nortex97 said:
Yep, another clown judge.
Quote:
Judge McMahon wrote that the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and
'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth,'" AP reported.
One of the affected grants had been awarded to a professor writing about the Ku Klux Klan's resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s. According to McMahon, the government had flagged the project on an internal spreadsheet titled "Copy of NEH Active Grants" for its connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) themes. She noted that other history projects listed on the spreadsheet were also cancelled partly due to similar DEI associations.
"Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches," the judge wrote.
"Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history."
Yes, if this taxpayer money doesn't keep flowing to these writers during this trial, history itself will be edited.
Speaking of, note that one of the 9th circuit judges on this one (not the above TRO in NY) is a Marc Elias/Perkins Coie pal. Because, of course.
There's gonna be a lot of people surprised when the USSC points out that Wong Kim ark did NOT decide this issue. The holding clearly state it answered a single issue, dealing with parents with a permanent domicile and residence in the US:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
And in very related news as to who is subject to the jurisdiction… , Mexico considers legal action against US….
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mexico-considering-legal-action-against-ice-over-migrant-s-death/ar-AA1IHIqt?cvid=2B29B36A70C94955B8D037C51E4A0056&ocid=hpmsn" Last week, a Mexican national without legal status in the U.S. died after he fell from a building roof while attempting to flee an immigration operation in California.."
