Trump-Appointed Judge Overrules Supreme Court, Says Trump Can’t Stop Flood at the Border

We’ve been thwarted again on the border – by yet another random judge. The bizarre part is that Trump himself appointed this judge.

The way these judges will claim that it is the law that our country has to be invaded by a horde is just totally incredible. The fact that this judge is effectively overruling the Supreme Court by using a technicality to make the rule have to go all the way back through the court system is really the most extreme case of this.

When this goes back to SCOTUS, they’ll again approve of it, but in the meantime there is nothing Trump can do. The way judges make these decrees, knowing that they’ll eventually get overturned, is similar to a false rape allegation: it costs them nothing to cause a whole bunch of problems.

This idea that any law can just be voided by any judge was obviously not what the framers of the Constitution wanted, this is just exploiting various loopholes.

The Hill:

A federal judge late Tuesday night struck down a Trump administration rule that banned most migrants from receiving asylum at the southern border with Mexico.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly said the administration failed to follow the procedural law governing how regulations can be implemented, which requires advance notice and a period for the public to comment on the proposal.

“These procedures are not a mere formality,” Kelly, who was appointed by President Trump, said in his opinion.

The rule was implemented last year by the Justice Department and Homeland Security in an attempt to crack down on migrants from Central America trying to enter the U.S. It makes all applicants at the southern border ineligible for asylum unless they had previously applied from another country or are the victims of sex trafficking.

Yeah, gotta have that special right for sluts.

It’s our duty to protect completely helpless and stupid women who are also totally empowered and intelligent somehow.

“The United States is a generous country but is being completely overwhelmed by the burdens associated with apprehending and processing hundreds of thousands of aliens along the southern border,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement at the time.

Immigrants’ right groups promptly sued to overturn the rule in California and D.C.

They sought a preliminary injunction to keep it from going into effect while the legal challenge played out. Kelly, who sits on the federal district court in D.C., denied their request while a federal judge in California granted an injunction.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the new policy could go into effect.

Hardy Vieux, an attorney at Human Rights First, one of the plaintiffs in the case, hailed the decision.

Judge Kelly’s ruling is proof that the administration cannot do an end-run around the law,” Vieux said in a statement. “In the United States of America, we follow the rule of law, even when it benefits asylum-seekers demonized by this administration. We do not follow the rule of one capricious man, who treats the law as something on which to trample, on his way to a photo op.

It’s just so tiresome.

The entire modern conception of “asylum” is sort of retarded, and was likely always going to be exploited like this. There is simply no reason a nation should be legally obligated to let anyone in. It’s a nice thing and not really a threat to say that on a case by case basis, you can give people asylum. This concept goes back a very long time. But a law that says the government is obligated to do so was meant to be exploited.

If Republicans weren’t literally the worst people on earth, they would have dealt with this in the 1990s, when approximately 10% of the population of Somalia was transferred from Somalia to Minnesota and Ohio because their country is poor. It was obvious then that this “asylum” is a political tool to change the demographics of America.

There are many other problems with tens of thousands of Central Americans flooding the southern border and claiming “asylum.” The most obvious is what Trump pointed out, and structured the rule in question around – that if they are in Mexico after having fled Central America, they are already disqualified as “asylum seekers,” as they are already safe. That is also the issue in Europe, where people were and are passing through multiple “safe” countries before entering rich Western Europe.

The way this is currently functioning, anyone from a third world country has a right to show up in Mexico and say they’re scared of dying in their home country. Third world countries all have a lot of violence, which is linked to the poverty in these countries. The fact of reality is that most brown people simply do not appear to be capable of running modern, civilized countries.

Truth be told, even taking this stuff seriously is wrong-headed. I’m taking the time to explain it to you, the reader, because I know that people who read this site are the kind of people who like to understand the way things work. The other side, however, doesn’t care how things work. They do not care about law and order. What they are saying is: “we want to dispossess white Americans of their homeland and turn America into a mixed-race brown country, and we will use any means necessary to do so.”

I think the sentiment from the right should be the same: “we are going to defend our homeland by any means necessary and we don’t care what the law says.” I am a big supporter of the concept of law and order, but the system is now utterly lawless. We should be using any possible means at our disposable not only to stop these people coming in, but to get the ones that are already here out, and further, we should just be attacking anything the left does at all, as what these people are doing is a unified attack on our civilization. Right-wing judges should be using these same crooked techniques, striking down leftists. Whether it is trannies, abortions, blacks, women – whatever. Trump should be appointing judges who will do whatever is necessary to harm the other side.

Instead, Trump has appointed judges who will block his own rules. (I don’t blame him personally for that, of course, I’m speaking in broad strokes here.)

These people are cheating, and you cannot possibly win by playing by the rules against a cheater. I know this is a value of conservative ideology to “lose with dignity,” but the reality is that a loser never has any dignity if the winner doesn’t choose to give it to them. A loser is by definition at the mercy of the winner.

We are losing and we are losing badly, and I can guarantee you, if your grandchildren survive the purges, they are not going to be living with dignity.