Author Archive: Stephen Green

TIPPING THE SCALES: Why So Many Cases Against Trump Are Heard by Democrat-Appointed Judges.

To see whether Trump’s adversaries are engaging in forum shopping, RealClearInvestigations analyzed 350 cases brought against the administration. We found that plaintiffs have brought 80% of those cases before just 11 of the nation’s 91 district courts. While Democrat presidents have appointed roughly 60% of all active district court judges, each of the 11 district courts where the anti-Trump challenges have been clustered boasts an even higher percentage of Democrat appointees. In several of these venues, the administration’s challengers are almost guaranteed that a judge picked by Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton will preside over their case.

The analysis of these 350 cases, which covers all those identified in popular litigation trackers and RCI’s independent research as of this week, lends credence to claims that anti-Trump litigants may be strategically filing suit in courts where they are most likely to receive a favorable ruling – a practice that has been both pursued and decried by Democrats and Republicans.

RCI also analyzed three dozen cases in which judges imposed the most extreme restraint on the Trump administration by entering a nationwide or universal injunction – prohibiting the administration from enforcing its policy not only against the party bringing the case, but anyone, everywhere. The analysis shows that these injunctions have disproportionately emerged from Democrat-leaning courts where plaintiffs have brought the lion’s share of suits, and that Democrat-appointed judges are overwhelmingly responsible for ordering them.

The rot runs deep.

Related: Corruption, Contagion, and the Smart Guys in Suits.

DEVELOPING:

UPDATE: Details are trickling in.

JAKE TAPPER LIES:

THE ENEMY WITHIN:

From the replies: “Ah yes, because Anne Frank was subsequently put on a plane back to her home country, right?”

PLEASE MAKE HIS DREAM COME TRUE: New woke Seattle police chief claims he will likely be arrested after vowing not to cooperate with ICE. “Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes declared Tuesday that he would risk prison time to protect Seattle residents’ First Amendment rights from what he described as hypothetical federal overreach in the city under the Trump administration, despite no indication from the White House or the federal government that they were planning on targeting him or the department. The remarks were delivered during a City Council Public Safety Committee meeting, as rioters have spent consecutive nights targeting a federal building downtown.”

Previously:

JON CALDERA: Why has Boulder become the ideal soft target for violence?

The city pastime in Boulder is not baseball. It’s virtue signaling.

According to census data, more than 15% of Aurora’s population is “Black or African American.” Boulder’s population is only 1.02% African American. Boulder’s racist housing policies make it nearly impossible for poorer people, mostly people of color, to live there. Yet Boulder is the undisputed champion for most white households with “Black Lives Matter” yard signs.

The message is clear. Just because black lives matter, it doesn’t mean we want them living next to us. We’ll make an exception for Deion Sanders.

As a whole, Boulderites are unaware of how people outside of their elitist bubble perceive them. If you are off your rocker, planning to do violence, are you pulled to target the place where everyone not only knows they are better than everyone else, but must announce it?

Then there are some practicalities of violence to consider. If you are going to go on a violent rampage, the last thing you’d need is some armed citizen putting a quick end to you and your fun.

El Paso County has the highest number of concealed weapons permit holders, around 50,000, while Boulder County has about 3,000. Additionally, Boulder made carrying a gun in seemingly every place illegal.

Only 50,000 CCW holders here in El Paso County? I’m doing my part but those are rookie numbers.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU’RE A THIRD-WORLD S***HOLE DICTATORSHIP THAT’S LOST THE UN…:

THE LEFT’S WAR AGAINST WOMEN: Trans-Identified Male Killer Accused of Raping Female Inmate in Illinois Women’s Prison Remains at Facility Despite Officials’ Attempts at Transfer.

Patterson, also known as Janiah Monroe, was first transferred from a men’s detention center to the Logan Correctional Center for women in April of 2019 as a result of litigation backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois. Court documents reveal that Monroe continues to be detained at Logan, a women’s correctional facility, despite efforts by authorities at the Illinois Department of Corrections to remove him.

In June of 2019, just two months after being transferred into Logan, a woman who was made to share a housing unit with Monroe filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) report alleging that he had raped her. Under the protection of anonymity, “Jane Doe” also accused prison officials of attempting to coerce her to lie about her ordeal, which she would later reveal the details of in a February 2020 lawsuit.

“The transfer of transgender inmates from male to female prisons has been a contentious policy within IDOC,” stated attorneys for the alleged victim. “In an attempt to justify the transfers … IDOC employees covered up the sexual assault of Plaintiff and tried to falsely classify it as consensual, to keep it from being considered a PREA violation.”

Previously: The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology.

MAYBE NOW POWELL WILL CUT?

JULIE KELLY: Who Really is to Blame for Anti-Deportation Riots?

As riots now spread to major cities from Seattle and Chicago to New York City, one can safely argue the individual most responsible for initiating the chaos is D.C. Judge James Boasberg. Few people have worked harder to keep illegals here while seeding a dangerous—and false—account of what the president is trying to do.

Boasberg lit the match on March 15 during a series of hasty proceedings to advance the first lawsuit against the president’s Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Within hours of the president signing the act, the American Civil Liberties Union sought a restraining order to stop the removal of illegal Venezuelans associated with the multi-national crime racket known as Tren de Aragua, the basis of the AEA.

Working quickly that Saturday, Boasberg immediately banned the deportation of anyone covered by the AEA. But that wasn’t enough. During a Saturday evening hearing, Boasberg made an outrageous demand of the DOJ, which had been given no time to file a response or even gather their collective thoughts on the matter.

Boasberg: “[Any] plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”

At the time, two planes carrying AEA subjects were about to land in Central America—far out of U.S. airspace and clearly outside of Boasberg’s jurisdiction. Further complicating the issue, likely by design, Boasberg failed to include his unhinged verbal demand to return planes in a subsequent written order. (The planes were not sent back to the U.S., opening the door to Boasberg’s contempt trap, as I explained here.)

Even though the Supreme Court reversed Boasberg’s reckless decisions—and later put a lid on his contempt investigation—the die had been cast.

Needless to say, read the whole thing.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: Feature, Not a Bug — Everything Trump Does Triggers the Press. “That doesn’t mean that President Trump is deliberately antagonizing the Democrats. Here’s merely doing his job. His job happens to be doing what’s best for America, and that’s what bothers the Dems.”

THINGS ARE GETTING TENSE:

Yesterday:

Stay tuned.

HMM: Toward a New Understanding of Air Dominance.

In a 1998 U.S. Air Force report titled, Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21st Century Air Force, the overall objective of air dominance was outlined as such: “[I]f air dominance is achieved and joint forces can operate with impunity throughout the adversary’s battle space, the Joint Force Commander will prevail quickly, efficiently and decisively.”

Thus, according to this interpretation of air dominance, the baseline objective for air power is to clear the way, so to speak, for all levers of military power to operate with “impunity.” In this new age of unmanned warfare, such as we’ve seen on Ukraine’s battlefields, I’d argue that this concept needs some re-examining.

Even if American F-35s and B-21s crush an enemy’s air force, that does not guarantee command of the air littoral — that low-altitude layer of airspace within which small, tactical drones fly. In other words, an enemy force totally defeated in a traditional air war can still maintain lethal pressure on American forces through unmanned operations conducted at low altitude.

Really, only China would dare directly oppose the US Air Force in the skies. But damn near anyone can contest us in the “air littoral,” as Nolan Peterson called it, but we aren’t taking the threat seriously enough.