SCOTUS judges in conclave

Scraped from Patriot Post.

SCOTUS unanimously backs deportation of failed asylum-seekers

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia, and their minor child are citizens of El Salvadoran who entered the US of A "without authorization" -- read: illegally -- in 2021, then claimed asylum.

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications and ordered their removal -- read: deportation -- determining that they had neither demonstrated past "persecution" nor established a "well-founded fear" of future "persecution" as required under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

After unsuccessfully challenging their removal order with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Latinx sought review in federal court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA’s ruling, holding that "substantial evidence" supported the agency's determination that there was not a reasonable fear of persecution, and the family should therefore be deported.

But Sr Urias-Orellana did not give up so easily. Funded by American taxpayers, he and his wife and child appealed all the way to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Much to his chagrin -- and the surprise of the supporters of open borders -- SCOTUS, in a decision released yesterday, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Ironically, the 9-0 decisiion was written by the court's most left-wing judge, Biden appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. It will be now used to handcuff liberal judges who want to help the growing number of migrants who lose their asylum pleas at the Justice Department.

The unanimous in Urias–Orellana v. Bondi is a win for the Trump administration. It means that millions of migrants will face even tougher pressure to leave the United States, especially after they are arrested by ICE. 

It will be a big help to those charged with stemming the flood of illegal immigrants as they try to boost the number of self-deportations and ICE deportations. In December, 38% of the migrants detained by ICE chose to go home rather than file lawsuits to stay in the United States. Walt hopes those that are still here are paying attention!

The wrong way to do it

I'll tell you who's not listening. In a story headlined, "Failed asylum seeker families to be offered up to £40k to leave UK", the BBC reports that families of failed asylum seekers will be offered up to £40,000 to leave the Disunited Kingdom under a trial scheme announced today.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood [What part of Ireland do you think she's from? Ed.] said the leftist Labour government would seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept "incentive payments" of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days. 

The scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20 million if successful. However, the Conservatives and Reform UK said the payments would incentivise people to come to the UK illegally.

VIDEO: "way out of her league": Victor Davis Hanson on KBJ

Are we really to believe that black (or Black, if you like) people are "disabled"? Really? That's what SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says in her argument for redistricting (read: gerrymandering) that will creatge more black majority districts, so there'll be more POCs in Congress, yada yada yada, Black Power, yada yada yada. Is she serious? 

On today’s episode of "Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words", Victor and Jack discuss how a recent Supreme Court oral argument reminds us just how “out of her depth” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson truly is.

But that's not all. If you're still making up your mind about watching, you really should, if only to hear about the true "brilliance" behind Sen. John Fetterman’s PR strategy. But wait (as Vice Offer used to say), there's more. You'll also hear why the Left now trying to "cancel" Taylor Swift, because she wants to have a baby. What's wrong with that? Mr Hanson explains.

The key point of today's discussion, IMHO, comes almost at the end, around the 65 minure mark. Mr Hanson argues that the sick society we live in now is a classic example of "civilizational regression". Keep that phrase in mind. The question before us is: can civilizational regression be stopped? The likely answer is cringe-worthy.

SCOTUS bans racial discrimination in college admissions

Two former US presidents disagreed strongly on today's ruling by the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action in college admissons, declaring race cannot be a factor and forcing institutions of higher education to look for new ways to achieve diverse student bodies. President Donald Trump wrote on his social media network that the decision is "a great day for America. People with extraordinary ability and everything else necessary for success, including future greatness for our country, are finally being rewarded." 

His predecessor, President Barack Hussein Obama, wrote "Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions -- it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table." A little problem with the structure of that last sentence doesn't prove that the Prez was himself a beneficiary of reverse discrimination.

The SCOTUS decision to which the presidents referred His predecessor  overturned admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest private and public colleges. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that for too long universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice." 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, who had long called for an end to affirmative action (and who happens to be black), said that the decision "sees the universities' admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes."

Both Justice Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- a Latina -- acknowledged that affirmative action played a role in their admissions to college and law school. They took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinions aloud in the courtroom. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor said the decision "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress." 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's poster child for affirmative action, called the decision "truly a tragedy for us all." She took no took no part in the case against Harvard because she had been a member of an advisory governing board. In the UNC case, she wrote, "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life."

