Transgender Conundrum: Massive Genetic Differences Between Men and Women Uncovered in Recent Study

Men and women differ in obvious and less obvious ways – for example, in the prevalence of certain diseases or reactions to drugs. How are these connected to one’s sex? Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed – copied out to make proteins – differently in the two sexes. Their findings showed that harmful mutations in these particular genes tend to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies, and the study explains why. . .

[The scientists] looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was higher in women. . .

Less obvious locations included genes that were found to be expressed only in the left ventricle of the heart in women. One of these genes, which is also related to calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down. Yet another gene that was mainly expressed in women was active in the brain, and though its exact function is unknown, the scientists think it may protect the neurons from Parkinson’s – a disease that has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in men. The researchers also identified gene expression in the liver in women that regulates drug metabolism, providing molecular evidence for the known difference in drug processing between women and men. (Read more from “Transgender Conundrum: Massive Genetic Differences Between Men and Women Uncovered in Recent Study” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

President Trump, Vice President Pence Raise Pastor Brunson’s Case Three Times With Turkey’s President

I just received a call from the Vice President’s office. President Trump and Vice President Pence raised the case of American Pastor Andrew Brunson three times today with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

This is exactly what we asked the President to do and is a major sign of significant progress toward bringing Pastor Andrew home.

Pastor Andrew – a U.S. citizen – has been wrongfully imprisoned in Turkey for more than seven months because of his Christian faith. Today, Turkish President Erdogan met with President Trump at the White House. Last week, I urged the President and the Vice President when I met with them in the White House to raise Pastor Andrew’s case with Turkish leaders. Today, they did just that, raising his plight directly to President Erdogan. (Read more from “President Trump, Vice President Pence Raise Pastor Brunson’s Case Three Times With Turkey’s President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

School: Praying for a Colleague Is Unacceptable

A school worker in Augusta, Maine was ordered to stop using religious phrases like “I will pray for you” and “You were in my prayers” because such language is not allowed inside a public school building — even in private conversations with coworkers.

The Augusta School Department launched an investigation of Toni Richardson after they alleged she “imposed some strong religious/spiritual belief system” towards a coworker.

Now, imposing your religion on someone is a serious allegation. Was Ms. Richardson forcing her coworker to convert to Christianity? Did she attempt to baptize him against his will?

It turned out to be nothing of the sort.

According to an official memorandum from the school district, Ms. Richardson had told a colleague that she was going to pray for him. It just so happens that Ms. Richardson and the colleague attended the same church. (Read more from “School: Praying for a Colleague Is Unacceptable” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Western Apologists for Islam Today’s ‘Useful Idiots’?

Every day, in little ways and big, each of us faces the choice: Between illusion and truth. Comfort and courage. Between getting patted on the back or looking yourself in the mirror.

The French have made their choice. Confronted with monthly terror attacks, large sections of major cities “no-go” zones for police and women not wearing hijabs, and agents of ISIS infiltrating “refugee” groups, the voters of France overwhelmingly chose … surrender.

They rejected an imperfect candidate, Marine Le Pen, with a plausible and moral plan for containing the cancer of radical Islam. Instead, they picked Emmanuel Macron, an off-the-shelf crony socialist who favors open borders and denies that “French culture” exists.

That nation’s largest Catholic newspaper, La Croix, endorsed Macron, and the head of the French church welcomed his election. Meanwhile, Catholics in Iraq and jihadist-occupied Syria face burned and blackened churches, and life in refugee camps.

Just Cowards and Fools?

What’s the difference between Islam as seen by French Catholics, and by Iraqi ones? Are Christians who believe that Islam is a “religion of peace” simply … cowards and fools?

It’s a tempting conclusion. It easy to think the same of Western liberals who defend “Marxist theory” while squirming at Communist crimes. Indeed, Communists themselves used to call such people “useful idiots.” Both timidity and stupidity surely play their part.

