buyers might want to invest in a large dog to alert them to strangers wandering off the park’s trails). The new owners are from Philadelphia, so the move north is understandable.

(He did later propose as the epitaph on his tombstone “I’d rather be in Philadelphia”, though most (living) people don’t have to choose between only the two.)

What constitutional crisis?

/

Full Text:

1. People who arrived in America illegally as unaccompanied minors cannot be deported even though you know they came here illegally.

2. Constitution says only legal citizens can vote but the federal government cannot require voters to prove that they are citizens.

3. Trump cannot stop funds from going to sanctuary cities that blatantly violate federal immigration laws.

4. Trump may not put federal grants and contracts on hold when schools and colleges discriminate against people based on race AKA DEI.

5. Trump must reinstate the leftist-controlled Voice of America and rehire all the employees.

Stephen Green: SCOTUS needs to put a stop to this judicial insurrection, but that seems highly unlikely.

But wait, there’s more!

David Strom:

The Founders would not have imagined a federal judge deciding that they could set standards for military service, because such standards are set prudentially--the military must function optimally to perform its duties. It is not a playground where judges implement their preferred social policies. 

What next? A new right for obese people incapable of running more than 10 feet to serve as Green Berets? 

This is absurd on its face. 

Leftists may want the military to accept transgender people for service, and may believe that they pose no problem, but it is the president and his chosen military leaders who are in the position to determine that, because it is they who are charged with defending the nation--a purely prudential matter. Just as we let officers and senior enlisted decide who will be sent to take a hill or what tactics and strategy will be used to accomplish a goal, we empower the president and Congress to decide what the military should look like and what it should do. 

Not judges. Without an effective military, constitutional order, and judicial power, the country is in jeopardy. There will be no Constitutional order to preserve.

These judges seem to think that an amendment was passed that says, "Anything Joe Biden did is the final word on any matter." This is not so. Nor is it the case that judges are empowered to use their power to set policy in all matters in the United States, whatever they think. 

For all the talk about nobody "being above the law," that clearly is not the position of the current federal judiciary. 

The new judicial standard is, as Louis the XIV said, "L'État, c'est moi."