The vote was 6-3 in the North Carolina case and 6-2 in the Harvard case. The third dissenter in the Harvard case was Justice (((Elena Kagan))). All six men on the Supreme Court joined in the majority decisions. 

Further reading: "Democrats Devastated As Supreme Court Bans Racism", from the Bablyon Bee (of course!), 29/6/23.

VIDEO coming later today: Thomas Sowell on the unintended consequences of affirmative action. 

Fight against "racial injustice" continues in NYC

America cannot achieve “restoration” unless the nation acknowledges “racial injustice” and a “betrayal” of black Americans, said billionaire media mogul Oprah Winfrey in the most recent episode of her eponymous Apple TV series, The Oprah Winfrey Conversation, Breitbart reports. 

The episode featured Winfrey’s interview Bryan Stevenson, a graduate of Harvard Law School and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, an organization with a focus on “racial justice.” Stevenson repeatedly described America as a nation plagued by an “ideology of white supremacy.”

That's from an article which appeared in the Deplorable Tribune* in September of 2020. The good folk at Blazing Cat Fur republished it just today, perhaps because Sarcasticat thought it juxtaposed nicely with a piece which quotes New York City's Democratic Mayor Eric Adams as calling for a “national response” to rising violence, following yesterday's fusillade which wounded over a dozen people who dared to ride the city's subway.

I had already composed a comment on the "incident", which I'd headed "'Allahu Akbar!' in the Big Apple". Ed. advised me to hold everything on the off chance that the perp might not be an Islamic terrorist. Ed. was right! [Ahem! Ed.]

Nor was the gunman (and would-be suicide bomber) a deranged postal service employee or an "incel" bent on exterminating the Karens women who are responsible for the mess that is today's Paranoid States of America. [Bill Burr said that once. You can look it up. Ed.]

No siree. The NYPD located the rented ban used by the attacker to get to the scene of the crime. [You mean he didn't take the subway? Ed.] The rental papers have led them to issue an APB for one Frank R. James, aged 62, who has addresses in Wisconsin and Philthydelphia. As a public service, and for no other reason, we publish theses photos of Mr James.

The New York Times ("All the news that fits the narrative") reports that Mr James "appears to have posted dozens of videos on social media in recent years — lengthy rants in which he expressed a range of harshly bigoted views and, more recently, criticized the policies of New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams."

The Times, always in the forefront of the struggle for racial justice and equality, points out that Mr James was not named as a suspect, only a "person of interest" -- someone the police believe may have information related to a crime. 

Likewise, the Times doesn't give details of Mr James' "harshly bigoted views". Nothing about "Justice for George Floyd" or "Kill Whitey!", then? Too bad that if Mr James is apprehended and charged, he won't be able to appear before Judge KBJ, who is no longer in the bidness of slapping the wrists of Offender of Colour, to make up for centuries of "racial injustice".

KBJ makes history! First non-biologist named to SCOTUS!

OK, I admit to "adapting" the headline from the one created by the very talented writers at the Babylon Bee. Their excellent post continues: The U.S. Senate has voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the highest court in the land, making her the first Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed without a degree in biology. 

"No, Ketanji Brown Jackson has no idea what a woman is, but that's understandable as she's not a biologist," said Romney. "I think she'll be fine, as the 8 biologists currently on the court will be able to get her up to speed. The important thing here is that she's black. And a woman." 

Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) was one of three RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who voted to confirm the most important diversity hire since Kamela Harris. 

To Mitt's left is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and to his farther left (geddit?) is Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). File this picture in your memory for reference when you next get to vote. They supported a judicial activist who think the United States Constitution is either mutable or does not apply in all cases.

The silver lining in the dark cloud (geddit?) is that the other cisgender "woman" of colour (albeit a lighter shade) whose name was mooted for the position on the highest court in the land*, Kamela Harris, remains in her position, which (they say) is Vice-President to Dementia Joe Brandon.

That's OK though. America has been advanced by feckless Democratic men towards the goal of being fully feminized, diversified, inclusified... and totally emasculated.

* Footnote: The Supreme Court of the United States is not, in fact, the highest court in America. Its elevation above sea level is only 95 feet. You can look it up.