But even those evils need something to work with. In the case of Communism, Westerners who sneered at “primitive anti-Communism” would insist that the “idealistic” Karl Marx was betrayed by Communist movements. Blood-soaked rulers like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or even Lenin. … They were never real Marxists at all.

Yes, every single time Marxism has ever been tried in the real world the results are the same: Famine, tyranny and slaughter. But that doesn’t disprove the theory. Go back and read the early writings of Marx, when he sounded like a liberal. Look at the vaporous utopia he promises. Why, it doesn’t even have a State! That “withers away” at some point, right about the time that everyone willingly gives up his private property. Then he works hard every day just for the common good. Then the chorus of “Kumbaya” breaks out from grateful billions. And everybody’s happy. No need for secret police, gulags or psychiatric prisons. Or even for “opiates” like Jesus.

That’s the real Marxism. You know, the one Marx daydreamed about before he even led a movement. Which only ever existed inside his head. The version millions lived through, out in the grubby world of actual people and places, which tyrannized half the planet. … That was the illusion. Okay? Have you got that, students? It will be on your final exam.

Doublethink on Islam

The same kind of doublethink prevails concerning Islam, and it’s equally hard to fathom. Apart, that is, from cynical explanations like faint-heartedness and folly.

But we do know what materials this self-delusion works with. That comes courtesy of a prominent Jesuit Catholic priest, Father Henri Boulad. Unlike the bishops of France, Fr. Boulad has lived for decades in a majority-Muslim country, Egypt. In fact, he was the leader of all the Jesuit priests in Egypt.

According to Agenda Europe, Fr. Boulad has responded to the elections in France and the rise of Islam in Europe … by seeking citizenship in Hungary. That country’s conservative president Viktor Orbán, has refused to accept Muslim refugees — to the loud condemnation of leaders in the EU and the Church. As Agenda Europe reports:

With accepting Hungarian citizenship, he wanted to “signal that the country has made the right decision on the issue of the migration crisis that threatens the existence of Europe,” said Boulad. “I would like to (…) fight for the future and for the Christian values on the side of Hungary and Viktor Orbán.”

Cherry-Picking the Quran

Boulad explained in his comments the source of Western self-deceptions over Islam, especially in Catholic circles. Essentially, those who wish to think the best of Islam, whose fear of “xenophobia” overpowers their rational faculties, have plenty of material to work with. They can draw on the part of the Quran that Muhammad supposedly received while he lived in Mecca. At that point, he was still a marginal, little-heeded mystical preacher, surrounded by pagans. And his message was one of tolerance, and peaceful coexistence among Muslims, Christians and Jews.

It was only later, once he ruled the nearby city of Medina as an absolute monarch, that Muhammad starting hearing very different messages. Now they told him to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Now the messages began to include harsh condemnations of non-Muslims. They called for Islamic wars of conquest. Now Paradise was the reward for those who died in the course of jihad, while those who lived could keep the goods and the women whom they captured. Yes, plunder and sex slaves. As ISIS points out: It’s right there in the Quran.

Much more appears in the Hadith, dubious collections of supposed verbal traditions going back to Muhammad, which Arab scholars compiled centuries later. These filled in all the details of law, government and social control that were missing from the Quran — an infuriatingly vague and hard-to-understand document, whose first written versions only appeared long after Muhammad’s death. For useful, approachable books on the murky origins of Islam, see Tom Holland’s In the Shadow of the Sword, or the more provocative Did Muhammad Exist? by Robert Spencer.

We Are All Sufis Now

Wherever Islam really came from, or whatever happy visions danced in the Prophet’s head while he was still powerless, we know what happened next. Likewise, we know what came of Karl Marx’s youthful social justice fantasies. But if you want to avoid conflict, or seem more sophisticated than the “bigots” or “Bourgeois” around you, you can latch onto the early stuff. That is a religion of peace, just as Marx’s early scribblings talked a lot about “freedom.”

