There is a new blog post up.
- March 15, 3:05 pm:
- Lyft earned a bump in ridership from Uber’s woes.
- Northern Ireland may also seek a vote on leaving the United Kingdom. (Irish reunification)
- In the wider controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s claims that Barack Obama ‘wiretapped’ him, Scott Ritter points out that transcripts appear not to have been ‘minimized’ as the law requires. (Golden Showers) (text here corrected at 4:18 pm)
- March 16, 3:04 am:
- Jim Geraghty catches the irony of the Left’s new-found interest in Secession.
- Lane Kenworthy thinks we can’t do much about rising male Unemployment and that it isn’t that important anyway.
- Another Muslim Ban, another court injunction against it.
- March 16, 1:03 pm:
- A judge has added an injunction to the restraining order (apparently these are different types of orders) already in place against Trump’s Muslim Ban
- Theresa May now wants Scots to wait for their referendum.
- March 17, 3:14 am:
- Intelligence committee leaders in both the House and Senate have now denied having seen any evidence supporting Trump’s wiretapping claim. (Golden Showers)
- Jonathan Turley is stupid in his defense of his objections to a rising number of rulings against the Trump administration on its Muslim ban. (Muslim Ban)
- March 18, 1:15 am:
- The Congress that should be on Trump’s side just isn’t buying his wiretapping claim. (Golden Showers)
- Nicholas Kristof penned an op-ed for the New York Times criticizing the allegedly Catholic Paul Ryan’s budget for its treatment of the poor and James Freeman replies in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting (not entirely accurately) that Kristof’s argument places government in the role of Jesus.
- The Trump administration is appealing a Maryland court’s order blocking its Muslim Ban.
- March 18, 1:11 pm:
- The Department of Justice apparently responded to the House Intelligence Committee’s demand for information relevant to the Trump administration’s relationship with Russia satisfactorily. (Golden Showers)
- The BBC has a more comprehensive article on Theresa May’s decision to turn down a bid for a second referendum on Scottish independence. (Scottish Independence)
- March 19, 1:57 am:
- March 19, 3:26 pm:
In my previous installment, I wrote of the effort to seek a new referendum on independence,
Suffice it to say, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Theresa May does not agree, which makes it hard to see how this can go anywhere, but the counterargument seems to be that the onus will now be on the U.K. parliament to deny Scots their right to self-determination, which yeah, looks pretty ugly. (My own skepticism might rely too heavily on the dim prospects for secession movements in the U.S.)
It would seem that Theresa May has decided to go with ugly. But on the face of it, this would seem to support Nicola Sturgeon’s claim to have hit a “brick wall of intransigence” in trying to deal with May. And that Sinn Fein’s leader is saying something similar about the British government also has to help.
As to Theresa May’s suggestion that “‘now is not the time’ for a second referendum,” I have an idea. How about they hold the Irish and Scottish referendums first, albeit on an accelerated timetable. That way, May (or her successor) would really know whom she’s negotiating for. Then it might be a good time (if such a thing exists) to invoke Article 50. That she is in such a rush to negotiate a departure from the European Union on behalf of people who plainly want nothing of it should be a huge red flag.
But instead, May turns this on her head: She wants Scots to see the (probably not so wonderful) deal she’s going to negotiate with the European Union before voting. Which is, again, to miss the point. Scots apparently want nothing of this. And it should be up to them to decide whether they want to place their fate in May’s hands.
Guy Faulconbridge, “May to reject Scottish referendum demand – Times newspaper,” Reuters, March 13, 2017, http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-may-referendum-idUKKBN16K2QG
British Broadcasting Corporation, “Scottish independence: Referendum demand ‘will be rejected,'” March 16, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-39293513
Philip Georgiadis, “PM: ‘Now Is Not the Right Time’ for Scottish Vote,” Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2017, https://city.wsj.com/stories/3d6e5ffa-3409-4cb2-8c7d-15f5b4c4f6a1.html
Quentin Ariès, “Scotland’s Sturgeon: ‘There will be an independence referendum,’” Politico, March 19, 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/nicola-sturgeon-there-will-be-an-independence-referendum/
Emma Hinchliffe, “Yep, Lyft gained users from #DeleteUber, and we now know how many,” Mashable, March 14, 2017, http://mashable.com/2017/03/14/delete-uber-lyft-1010data/
Ian Graham and Conor Humphries, “Sinn Fein wants vote on Northern Ireland leaving UK ‘as soon as possible,'” Reuters, March 13, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKBN16K28M
There’s a mysterious naïvete that seems to expect intelligence agencies to abide by the law.
