Category: Legal Stuff

Different Strokes

Legal Stuff, Rights

…different folks.

Background:  a little while ago, this happened:

Chinese and other foreign citizens could soon be barred from purchasing homes in Texas under a bill greenlit by the Texas House on Thursday [and since signed into law by TxGov Abbot].

The measure, which passed the Republican-led chamber in a largely party-line vote, was significantly narrowed-down from the original version. Lawmakers voted to add exemptions for individuals residing in the United States legally on temporary work or student visas. Dual citizens and permanent residents are also not included in the ban.

The legislation would block any other citizens of China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing homes, buying land or leasing apartments in Texas, and give the governor power to add other countries to the list.

Now, via Insty, this little development:

A pair of Chinese citizens asked a federal judge to block a new law banning Chinese nationals and people from a select number of other countries from buying or leasing property in Texas.

In a lawsuit filed July 3, Peng Wang and Qinlin Li, two Chinese citizens currently in the United States with visas, called Senate Bill 17 unconstitutional and racist.

Because of course.

Both plaintiffs said that while they plan to stay in the United States legally, they have no clear path to permanent residency and would be hurt by the law.

In its initial response to the lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office argued the state was using its “police powers” to prevent foreign governments from gaining a foothold in Texas. The attorney general’s office argued that Wang and Li won’t be affected by the law because they are already in Texas lawfully and wouldn’t be prohibited from real estate transactions.

The complaint, however, argues that the law is centered around where people claim their domicile, or permanent home. People in the U.S. on student or work visas, like Li and Wang, can’t claim their home is in Texas, attorneys wrote.

That’s not the part which get up my nose, however;  it’s all legal stuff and whatever happens, happens.

Because this is the Houston Chronicle, the reported decided to provide a little “balance”, or what we conservatives would call “whataboutism”:

As of 2023, Chinese investors owned or leased about 277,336 acres of U.S. agricultural land, according to the USDA. Of that, 123,078 acres were in Texas. Most of the land was associated with wind energy investments, the agency said.

Other foreign countries own far more land in the U.S.

Canadians own or lease about 15.3 million acres of U.S. land, according to the USDA. The Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany hold a combined 13 million acres.

Yeah.  The difference, however, is that unlike the Chinese, Iranians et al., the Canadians, Dutch, Italians, Brits, and Germans aren’t likely to use the land they purchase as a springboard to cause mischief.

And a huge percentage of the land already owned by the Chinese coincidentally(?) happens to be adjoining U.S. military bases.  What are we to deduce from this little factoid?

One last thought.  Both the plaintiffs aren’t exactly wealthy:  one is a salaried employee and the other a recently-graduated student.

So I’d like to know who, exactly, is paying the costs of this lawsuit.  Let me go out on a limb here, and suggest that once you peel away all the shell organizations or individuals who purport to be paying the legal costs, the thing is being funded by the fucking Chinese government.  I may be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

Which is the precise reason for the law in the first place.

Tricksies & Accomplices

Legal Stuff, Resistance

From Reader Mike S., news of this little reindeer game:

As Republicans in Texas move full steam ahead with a plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts, Democrats are privately mulling their options, including an expensive and legally dicey quorum break.

If they go that route, it appears they will have the backing of big-dollar Democratic donors.

By fleeing the state to deprive the Legislature of enough members to function, Democrats would each incur a fine of $500 per day and face the threat of arrest. Deep-pocketed donors within the party appear ready to cover these expenses, according to three people involved in the discussions.

The donors’ willingness to foot the bill eliminates a major deterrent to walking out — the personal financial cost — and could embolden Democrats who might otherwise hesitate.

Two people involved in the latest Democratic fundraising strategy sessions, who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, claim their legal teams have found a way to disburse the funds to the members but declined to provide any additional details.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a Dallas Democrat who was part of the 2021 quorum break, sees a path to circumvent the campaign finance rules: With minimal limits on external income, Texas lawmakers can simply accept the donations as another salary, she said. As one of the most prolific fundraisers in the U.S. House, Crockett said she’s willing to tap her donor base — and her $3.7 million war chest — to cover the expenses.

On private donor calls, members of Congress, including Rep. Greg Casar of Austin, have been making the case for high-stakes Democratic resistance, including a quorum break, according to two people familiar with the calls.

Well, yes… except:

Attorney General Ken Paxton has also called for fleeing Democrats to be arrested and offered his office’s services in “hunting down and compelling the attendance of anyone who abandons their office” by breaking quorum.