This cherry-picking is what most Christian clergy seem to be doing, Fr. Boulad warned. Except, of course, for Christians in Muslim nations, who oddly have a very different view of Islam. You know, the way the Polish Karol Wotyjla (later Pope John Paul II) had a different take on Marxism than lefty priests living in Paris.

In fact, Fr. Boulad even traces the etymology of Christian self-delusion over Islam. Boulad cites as the main source of Catholic Islamophilia,

French Islamologist Louis Massignon (1883-1962), for whom mystical Sufism had meant the essence of Islam. Islam, however, historically chose not the “Meccan,” but the “Medinian,” path that still determines it: “The suras of the Koran that threaten so-called unbelievers with violence and jihad, are from the Medina period, while the more tolerant, mystic suras stem from the Mecca period. Rome does not understand this, and the Christians of the East, who know Islam from the inside, are not asked, they are put to the side” [Boulad said].

Peaceful Muslims living in Western countries probably do the same thing in their heads that Massignon did. They focus on the early stuff, and shrug off its ugly sequels. We should be grateful for that. But the more time their kids spend in Saudi-funded mosques, or on the Internet, the more likely they are to find out the truth about Islam, at least as it’s preached by all its major religious authorities, in every Muslim country. Just like Marxism, by its fruits we shall know it. (For more from the author of “Are Western Apologists for Islam Today’s ‘Useful Idiots’?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Danish Teen Converts to Islam, Plans Terror Attack

A Danish court on Tuesday convicted a teenage girl of attempted terrorism for planning bomb attacks against two schools.

Holbaek District Court judge Peder Christensen says the 17-year-old, who wasn’t identified, was also convicted of assaulting an employee in the juvenile incarceration facility where she had been held during the trial.

Christensen said the girl had converted to Islam and intended to carry out attacks, including one on a Jewish school, when she was 15. He said she possessed chemicals to make the explosive known as TATP. It also appeared she had online contacts with radical militants. (Read more from “Danish Teen Converts to Islam, Plans Terror Attack” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Things Ann Coulter Got Wrong About Donald Trump

Is Ann Coulter about to dump Trump? Is the outspoken author of In Trump We Trust about to take a giant step in the opposite direction?

Coulter was certainly ahead of most pundits in putting her money on the winning horse (she was way ahead of me in that respect), and she identified many of Trump’s strongest qualities. She also understood why his message resonated with many Americans. But she made a big mistake when she put so much trust in him, as if he could single handedly fix the nation. No human being can do that, not even the man who wrote Art of the Deal.

As the Daily Caller noted, “She wrote In Trump We Trust and proclaimed that she worships him like the ‘people of North Korea worship their Dear Leader — blind loyalty.’”

Putting Coulter’s evident hyperbole aside, and understanding her penchant for the provocative, it seems that she did, in fact, put way too much trust in a frail human leader. Now she’s feeling let down and even betrayed, and Coulter’s worship could soon become Coulter’s wrath.

Over-hyped Power, Underestimated Distractions

What did she get wrong along the way? Here are some suggestions.

First, it appears that she got caught up in the Trump hype, as if he alone of all the candidates could deliver on all his promises, as if he alone of all the candidates was not a consummate salesman as well.

To be sure, there are some values on which the president stands, and he is certainly a true patriot. But as to his guiding, non-negotiable, principles, the political and moral hills on which he is prepared to die, some of that remains to be seen. In that regard, he is still a work in progress.

Second, it appears that Coulter failed to realize that Trump’s bombastic style would create a never-ending cycle of media distractions, taking the president’s eyes off the prize. It’s one thing to have the mainstream media against you, which Trump seems to thrive on. It’s another to create an unnecessary cycle of firestorms that obscures your message and mission.

Third, it appears that she underestimated the influence of Ivanka and Jared. In oversimplified terms, they are pulling Trump to the left while he was elected by voters leaning to the right. But this is hardly a new revelation. The dueling viewpoints in the Trump camp were evident long before he was elected, along with his deep family loyalty. Perhaps Coulter underestimated just how impactful Ivanka and Jared would be?

