Jesus H. Christ! Reporters at The New York Times seem to have an absolutely absurd idea of what their job is supposed to be. How else to explain paragraphs like this that not even the mothers of the authors (it took TWO people to compose this garbage) could love?
The lawsuit was the department’s boldest attack yet against California, one of the strongest opponents of the Trump administration’s efforts to curb immigration. It also served as a warning to Democratic lawmakers and elected officials nationwide who have enacted sanctuary policies that provide protections for undocumented immigrants.
Is there a human being alive, nay, is it even theoretically possible that a human being could ever be born that would click on the headline “Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws” out of a desire to learn whether or not the lawsuit is “the boldest attack yet”?
Imagine what that person would be like!
Bob: Did you hear? Jeff Beauregard Sessions sued California over their refusal to help ICE deport people?
Insane Person Who Doesn’t Exist: Yes, I did.
Bob: I wonder if there’s any Constitutional precedent? Do you think Jeff Sessions is explicitly against States Rights?
Insane Person Who Doesn’t Exist: I’m not a lawyer. What I want to know... [sotto voce] and I am hoping the New York Times won’t let me down... is just how bold a move this is? Not very bold? Extremely bold? The boldest in history?
Bob: Wait, what?
Insane Person Who Doesn’t Exist: Also... [again with the sotto voce] and this is what really matters, to me, anyway... does this move serve as a warning to anyone? Is it a warning for elected officials? Is it a warning for people crossing the street?
Bob: Crossing the what?
Insane Person Who Doesn’t Exist: See, I’m pretty sure it is a warning! I just don’t know who is being warned!
Bob: Uhhhhh [backing away] Well, I guess the New York Times is the newspaper for you?
Insane Person Who Doesn’t Exist: Where would we be without it?
Bob: Indeed. Indeed.