Monday, June 26, 2017
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Are judges to be an arm of the Resist Trump Movement?

May 5, 2017 --

The front-page headline in The New York Times, April 26 read: “Trump Can’t Withhold Funding/ To Sanctuary Cities, Judge Rules.

But what about the legality of the concept of “sanctuary cities?” According to Wikipedia, “In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government to enforce immigration law.” What next? Sanctuary cities for tax-resisters so that the federal government headed by President Donald J. Trump cannot function?

 

And speaking of the Trump Resistance, how about the Rodham-Clinton Court as the Ultimate Solution?

An action is brought before a federal judge within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Cour6t of Appeals (the Trump Resisting Court) for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the Electoral College is unconstitutional and Hillary Clinton is, nunc pro tunc, the president of these United States because she amassed the greatest number of popular votes.

The judge rules as requested, citing the assertion of Charles Evans Hughes that the Constitution is what the judges say it is. The decision will point out that Hughes made this comment May 3, 1907, as governor of New York, in Elmira, New York. (Information thanks to Wikipedia.)

He went on to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court, 1916 presidential candidate, and chief justice of the Supreme Court. The judge will conclude: “if this view was good enough for Chief Justice Hughes, it is good enough for this court.”

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit will affirm, en banc. Thereupon the ruling will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch will recuse himself, the declaratory judgment will be affirmed by a court divided 4-4, and, thereupon, Justice Gorsuch will resign, with Justice Anthony Kennedy to join him in retirement.

President Hillary Clinton will name Senator Cory Booker and Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancies. The Rodham-Clinton Court will hold, in a landmark ruling on the First Amendment, that the Constitution’s protection of free speech does not extend to abusive speech from people who are not “very nice” or who engage in politics in a “deplorable” manner.

In a separate ruling, the Rodham-Clinton Court will rule that the “illegitimate” President Donald J. Trump does not have immunity to from prosecution under the Espionage Act, even lacking evidence of traitorous conduct, “it being sufficient that intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election.