UPDATED 05.26.2017 PM — Mr. Hinderaker has once again doubled down on a dishonest pretense — pretending that he doesn’t understand what all other serious lawyers do understand: First Amendment “time, place and manner” restrictions, are a bedrock line of cases. Supreme Court cases. And, that the argument that a “different” President would get a different result is true because this President essentially yelled “FIRE!” — in a crowded theater. A President who sits quietly — and watches the show Hamilton, will not be ejected from the theater, precisely because that other President didn’t violate First Amendment law. Facts matter John… But no, Mr. Hinderaker pretends he never read those cases. Shameful — and with this, he undermines respect for the law with his dishonest and illogical “arguments”. [End — updated portion.]
YAWN. Just as I said, months ago — and repeated under that link, supra. John’s “bullet proof” is in fact, to any capable Constitutional lawyer — so much swiss cheese.
The Fourth Circuit — 10-3 just declared Muslim Ban 2.0 a dead letter. On to the Supremes where it will fail, at least 6-3 — and maybe 9-0. Even with the much Hinderaker- vaunted Gorsuch in his robes, and listening.
[Silly me. I thought the Ninth’s three judge opinion would appear, and be published, first.] The line-up is 10-3 AGAINST Mr. Trump’s Muslim Ban 2.0. It would not surprise me to see the 3-0 opinion AGAINST it, tomorrow, out of the Ninth Circuit.
I had guessed a minimum of seven were going to lean that way — in the Fourth — and eight did, in full. The language Chief Judge Gregory (writing for the majority in the Fourth Circuit) uses is. . . towering, as the threats presented — by the 45th President himself, were. . . unprecedented, in their audacity — in at least the last three-quarters of a century:
. . . .The question for this Court, distilled to its essential form, is whether the Constitution, as the Supreme Court declared in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866), remains “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.” And if so, whether it protects Plaintiffs’ right to challenge an Executive Order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination. Surely the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment yet stands as an untiring sentinel for the protection of one of our most cherished founding principles — that government shall not establish any religious orthodoxy, or favor or disfavor one religion over another. . . .
President Trump, in a speech at a rally [on March 15, 2017] in Nashville, Tennessee, described EO-2 as “a watered down version of the first order. . . .”
To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint. . . .
THACKER, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the majority’s opinion but write separately for three reasons: (1) I would not consider remarks made by candidate Trump before he took his presidential oath of office; (2) I would nonetheless find that Appellees have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their argument that Section 2(c) of the Second Executive Order (“EO-2”) violates the Establishment Clause, based solely on remarks made or sentiments expressed after January 20, 2017; and (3) I would conclude Appellees have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their argument that Section 2(c), as it applies to immigrant visas, violates 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) [Ed. Note: that is the LBJ-era amendment I’ve written about at length here]. . . .
On to the Supremes. I read an advance sheet of this at [redacted] PM CDT today — and wasn’t taking or making any work calls, since I was on one of the briefs (on the prevailing side, of course). Now it will be a GREAT Memorial Day Weekend, for those of us who still believe in ordered liberty, under the law. . . . Woot! Yep — onward, to the Supremes — where (“Condor predicts”) 45 loses 6-3. As it is, he is 0-for-6, in the courts, if memory serves thus far.
नमस्ते
I write this evening primarily to 
Genius, in the sheer audacity of it! But now, setting aside Mr. Putin’s nonsense — let us consider what this says about the state of our fine, old and venerated Republic: the US Congress may at present be (at least marginally effectively)… trolled, by the Russian monarch (falsely styled as a President, himself).
“...During the campaign, I warned against nominating an amateur for president. The presidency, I wrote, is not an entry-level position. What we are seeing is partly the result of Trump’s unique personality, but I think it is more the consequence of his inexperience in politics…. [Editor’s comment: Uh-huh. ya’ think?!]
Just the same, it is probably some good proof that the GOP ship is starting to right itself, and sail away from the Pumpkin-hued hurricane — if the barnacle-encrusted dingy being pulled behind it, by about a half mile of frayed, rotting hemp rope… called “HMS Hinderaker,” is finally expressing concern — about Mr. Trump’s continued grip on power.
It was a truly-unprecedented week, in the thankfully very narrow history of our republic’s Presidential excesses.
By way of stark (and obvious) contrast, Mr. Trump has now by tweet intimated that he secretly taped a law enforcement official — actually, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer — who was at the time conducting official business, in an investigation into the President’s own potentially treasonous behavior. And Mr. Trump then fired that man, in the middle of this investigation.
Sad territory — and Mr. Hinderaker is clearly no patriot. He is a sycophant — of the worst kind.
As I listened to the Fourth Circuit oral arguments yesterday, via an IP connection, I found myself wondering whether the now 91 year old Mr. Minnow might see the content rich media delivered by internet as at least one additional reclamation project — in his 
UPDATED: May 16, 2017: Mr. Hinderaker has 
No, John — as you well-know — time, place and manner matters, in First Amendment free speech cases — so to, in religious First Amendment cases. Like this one.
I’ve long held that reading… is a skill. And I’ve long hoped that as a trained lawyer, Mr. Hinderaker would read the Congressional Record, before opening his yawning yap. That hope has mostly been in vain, ‘lo these last 15 plus years — and today is more of the same.
Today, though — instead of admitting that the bill contained pork for the richest people in the nation, he 
I have resisted for almost three weeks — resisted even mentioning the near daily lunacy 45 utters about his now plainly unraveling lies — on health care. But with Christ now lain in the Samaritan’s tomb (according to my former covenants) — I will arise, and venture forth, to tell Mr. Trump — of his ultimately impotent and banal depravity.
To be sure, he had said it before, on the campaign trail, during the Summer and Fall of 2016. I kept my own counsel, and stayed silent, as it wasn’t worth wasting the electrons refuting the monumental ignorance embedded in his suggestion. But now, as President, he is saying it again. See below — so I guess I’ll need to respond.
yep — the First Amendment. [Especially in the way he would like — to penalize political speech and writing, even if false — so long as there is a good faith basis to believe it is true]. Though none of the complained-about reporting has been untrue, in any material way — just to be clear.
This is what happens when we choose to elect an egotistical, blithering idiot — as President. One with zero ability or experience in governing, rather than dictating — that is… in compromise.
And each time he picks up one House vote, by “bargaining” — he loses a few more, who made the opposite promise.
UPDATE: 03.16.17 @ 8 AM EDT: The able federal District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, in Maryland, has 
