It’s Friday, March 17th, St. Paddy’s Day 2017…but before we begin with the blarney, a couple of video clips for your consideration.  First, Stephen Colbert…who we frankly find tiresome…provides a pretty accurate portrayal of Rachel Maddow…who would cause us to regurgitate had we the stomach to ever endure her invective:

Second, courtesy of Bill Meisen, positive proof the Second Amendment is alive and well in Las Vegas…unlike one of the subjects of what follows:

So what happens in Vegas really does stay in Vegas; though in this case, six feet under Vegas!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

At the top of the St. Patrick’s Day order, the WSJ details the exceedingly equivocal jurisprudence behind…

The Trump Legal Exception

The travel ban is bad policy, but the judicial injunctions are worse.

Mahalo, moron!

“The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wished aloud that all federal judges be issued a stamp that said “Stupid but Constitutional.” Such a stamp would have been useful this week to the two federal judges who bounced President Trump’s revised travel ban that suspends immigration from six Muslim-majority countries that the Administration says pose particular terror risks.

Our view is that the ban is lousy policy, and any urgency that Mr. Trump’s first-week executive order once had is gone. (A position with which we respectfully disagree.) But after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the original version, the White House went back to the drafting board and tailored the new order to address the court’s objections. The President has vast discretion over immigration, and the do-over is grounded both in statute and core presidential powers, which is when the Supreme Court’s Youngstown decision teaches that a President’s authority to act is strongest.

Judge Watson ruled the ban violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, even though he concedes that it is “undisputed” that the order “does not facially discriminate for or against any particular religion, or for or against religion versus non-religion.” But he claims the order is a pretext for anti-Muslim bias by mining Mr. Trump’s campaign statements when he was a private citizen and even the television musing of supporters like Rudy Giuliani who aren’t members of the Administration.

“A reasonable, objective observer,” Judge Watson continues, considering Mr. Trump’s public record, “would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion in spite of its stated religiously neutral purpose.” That’s a dubious—and dangerous—legal standard. By that reasoning, courts can reject any law not based on what it says but by parsing TV transcripts and divining the motives of public officials.

What happened to analyzing the actual law and Supreme Court precedents? The High Court’s 2005 McCreary case instructs judges not to inquire into the “veiled psyche” and “secret motives” of government officials, with good reason. But Judge Watson can “infer” that Mr. Trump hates Muslims, so forget about that precedent.

…Judges aren’t put on the bench to deduce executive intent. Mr. Trump says he will appeal to the Supreme Court. These cases are so poorly reasoned and disrespectful of the Court’s rulings (Not to mention established, duly-enacted LAWS!), don’t be surprised if he prevails 8-0.“

As the editors at NRO relate:

“…Judge Watson, much like the Ninth Circuit, has conjured up a new standard of legal analysis, one in which the text of a policy is irrelevant; all that matters is the apparent motive behind it. (Apparent only in the judge’s sole and absolute opinion!) Needless to say, this not only leads to absurd outcomes — by Judge Watson’s rationale, Donald Trump’s campaign statements proscribe his ever crafting immigration policy that affects Muslim countries — but to alarming ones, not the least of which is the effective omnipotence of the judiciary.

There’s been a great deal of garment-rending about the supposed lawlessness of the Trump administration’s executive orders on immigration. So far, though, the only threats to the rule of law have come from the courts.“

We thought it a mistake The Donald didn’t appeal the 9th Circuit’s decision to The Supremes; this latest gross judicial overreach only reinforces that opinion.  Like the any spoiled, undisciplined child, Progressives members of the federal bench will take whatever the weak-willed are willing to concede…until they’re smacked repeatedly and hard on their bare backside. 

Next up, writing at the WSJ, Dan Henninger offers his observations on The Gang Who Still Can’t Shoot Straight‘s latest display of wayward marksmanship: what is potentially…

The Republican ObamaCare Choke

If they blow health-care reform, why would anyone vote Republican again?

“Less than three months into full control of government and the chance to reshape the American system for a generation, Republicans are doing something no one thought possible: They are reinventing the circular firing squad.

Even a politician of such limitless cynicism as Chuck Schumer is agog: “We are on offense and united. They are on defense and divided, the opposite of what people would have predicted a month or two ago.” (Though, to be fair, as James Freeman notes below, when it comes to ObamaCare, the Dims offense has been about as effective as the Cleveland Browns’.)