And as Reader Mike points out, the last time these assholes tried this, they were tracked down in their little out-of-state hidey-holes by the Texas Rangers, arrested and brought back to Austin.

Maybe they could go to Cuba.  They’d fit right in, especially that Commie bitch Crockett — and by the way:  that “war chest” of hers?  It’s against the law to use campaign funds in this manner.

Should be fun.  And the gerrymandered districts are going to be redrawn eventually, anyway.

Idiots.

When Reality And The Law Meet

Freaks & Loonies, Legal Stuff, LGBTOSTFU

Well, here’s some fun — and it took place in Britishland of all places, where more stupid laws have recently been passed than in any country outside the ‘Stans or California.

The Supreme Court in London has ruled that, for the purposes of judging matters of equality, terms like ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refer to biological sex, not gender.

Campaigners have hailed the “death” of self-identification as the UK Supreme Court in Westminster ruled on Wednesday morning that the UK’s Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological women and biological sex”.

The court has ruled: “The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.”

Judge Lord Patrick Hodge said in the ruling that the body of five judges had unanimously agreed that a man with a Gender Recognition Certificate, a UK legal paper that recognises that person’s assumed gender when it is other than their biological sex, could not be counted as a woman when it came to equality legislation.

Excuse me for a second…

Oooooh the trannies are going to go apeshit — but nobody of right mind is going to care.

Frankly, I’m just appalled that it took fucking lawyers to state (unanimously, even!) the obvious fact that right-thinking people have always known.

I love the pic that Breitbart used:


I kinda feel the same way.

Elsewhere:

The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary officially recognized the scientific fact that there are only two genders, in the nation’s constitution.

The 15th amendment to the Hungarian constitution was overwhelmingly ratified by Budapest’s Országgyűlés parliament this week by a margin of 140 votes in favour to 21 votes against, Magyarnemzet reported.

But wait!  There’s MOAR!

The 15th Amendment will also impact other areas of civil society, for instance, enshrining the right for Hungarians to pay for goods and services with cash money.

It comes amid increasing efforts within Europe and elsewhere to institute Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCS), which opponents warn would enable more state controls on how people spend their own money.

I’d like to see that enshrined here too, purely as a prophylactic measure.  Because I don’t trust government, any government and even the one we’ve got here at the moment.

And I have the Founding Fathers on my side.

Well THAT Explains It (Ignore)

Bad News, Legal Stuff, Marxists

I’ve looked askance at several of Chief Justice John Roberts’s activities in the past — first, and most notably, his decision that ObamaCare was actually a “tax” and not an un-Constitutional prescriptive power grab over the lives of U.S. citizens — and since then, several of his votes on Supreme Court decisions have made me furrow my brow.  Here’s one example:

The Supreme Court on Friday let the Trump administration temporarily suspend $65 million in teacher-training grants that the government contends would promote diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, an early victory for the administration in front of the justices.

The decision was 5 to 4, with five of the court’s conservatives — Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh — in the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

Some commentators have asked the question:  “Does someone have something on Judge Roberts?”  as an answer to these of his decisions — what we used to call the “sex photos with a dead animal or child”  kind of blackmail.

In fact, the answer is a lot simpler, and far less salacious.

Investigative journalist Bad Kitty Unleashed reported on Thursday that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is involved in an invite-only club for elite judges in Washington, DC.

The elitist club America Inns of Court also includes the radical America-hating judges James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amit Mehta—all hard-left judges and Trump-haters.

Go ahead and read the whole thing.  It will explain exactly why Roberts has voted the way he has.

I don’t know what the solution is — there’s that “freedom of association” thing in the Constitution —  but what it basically means is that the nominally-conservative Chief Justice is in thrall to the hard Left judiciary in this country, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot we can do about it.

I think I’d have preferred the photos.

Racism, Straight Up

Legal Stuff, Mocking Furriners, Rights

Here’s a fun item:

The British Sentencing Council has decided that starting Tuesday, white men will be sentenced to longer prison sentences than women and ethnic minorities.

From Tuesday, new judicial guidelines in the United Kingdom will introduce sentencing policies that apply differential treatment based on ethnicity, gender, and age—leading to harsher punishments for white men compared to other groups in society.

Under the updated guidelines, judges will prepare pre-sentencing reports where necessary for defendants from ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities, as well as young people under 25, women, and pregnant women. Historically, such reports have resulted in mitigated sentences, including reduced jail time. The practical implication of these changes is that white men, who do not qualify for these reports, will face relatively harsher sentencing outcomes.

I’m not sure that any Brit, ever again, can accuse anyone else of being a racist.