Friday, April 21, 2017

Sessions the would-be fascist.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is a master of the racist dog whistle.

His latest whistle, aimed at Hawaii, reminds us older Americans that Alabama and other southern states opposed admitting Hawaii a state because of all its brown people.

Out here, we get it. Sessions has been razzed all over Facebook by Hawaii people.

His lame attempt to raise the pitch a  little higher just made him look like not only a racist but an inept lawyer.

For RtO, I'll just repeat my comment on the Politico story:

Sessions is a racist. The comment was both racist and a part of Trump's relentless attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Sessions, if you believe your order was constitutional, the way lawyers defend such actions is by making an effective argument in court.

The way racists and would-be fascists do it is the way you did it.

26 comments:

  1. You are full of crap. Sessions said not a darn thing about race. And your ignorance of the law -- both deep and wide -- means you can't even begin to fathom his point.

    Which is: Longstanding federal law already grants the executive branch very wide discretion with regard to decisions about who will, and will not, be allowed into the country. It's true. Look it up.

    Here is where his completely, literally, accurate characterization comes into play: it is irony. A single judge has taken it upon himself, using completely specious reasoning, to decide immigration policy that is an executive branch privilege.

    Let's say his decision somehow carries the day. How many judges must the executive branch appeal to to exercise executive authority?

    Every time I think you have reached peak fool, you prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 3, at most

    Sessions is always about race. It's who he is. Subtler than George Wallace but the song remains the same.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sessions is always about race.

    Then, by all means, provide links showing how he is always about race and never about anything else. And, particularly, show how the honors he has gotten in the quest for racial equality do not exist.

    Otherwise, as you have proven time and again, you will have left a definite odor of having made it all up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure how anyone who followed the news during the period between Sessions' nomination and his confirmation by the Senate could be unaware of his racist history, starting with but not exclusive to his reflexive blocking of judicial appointments who happened to be black people. If this really requires documentation beyond what is already well known, then dialogue become genuinely difficult. One side should be continually forced to document the obvious.

    As for the "wide discretion" notion, well, that's certainly true, to a point. But the validity of the current orders depends on how far back you want to go to justify that "wide discretion"; as far as, say, the banning of Chinese immigrants, or the bottlenecks on Southern Europeans, based entirely on racism or religious bigotry? I suppose there's a precedent there, if you want to use it. But the stay on Trump's immigration orders does not depend upon a single judge from some remote Pacific Island; multiple judges have weighed in on this, and the balance of legal opinion seems to indicate that they all have a very good point. Which is to say, "wide discretion" does not include overt bigotry, or at least not anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If this really requires documentation beyond what is already well known, then dialogue become genuinely difficult. One side should be continually forced to document the obvious.

    Indeed, it does require documentation. Otherwise, taking it on your say-so leaves the possibility that the evidence doesn't substantiate the accusations.

    As for the "wide discretion" notion, well, that's certainly true, to a point.

    To a very precise point: is what the constitution and the law both say.

    There is no role in the constitution for the judicial branch in immigration law, and nowhere does the constitution extend itself to those who have no legal standing in the US.

    But the stay on Trump's immigration orders does not depend upon a single judge from some remote Pacific Island; multiple judges have weighed in on this ...

    Multiple judges being two. Which should expose the shortcoming in your reasoning right away. Should this decision carry the day, then any judge, unelected and unaccountable, will have a veto on policy decisions the constitution has reserved for the executive branch.

    Islamism is a supremacist ideology inherently contradictory to the US as it is constituted. Communism was a supremacist ideology inherently contradictory to the US as it is constituted.

    Immigration law is completely consistent with long standing barriers to allowing communists into the US.

    On what basis do you wish to argue Islamists shouldn't be similarly excluded?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The order does not bar Islamists. You yourself have argued the other side (incorrectly) by pointing out that it does not mention religion.

    That was done in another forum.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So today, FB shows me that Coulter is tweeting racist comments from Sessions.

    We call that a twofer.

    For the record, I don't know that Sessions said what Coulter says he said. If she made it up, it's only a onefer

    ReplyDelete
  8. But he is working the Willie Horton vein. Drip, drip, drip. He cannot help himself

    ReplyDelete
  9. The order does not bar Islamists. You yourself have argued the other side (incorrectly) by pointing out that it does not mention religion.