Scott Ritter, “Trump’s Wiretapping Charge Could Contain Some Explosive Truth,” Truthdig, March 14, 2017, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_wiretapping_charge_could_contain_some_explosive_truth_20170314
Rema Rahman, “Senate Intel Leaders: No Wiretapping at Trump Tower,” Congressional Quarterly Roll Call, March 16, 2017, http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate-intel-chairs-no-wire-tapping-at-trump-tower
Karoun Demirjian and Ed O’Keefe, “Members of Congress demand cooperation from administration on Trump-Russia probe,” Washington Post, March 15, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/is-there-an-investigationgraham-demands-answers-from-fbi-on-russia/2017/03/15/9d98c330-097a-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html
Max Greenwood, “House Intel Committee ‘satisfied’ with info DOJ gave in wiretapping probe,” Hill, March 17, 2017, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/324599-house-intel-chairman-applauds-doj-for-turning-over-wiretap
Jim Geraghty, “Liberals’ New Separation Anxiety,” National Review, March 14, 2017, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445752/donald-trump-liberal-resistance-left-embraces-secession
Lane Kenworthy, “The Trouble With Male Unemployment,” Foreign Affairs, March 14, 2017, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-03-14/trouble-male-unemployment
I’m probably not going to pay much more attention to Jonathan Turley on this issue. Actual judges just aren’t adopting his view of the matter, which seems to ignore that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and that there is ample cause to suspect that no matter how Trump dresses up his order, he is really acting out of religious bias. Whatever we think of the competence of the legal work defending these orders and whatever we think of the case law Turley thinks supports them, the emerging reality is that the courts seem to disagree with Turley when he dismisses the charge of religious bias and to disagree with Turley on the relevance of the Constitution.
And as for Donald Trump claiming this judge’s order “makes us look weak,” do I really have to say the obvious, that it is these Muslim ban orders that make us look pathetic? Do I? Really?
* * *
I doubt Turley read the foregoing, originally written on the 16th, but he is now pointing to five judges on the Ninth Circuit who have dissented from the decision upholding a lower court ruling on the original Muslim ban. I may not be correctly understanding what’s going on here, but it sounds like five judges who didn’t
hear the case second-guessing the three (Turley says four, but I believe this includes the lower court judge) who did
. Which sounds to me like not even a good example of cherry-picking. By the way, the Ninth Circuit is a huge
court; even five judges is still a relatively small number. But Turley writes,
The blistering dissent showed that a significant number of Ninth Circuit judges strongly disagreed with the decision of the panel. (Some judges may have not approved of the panel decision but did not see the need for a rehearing). The strongly worded dissent belies the claim that the original executive order was legally unsustainable. To see this type of vociferous dissent in a withdrawn appeal is remarkable in itself but it also shows the depth of opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.
Really? Turley purely speculates with his parenthetical remark and in his claim that the dissent “also shows the depth of opposition to the panel’s decision among other judges.” In any event it would seem that a motion for an en banc review was denied—hence the ‘dissent.’ Which would seem to me to add a few judges to the score supporting the lower court order. In the absence of a better explanation, I’m calling bullshit.
Brent Kendall and Ian Lovett, “Trump’s Revised Travel Ban Blocked by Hawaii Judge,” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-judge-blocks-trumps-revised-travel-ban-1489618057
Laura Jarrett, “Federal judges block Trump’s travel ban,” CNN, March 16, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/15/politics/travel-ban-blocked/index.html
Brent Kendall, Justice Department Appeals Maryland Judge’s Decision to Block Trump Travel Ban,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-appeals-judge-s-decision-to-block-trump-s-travel-ban-1489780586
Jonathan Turley, “Five Ninth Circuit Judges File Rare Dissent Rebuking The Panel In Immigration Ruling,” March 17, 2017, https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/17/five-ninth-circuit-judges-file-rare-dissent-rebuking-the-panel-in-immigration-ruling/
I take this up in “Government, religion, and the poor.”
Nicholas Kristof, “And Jesus Said Unto Paul of Ryan …” New York Times, March 16, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/and-jesus-said-unto-paul-of-ryan.html
James Freeman, “Mere Budgetary Christianity,” Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2017, https://www.wsj.com/articles/mere-budgetary-christianity-1489780327