This is how politicised the US judiciary is

26travelban-superjumbo.jpgAdmittedly, there may be many good reasons to be critical of new US President Trump (as this blog has pointed out already during his election campaign), or of his planned immigration policy. But the true problem of the US is not the President. The problem is the judiciary.

This is from yesterday’s New York Times:

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to reinstate President Trump’s revised travel ban, saying it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” Continue reading

USA: Sanitizing the Judiciary

donaldtrumppoints1Donald Trump is certainly not perfect, but…

The US President’s recent appointments of ten federal judges of various types – all of them in the mould of Judge Gorsuch – shows once again that the man is serious about the return of sanity in American judicial courts. The number of vacancies is higher than usual, possibly because Obama, having lost control of the Senate, preferred to wait for the November 2016 elections (which the Democrats expected to win rather than lose) rather than appoint decent judges. Trump’s victory and (narrow) majority in the Senate now allows him to help shape the federal courts for decades to come, through the appointment of young judges with impeccable credentials.

This is another example of how important Trump’s unexpected victory was not only for the United States, but for Western Civilisation in general.

SCOTUS: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire still this year?

Following the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch as a new member of the Supreme Court of the United States, there are now speculations that soon there could be another vacancy to be filled: allegedly, Justice Anthony Kennedy is considering retirement. While the appointment of Gorsuch meant that one allegedly “conservative” judge, Antonin Scalia, was replaced by another, the possible replacement of Justice Kennedy, who is 80 years old, could be a real game changer.
Continue reading

US: reckless judicial activism derails rule of law

There are many reasons to doubt the wisdom of President Trump’s decree restricting immigration from a number of predominantly Muslim countries – both in its initial version of end January and in its revised version. However, the decisions issued by Federal Judges in Hawaii and Maryland yesterday to block the revised decree from coming into force say more about those judges than about the decree. And they undermine the judiciary branch’s credibility  rather than the President’s.  Continue reading

US Supreme Court refuses to hear “strategic” lawsuit on transgender toilet rights

With the legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” having been imposed across the United States by a narrow 5-4 majority of frivolously activist Supreme Court Justices, the LGBT-lobby is now trying its luck to achieve the same with regard to so-called “transgender” rights, the next step in their sinister agenda to dissolve peoples’ true reality in a sauce of newly-discovered “sexual identities”. Quite remarkably, the larmoyant reports (in radically-minded outlets such as the New York Times or the WaPo) about alleged “discriminations ” of self-defined “transgender” persons have multiplied by factor 100 in the year since the Obergefell Decision, which clearly indicates that a media campaign is being waged to prepare the next round of cultural revolutions.

However, the sexual-disorder-lobby’s hopes for a quick victory were quashed last week, when the Supreme Court decided to throw out a major “transgender” lawsuit, sending the case back to a lower federal court. Continue reading

Italy: activist judges subvert law to legalize adoption by sodomite couples

Once again we have reason to note that the biggest danger for the Rule of Law emanates from judges – from activist judges.

In Florence, the Tribunale dei Minorenni has issued a decision according which the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple in England must automatically be recognized in Italy, where the law does not (yet) allow two sodomites to play “family”. According to the decision, which however has been appealed, Italy is obliged to recognize the English act of adoption, because the latter “is not in contradiction to the public order in Italy”.

This is patent nonsense, and there is no doubt that the judges are fully aware of this. Continue reading