She said, “I have from the beginning been opposed to Trump hiring any of his relatives. Americans don’t like that, I don’t like that. That’s the one fascist thing he’s done. Hiring his kids.”

Did she not see this coming?

Dense Swamp, False Savior

Fourth, it appears she underestimated the degree of compromise in Washington — in other words, the depth and density of the swamp.

On the one hand, she is indicting Congress directly, saying:

I do, of course, blame Congress most of all. They are swine. They only care about their own careers. Who knows how much of it is corruption and how much of it is pure stupidity? … They are the opposition party to Donald Trump. This is really something we’ve never seen before. The president stands alone, it’s his own political party, he’s Gary Cooper. All we have is millions of Americans behind him, but he doesn’t have anybody in Washington behind him.

But is this such a new revelation (even if somewhat overstated)? Was she unaware of this too when she effused about what Trump would do? And could it be that the president’s divisive style has hindered his ability to get more of Washington behind him?

I too fault Congress for many of the bumps in the road so far, and I also hoped (and still hope) that Trump would be able to take on the Washington establishment. But it’s possible that a more experienced, less controversial, deeply conservative president could have been more successful to this point.

Fifth, and most importantly, it appears that Coulter made Trump bigger than life. (Let’s give him credit for selling himself as well as any person in our time. The Trump name now adorns the White House.)

She said to the Daily Caller:

I got to tell you when I wrote Adios America I thought there was a 10 percent chance of saving the country. On the evening of November 8, I thought, “Wow we have a 90 percent chance now, this is a chance that comes a long once every thousand years, we can save America now.”

Really? Someone like Trump comes along once in a thousand years? With him at the helm, America’s chances for survival from 10 percent to 90 percent? This is completely unrealistic, almost guaranteeing disappointment and, worse still, bitterness and anger.

Trust in God. Pray for Trump.

Only God can turn around a nation like that, and that’s why America’s greatest need is a great revival in the Church that will become a great awakening in the society. As I argue in Saving a Sick America, due out later this year, the darkening state of the nation affords an incredible backdrop against which God’s people can rise and shine. We are certainly very sick, but with the Lord’s help, radical change can come.

That’s also why President Trump needs our prayers and support and encouragement. He is a flawed human being, like the rest of us, with the weight of the world on his shoulders, surrounded by sharks and serpents (metaphorically speaking), with genuine intentions to do good.

We do him a disservice by putting disproportionate trust in him. (For more from the author of “5 Things Ann Coulter Got Wrong About Donald Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Expert Who Beat Cyberattack Says He’s No Hero

A young British computer expert credited with cracking the WannaCry cyberattack told The Associated Press he doesn’t consider himself a hero but fights malware because “it’s the right thing to do.”

In his first face-to-face interview, Marcus Hutchins, who works for Los Angeles-based Kryptos Logic, said Monday that hundreds of computer experts worked throughout the weekend to fight the virus, which paralyzed computers in some 150 countries.

“I’m definitely not a hero,” he said. “I’m just someone doing my bit to stop botnets.” (Read more from “Expert Who Beat Cyberattack Says He’s No Hero” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chelsea Manning Will Remain Active-Duty, Receive Health Care and Benefits on Release

When Chelsea Manning is released from military prison, he will remain in active duty status and be eligible for health care benefits.

Manning, who is widely known for leaking hundreds of thousands of national security documents to WikiLeaks in 2010, will leave Fort Leavenworth on May 17 and be entitled to health care, USA Today reports.

Although Manning initially entered prison as a man named Bradley, he later transitioned and adopted the name Chelsea in 2013. He attempted suicide multiple times while in confinement and complained of abuse like “routinely forced haircuts.” In 2016, Manning engaged in a hunger strike until the government agreed to provide gender transition treatment.