    What is the religious composition of the countries mentioned in the order?

    Having answered that question, what is the practical effect?

    So today, FB shows me that Coulter is tweeting racist comments from Sessions.

    Without so much as a quote, or a link to those alleged racist comments, and the fact that your track record of using the word correctly is perfectly abysmal, I'm betting reality is exactly opposite.

    Of course, you can provide quotes and links to demonstrate otherwise.

    You won't this time; you never have.

    But he is working the Willie Horton vein. Drip, drip, drip. He cannot help himself

    More baseless innuendo. You are a nasty piece of work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If I'm wrong, any of my readers can see by merely checking Coulter's many platforms.

    As for the order, you have argued both sides. Which is it -- an order barring a religion or an order that does not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the order, you have argued both sides. Which is it -- an order barring a religion or an order that does not?

    Harry, I haven't argued both sides. On what basis did the judge (foolishly) declare it unconstitutional?

    If I'm wrong, any of my readers can see by merely checking Coulter's many platforms.

    So we are supposed to plow through Coulter's extensive writing in order for us to determine which of them you have decided are racist? There is no way to type that without making you sound stupid.

    But wait, there's more. Calling someone a racist is a very serious accusation: if true, it renders them beyond the moral pale. However, if the accusation is a smear, then it shows the accuser to be something very nearly as bad: a nasty liar whose morality is very nearly the foul equal of an unrepentant racist.

    Since you have, once again, spent more pixels weaseling than providing proof, then my conclusion is further reinforced: you are a nasty liar.

    Of course, as always, you can provide proof and I will abjectly apologize.

    I'm not worried.

    The question remains: why are progs such lying fundaments?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You wouldn't have to plow very deep.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Harry: you made the charge, you provide the evidence. I'm not interested in deciding what you think Coulter wrote was racist.

    Stop being a pathetic, sniveling, poo-flinging liar.

    If you can.

    Signs aren't good.

    ReplyDelete
  14. She did another yesterdsy. Probably near the top of her Twitter queue if you list.

    Here's the situation: if Skipper knows what Coulter writes, he knows she's a racist; if Skipper does not know, then he's just pissing into the wind

    ReplyDelete
  15. And to think you accused erp of libel.

    Harry, here's the situation: you are a liar. A filthy liar who would have been perfectly willing to denounce his neighbors to the SS or KGB. If Coulter is a racist, then it would be easy for you to post any number of examples to prove the point.

    But you don't. You whinge, quibble and prevaricate. All the while leaving your readers astonished at your eagarness to lie for even trivial stakes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In Your Faceback forced 4 Coulter rants on me yesterday. I don't know if that is her whole output. The last of the 4 took her version of racism to a new level: advocating genocide.

    She thinks genocide is funny.

    Query; where is the conservative criticism? After all, Coulter claims to be speaking for conservatism. Are we to conclude that conservatives agree with her? Don't know what she is saying?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Query; where is the conservative criticism?

    Query: where the hell is the link and quote?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nope. She wants clicks. I am not going to help her.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stop whingeing.

    Surely the opportunity to make me eat humble pie would be worth the price of a click.

    Unless, of course, you are a lying heap of merde.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You seem not to realize that by simultaneously claiming not to know about Coulter and doubting that she's a racist, you just flapping your jaw.

    She promoted VDARE again today. That's diagnostic

    ReplyDelete
  21. You seem not to realize that your continuing failure to back up your accusations has conclusively proven you are a liar.

    She promoted VDARE? By all means, link to it.

    Otherwise, you are, as always, blowing it out your hat.

    (Pro-tip: I'm not claiming to know about Coulter, I'm claiming you are a lying heap of merde. Whingeing isn't the answer.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not going to link to her. It's my blog, I'll write it the way I want to.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As I already knew, you are a liar, lying the way you want to.

    It would be so easy to make me eat crow. Instead you make a fallacious stand on invisible principle.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't need to make you eat anything. You are doing a fine job of making yourself ridiculous without any help from me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. That's more pathetic whingeing, Harry. If you had anything to backup you foul prog nastiness, you would. But you don't, because, as always you can't.

    It there was to ba any truth in the name of your blog, you would have to change it to Ranting The Odious.

    ReplyDelete