Maybe in politics, genes really are destiny. Under pressure from a CBO “score,” the genetic disposition of Republican politicians is to go wobbly. The disposition of movement conservatives is to get out the long knives and start carving up other conservatives.

The result will be guaranteed political defeat for years if congressional Republicans choke at the chance to repeal and replace ObamaCare…”

An assertion with which we could not agree more, though only time will tell.  As Kimberly Strassel reports, unlike their Progressive predecessors, Donald Trump, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan are at least willing to negotiate.

In the meantime, courtesy of NRO, Michael Tanner details… 

Five Realities to Remember about the Health-Care Debate

The congressional Republican bill is flawed, but so are many of the talking points being used against it.

“It has been barely a week since the Republican plan to (sort of) repeal and replace Obamacare was unveiled and already the proposal has been savaged from both left and right, by most of the media, by various interest groups, including doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, and by virtually anyone else with an opinion. Outside of Paul Ryan, it is hard to find anyone who truly likes this bill. Indeed, in my opinion, this is a deeply flawed bill that perpetuates — and in some cases exacerbates — some of Obamacare’s worst flaws. Still, there are some important things to keep in mind:

1. There will be losers as well as winners…

2. There will be more winners than losers…

3. No, 14 million people are not having their insurance taken away…

4. Of the 25 million fewer insured in 2026, 14 million would come from a reduction in Medicaid enrollment…

5. The alternative is Obamacare not Utopia…

If we should have learned anything about politics by now, it is that taking benefits away once they’ve been given to people is tough to do. That’s true no matter how lousy or unsustainable those benefits may be. Repealing and replacing Obamacare was never going to be easy. But so far, Republicans are making it even harder than it needs to be.“

Allow us to add two more:

6. As Michael A. Needham and Jacob Reses of Heritage Action for America note, this massive monstrosity of government overreach was made difficult if not impossible to replace by design!

7. Last, but not least, ObamaCare was always intended to fail, taking down the U.S. health insurance system in the process and ushering in the age of shared misery for the masses: the single-payer system.

So why, oh why aren’t Congressional Republicans communicating these facts to the public?  Your guess is as good as ours.

On the other hand, as James Freeman notes at Best of the Web, it ain’t exactly like the Dims have anything to crow about:

Offending ObamaCare

Once more with feeling, Democrats try to sell the 2010 law.

Have you heard the news? Democrats are going “on offense” to promote ObamaCare as Republicans consider the best way to replace it. Just one week ago NBC News reported that Democrats were “revving up” their “offensive” on health care. Now apparently the offensive is no longer merely idling in the political driveway but cruising around Capitol Hill. The progressive activists at Buzzfeed dutifully relay that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee “is now posturing itself as on offense on the issue.”

Perhaps he does. After opposing ObamaCare for years, Republicans now have the responsibility to fix the mess the law made of the U.S. individual insurance market, with its rising premiums and diminishing choices. As our columnist Daniel Henninger notes today (featured above), the Republicans now politically cannot afford to fail to enact a better alternative.

Still, it’s important to remember that one of the reasons Democrats are “playing offense” now is that they don’t have much left to defend. Since the 2010 enactment of the ironically named Affordable Care Act, Democrats have lost the White House, the House, the Senate, and hundreds of seats in state government. And even after the law’s passage and the disastrous election for Democrats in that fall of 2010, they seemingly have never lost their zest for being offensive on health care policy.

Politico reported in 2013 that the Democratic strategy for the 2014 elections was to “own ObamaCare.” That was the election in which Republicans took ownership of a majority in the U.S. Senate.

Things could change now that Republicans have the burden of governing. But perhaps Washington control of medical decision-making has simply offended too many voters.

From what polls are telling us thus far, Freeman is likely on to something.

Moving on, also courtesy of NRO, George Will wonders…

What’s the ‘Public Purpose’ of the National Endowment for the Arts?

Public funding of art continues even though its advocates cannot explain why it’s necessary.

“Although the National Endowment for the Arts’ 2016 cost of $148 million was less than one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget, attempting to abolish the NEA is a fight worth having, never mind the certain futility of the fight.