As one of his last moves before leaving the White House, President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s 35-year sentence, which enraged President-elect Donald Trump.

“Ungrateful TRAITOR Chelsea Manning, who should never have been released from prison, is now calling President Obama a weak leader. Terrible!” Trump tweeted January 26. (Read more from “Chelsea Manning Will Remain Active-Duty, Receive Health Care and Benefits on Release” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem

President Donald Trump’s Oval Office conversation with two Russian officials last week was “wholly appropriate,” national security adviser H.R. McMaster said Tuesday, expanding on his previous explanation about classified information shared by the president.

When Trump met with the Russians, McMaster said, he was in the room along with deputy national security adviser Dina Powell and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

“None of us felt in any way that conversation was inappropriate,” McMaster told reporters in the White House press briefing room.

Trump talked with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Islamic State and aviation safety issues in what McMaster said was the “context” of a broader conversation about security and terrorism.

“That conversation was wholly appropriate to the conversation and wholly appropriate with the expectations of our intelligence partners,” McMaster said, adding, “The president in no way undermined sources or methods in the course of this conversation.”

The Washington Post first reported the conversation and concerns about it among some intelligence officials.

McMaster said the “real issue” is the threat to national security by those leaking classified information to The Washington Post and other media outlets.

“It’s incumbent on all of us to bring in the people with the right mandate and the right authorities to take a look at how this leak occurred and how other breaches may have occurred as well,” he said.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters during an off-camera briefing that there is “clearly a pattern” of agenda-driven leaks within the government.

Trump’s sharing of the information with the Russian officials, Spicer added, was appropriate because it was about “a common threat and one we have a common goal in eradicating.”

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog on government, was drafting a request under the Freedom of Information Act to investigate the matter, said Tom Fitton, the group’s president. Fitton said he agrees that the leaking should be a matter for concern.

“The president conveyed information to the Russian ambassador [and foreign minister] that he felt was appropriate,” Fitton told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

The real question is, who illegally leaked classified information? … Let’s say Russia could have drawn conclusions from this information. What if they didn’t figure it out? They sure will now, thanks to The Washington Post and New York Times.”

Trump made a significant issue during the presidential campaign of the potential compromise of classified information because Hillary Clinton conducted official business as secretary of state over a private email server.

Last July, the State Department determined it wouldn’t make 22 emails on Clinton’s private server public because they were “top secret” and contained highly classified information. This raised clear legal questions about her sending and receiving classified information.

“There is no comparison. Clinton kept classified information on an illegal server and spread that classified information around,” Fitton said. “The most die-hard anti-Trump people can’t allege he broke the law. She clearly did.”

It’s a difficult comparison to make, said Craig Shirley, a presidential historian whose most recent book is “Reagan Rising.”

“Both sides will be dug in with no appreciable loss or gain,” Shirley told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

Trump supporters will continue to say Hillary endangered national security more with her email server. Democrats will continue to say Trump endangered national security more by sharing with the Russians. Both sides will just keep wailing and it’s probably irrelevant, aside from what the public’s mind comes up with.

National leaders typically keep secrets even from strategic partners or allies, Shirley added. During the storied close alliance between President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, he said, “They still didn’t reveal everything to each other.”

Shirley dismissed the media’s constant comparing of Trump’s actions with the Watergate scandal. But, he said he sees similarities between Trump and former President Richard Nixon in that Trump and his White House lose control of the storyline and spend so much time reacting:

I more fully reject the comparison between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan. Reagan never went out of his way to make enemies. Nixon did go out of his way to make enemies, and eventually had no one left. Trump needs to stop going out of his way to make enemies.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, said Trump’s sharing of the classified information with the Russians is part of a larger independent investigation that must occur.

“The president’s action raises serious questions about his relationship with Russia,” spokesman Jordan Libowitz told The Daily Signal in an email. “We know that there is Russia-related business in his tax returns; it’s time that he reveals to the American people just what his business interests with Russia are.”

