SCOTUS allows Miami to sue BANKS for its economic and social woes

But it gets worse. How is there standing in this case? Did individual borrowers who were black or Latino sue the banks and demonstrate evidence of discriminatory practices in violation of the FHA? Not a chance. It was the city government of Miami that sued the banks under dubious accusations of discrimination. Where is the injury-in-fact? How is the city a party to a “dispute” over private mortgages?

Are you ready? The argument is essentially as follows: Racist banks offered mortgages to too many black and Hispanic borrows who couldn’t afford them, which led to default, which led to foreclosures, which led to vacant houses, which brought down the values of the adjacent homes, which led to reduced property taxes, which led to more criminal and social problems, which strained the local services (fire, police, inspectors, debris collectors, etc.).

You see, had the evil banks not insidiously lent to black and Hispanic borrowers who couldn’t pay (at the coercion of government), Miami would not have gangs, drugs, poverty, and urban blight. It would be a utopia.

Another abominable, idiotic decision by John Roberts.

Source: SCOTUS allows Miami to sue BANKS for its economic and social woes

The Coadjuvancy of Church and State

The modern notion that the separation of these powers implies opposition or incompatibility is a gross misrepresentation of the founders beliefs and intentions, imposed on the nation by a cabal of hyper-partisan Democrat secularists led by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black (a virulent anti-Catholic and one-time member of the Ku Klux Klan), along with his co-conspirator Lyndon Baines Johnson, author of the “Johnson Amendment” that purported to ban church involvement in politics.

Black wrote the majority opinion in the 1947 US Supreme Court case Everson v Board of Education which redefined the separation of church and state as a barrier to church/state cooperation – reversing over 150 years of legal precedent in which it had been recognized as a facilitator of church influence in government. It was this early and egregious example of judicial activism in Everson that shifted America from following the Judeo-Christian presuppositions of the founders to the Secular Humanist presuppositions of Cultural Marxism: preventing government from recognizing the authority of God in our law and history.

Read the whole article.

Source: The Coadjuvancy of Church and State

Related: Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Kritocracy Then Chaos

To continue the metaphor, the virus has jumped the quarantine and now the entire system is showing signs of infection. For two years the Trump administration has been plagued with federal judges who just make up rulings out of thin air. In many cases they are ruling on behalf of plaintiffs who have no standing in the court. In other cases, they are simply making up legal theories so bizarre they would get a first year law student dismissed from school on mental health grounds. The Federal bench is in revolt against the rule of law.

In this particular case, the law is clear. It’s not just US law, but international law. There is a legal process for applying for asylum. No country is required to accept anyone who does not follow the procedures. US law is crystal clear on the issue, yet this judge is making up law that is direct conflict with black letter law. This is no less deranged than if the judge stood up, stripped off his clothes and declared he is an invisible chicken and that everyone in the court must cluck in worship to him. This judge is not mentally fit.

Source: Kritocracy Then Chaos

The post-constitutional world of Judge Richard Posner – The Washington Post

I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of “sex discrimination” that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch…

So says the so-called ‘judge’ Richard Posner.

Posner’s theory of statutory interpretation, then, is really a theory of judicial usurpation of Congress’s Article I powers. Article I, let’s recall, states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So yes, as a rule the “entire burden” of updating old statutes is indeed on the legislative branch. Congress has consistently declined the opportunity to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes under Title VII, and judges have no authority to exercise legislative authority in Congress’s place.

Source: The post-constitutional world of Judge Richard Posner – The Washington Post

We Need A Tom Doniphon | The Z Blog

All the blather about America being a nation of laws is just cover for the fact that ours is a lawless nation ruled by lawless men. An obvious example is the Ninth Circuit judges, who have fabricated a legal justification for throwing sand in the gears of a wildly popular executive order issued by President Trump. These are not men enforcing the law or respecting the laws. These are men who hold the law in contempt. All that matters to them is obedience to the weird secular cult we have come to call Progressivism.

Source: We Need A Tom Doniphon | The Z Blog