Let’s pretend, counterfactually, that the NEA no longer funds the sort of rubbish that once immersed it in the culture wars, e.g., Piss Christ (a photo depicting a crucifix immersed in a jar of the artist’s urine) and Genital Wallpaper (don’t ask). What, however, is art? We subsidize soybean production, but at least we can say what soybeans are. Are NEA enthusiasts serene about government stipulating, as it must, art’s public purposes that justify public funding? Or do they insist that public funds should be expended for no defined public purpose?

Government breeds advocacy groups that lobby it to do what it wants to do anyway — expand what it is doing. The myriad entities with financial interests in preserving the NEA cloyingly call themselves the “arts community,” a clever branding that other grasping factions should emulate, e.g., the “military-industrial community.” The “arts community” has its pitter-patter down pat. The rhetorical cotton candy — sugary, jargon-clotted arts gush — asserts that the arts nurture “civically valuable dispositions” and a sense of “community and connectedness.” And, of course, “diversity” and “self-esteem.” Americans supposedly suffer from a scarcity of both.

…Defense contractors spread weapons systems’ subcontracts across the nation like butter across toast; 50 states and perhaps all 435 congressional districts get NEA funds. And here is another reason for the immortality of government programs: If a program is a major expense, its spending generates so many dependent clients that legislators flinch from eliminating or even substantially trimming it. And if a program is, like the NEA, a minor expense, legislators wonder: Why take the trouble, and experience the pain (the NEA’s affluent clients fluently articulate their grievances and sense of entitlement), for a trivial gain?

Americans’ voluntary contributions to arts organizations (“arts/culture/humanities” institutions reaped $17 billion in 2015) dwarf the NEA’s subventions, which would be replaced if those who actually use the organizations — many of them supported by state- and local-government arts councils — are as enthusiastic about them as they claim to be. The idea that the arts will wither away if the NEA goes away is risible. Distilled to its essence, the argument for the NEA is: Art is a Good Thing, therefore a government subsidy for it is a Good Deed. To appreciate the non sequitur, substitute “macaroni and cheese” for “art.”“

By the way, we’re happy to report Trump also has federal support of PBS and NPR in his budget-cutting crosshairs:

Oh, the humanity!

Then there’s this tear-jerking bit of jaundiced “journalism”, as NBC News informs…

American Citizens: U.S. Border Agents Can Search Your Cellphone

“When Buffalo, New York couple Akram Shibly and Kelly McCormick returned to the U.S. from a trip to Toronto on Jan. 1, 2017, U.S. Customs & Border Protection officers held them for two hours, took their cellphones and demanded their passwords. “It just felt like a gross violation of our rights,” said Shibly, a 23-year-old filmmaker born and raised in New York. But he and McCormick complied, and their phones were searched.

Three days later, they returned from another trip to Canada and were stopped again by CBP. “One of the officers calls out to me and says, ‘Hey, give me your phone,'” recalled Shibly. “And I said, ‘No, because I already went through this.'”

The officer asked a second time…Within seconds, he was surrounded: one man held his legs, another squeezed his throat from behind. A third reached into his pocket, pulling out his phone. McCormick watched her boyfriend’s face turn red as the officer’s chokehold tightened.

Then they asked McCormick for her phone. “I was not about to get tackled,” she said. She handed it over.

Shibly and McCormick’s experience is not unique…”

No SH*T it’s not UNIQUE!!!  We’ve traveled down to Mexico on a church-related missions trip for four straight years; and each time upon our return to the good old U.S. of A., despite having graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and serving as an active-duty Naval Aviator in possession of a Top Secret security clearance, we’ve been subject to additional security scrutiny.  Again, every single time we’ve returned, twice enduring lengthy delays at least equal to what the tender little flowers describe above.  So all we can say is…

That, and…suck it up, cupcakes!

Which brings us, appropriately enough, to The Lighter Side…

Then there’s this string of sagittate satire forwarded by Balls Cotton:

As regards this last one, we’re compelled to observe, “No, it’s not whether you’re a boy or a girl; it’s just that you’re horribly confused”.  Allow us to offer our assistance: drop you drawers, and look between your legs.  If you see a penis, use the door marked:

If you’re uncomfortable using the urinal, feel free to use one of the readily available stalls; you know, the same accommodations which are available behind the door marked…

…which is where you should go if’n you don’t possess a pecker.

Finally, we’ll call it a week with this headline in the Entertainment Section:

Mom suffers near-fatal allergic reaction at Adele concert

We can completely relate!!!  Hells bells; we break out in hives at the mere thought of having to suffer through such torture.

Magoo