Presidential historians note that executive privilege regarding high-level conversations is broad.

Ideally, a process would exist for a president to declassify and share information, but such a process isn’t required, said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation.

Edwards said he isn’t sure of a specific parallel, but noted that Reagan, against the advice of his advisers and Cabinet, wrote a letter to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev seeking dialogue.

He said House and Senate intelligence committees have legitimate questions to review as to whether Trump’s sharing of information put the intelligence agents of the U.S. or its allies in harm’s way.

“If The Washington Post story is true, it’s possible that President Trump did inadvertently compromise [an] important intelligence source,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “That would make it complicated for whatever the nation, [whether] Israel or Saudi Arabia, that might have provided the information.” (For more from the author of “In New Russia Stir, White House and Allies Call Leaks to Media Real Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order on immigration is back in court, and therefore back in the news.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on the order’s constitutionality. Opponents of the order claim that it violates the Establishment Clause by setting up a ban on Muslim immigration.

This argument seems strange, since the order does not purport to do any such thing, and in fact applies only to a handful of predominantly Muslim countries for only a short period of time.

Some lower courts, however, have held the order unconstitutional—not because of what it says and does, but because of things Trump said on the campaign trail last year.

In essence, these courts have gone beyond the words of the order itself and claim to have found an impermissible, anti-Muslim intention behind it in the mind of the president.

In taking this interpretive path, the judges in question have followed an example set by the Supreme Court in some recent Establishment Clause cases.

But as I explain at greater length in an issue brief for The Heritage Foundation, there is an older, more venerable, safer tradition that counsels against judges making such an inquiry.

Under the leadership of John Marshall, “the great chief justice,” the early Supreme Court declined to look beyond the words of the law to the personal intentions of its authors.

In Fletcher v. Peck (1810), the Court refused to say that a state law providing for the sale of public lands could be held invalid because of the corrupt motives of the legislators.

After all, Marshall pointed out, it would be difficult if not impossible for a court to say how far such corruption had to extend in order to justify an invalidation of the law.

In Sturgis v. Crowninshield (1819), the Court declined an invitation to interpret the Contracts Clause—not on the basis of its rather expansive wording, but instead on the narrower immediate intentions of those who wrote it.

While Marshall conceded that “the spirit of an instrument” must be “respected not less than its letter,” he also admonished that “the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words.”

We might ask why modern courts should follow Marshall in declining to look into the personal intentions of the lawmaker. The answer is that preservation of the rule of law requires such judicial modesty.

Rule of law does not mean rule by judges acting on their whims. Rather, it means that cases will be determined on the basis of objective information examined through accepted modes of reasoning.

As Marshall suggested in Fletcher v. Peck, however, an inquiry into the subjective motives of the lawmaker quickly leads judges into a realm in which there are no clear, compelling standards of judgment.

This problem arises not only in dealing with a multiplicity of intentions, such as those that move a legislative body to action. We also confront it when dealing with a legal pronouncement—like the president’s executive order—which proceeds from one person.

After all, even the actions of a single individual are usually complex, motivated by more than one intention. It is certainly possible that in signing the executive order, Trump intended to deliver in some limited, indirect way on the “Muslim ban” about which he mused during the campaign.

But it is equally, if not more possible, that Trump also intended to make the country more safe by regulating immigration from a set of nations known to have problems with terrorism.

There can be no objective, compelling reason for a court to lay hold of the president’s impermissible motive while discounting the permissible motive.

The court can only be exerting its raw will to seize upon the impermissible motive in order to achieve a desired outcome—namely, invalidating the order.

In Federalist 78, however, Alexander Hamilton promised the nation that courts would only exercise “judgment” and not “will.”

We should therefore hope that the Ninth Circuit follows the path of judicial modesty marked out by Marshall and judge the executive order by its words—and not the endlessly debatable intentions that may lie behind it. (For more from the author of “Judges Who Fret Over Trump’s Motives Are Ignoring US Judicial History” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.