The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: WingNot on January 10, 2018, 06:03:11 pm
-
by JOSH BLACKMAN January 10, 2018 11:57 AM @JOSHMBLACKMAN The Supreme Court has reversed this judge’s DACA decisions before, and it will do so again.
On January 20, 2017, the executive power peacefully transitioned from President Obama to President Trump. At least one judge in San Francisco didn’t get the memo. Yesterday, Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to keep its predecessor’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in place. This remarkable 49-page order has all the aesthetics of a judicial decision but is, at heart, an amateur act of punditry. Judge Alsup paints the picture of a divided White House, wherein “the Chief Executive publicly favors the very program [his Administration] has ended.†Citing a “presidential tweet,†the court suggests that DACA’s recision “was contrived to give the administration a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall in exchange for reviving DACA.†These talking points could have been plagiarized from the MSNBC chyron. Such rhetoric in a judicial decision would have been unthinkable barely a year ago. But now it passes for the new normal. Once again, the judiciary has attempted to shackle President Trump from making his own judgments about how to exercise his own power. The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Alsup’s outlandish rulings on DACA before. And it will do so again.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455305/daca-court-ruling-trump-cant-end-daca (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455305/daca-court-ruling-trump-cant-end-daca)
-
Once again Trump's Tweets coming back to bite him. That and the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports DACA or not. He changes his story like his socks.
-
Once again Trump's Tweets coming back to bite him. That and the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports DACA or not. He changes his story like his socks.
Put your Trump Hate Boner back under your petticoat. This is all on a liberal judge. Blaming a Trump tweet for that asshats ruling is disingenuous, but par for the course for you.
-
When the SCOTUS reverses decisions it should include instructions to execute some of these dirtbag judges.
-
When the SCOTUS reverses decisions it should include instructions to execute some of these dirtbag judges.
Congress should put in an express lane for appeals of any of the ninth circus rulings. It would save time and money.
-
Blaming a Trump tweet for that asshats ruling is disingenuous, but par for the course for you.
It was explicitly cited.
-
I usually hate hyper-emotional words like "Ludicrous!" in headlines, but in this case it certainly fits. What a travesty.
-
"President Donald Trump's tweets were once again used against him in court, after a federal judge in California on Tuesday blocked his administration from phasing out the Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants from deportation.
Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy."
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1)
-
"President Donald Trump's tweets were once again used against him in court, after a federal judge in California on Tuesday blocked his administration from phasing out the Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants from deportation.
Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy."
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1)
It doesn't matter what the President thought about this. It isn't a law. It was enacted by Janet Nepolitano passing out pamphlets to ICE. This woman has no authority with ruling on a "policy".
-
It was explicitly cited.
Don't be obtuse.
-
It doesn't matter what the President thought about this. It isn't a law. It was enacted by Janet Nepolitano passing out pamphlets to ICE. This woman has no authority with ruling on a "policy".
And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again. You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.
-
The ruling is insane.
It basically says that Trump (who uses EO in the narrow, more correct way, as defined, than Obama did), can't call DACA "illegal", like he did in his tweets, because the courts have not deterrmined "yet" whether DACA is legal or not.
So, Obama's unconstitutional over-reach of DACA is law until the courts decide otherwise, because the Chief Executive (Trump) cannot determine the legality, but merely enforce, unless told otherwise be the court.
In other words, Obama can make un-enforcement of immigration "law" through DACA by EO, but Trump cannot change it until the court says Obama's EO was unlawful.
They are using the very thing that Obama has done to say Trump cannot do the same.
No logic.
And yes, the tweets were mentioned in the ruling.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the ruling, but the tweets were mentioned.
Mentioned with the dates of the tweets, as well.
-
And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again. You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.
Tweets or no tweets, if I were Trump, I would openly declare Judge Alsup's ruling to be in contempt of the Constitution. I would publicly recommend that Judge Alsup be impeached for a high crime against the Constitution.
-
And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again. You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.
And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.
-
And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.
She is a duly appointed sitting federal judge.
-
And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.
Then make her do it.
-
The reasoning is insane and almost frightening: a President can make an arbitrary executive order and subsequent Presidents are not allowed to rescind that order.
Liberals judges are headed for a true Constitutonal crisis, a real one, not a fake one like the media likes to blab about it.
I could see them saying something like that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional or something insane like that. What happens then? That is how civil wars get started IMO.
-
The reasoning is insane and almost frightening: a President can make an arbitrary executive order and subsequent Presidents are not allowed to rescind that order.
Liberals judges are headed for a true Constitutonal crisis, a real one, not a fake one like the media likes to blab about it.
I could see them saying something like that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional or something insane like that. What happens then? That is how civil wars get started IMO.
I’m not saying the ruling is correct; however, the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedures Act - assuming it applies - applies generally to prevent adverse actions against persons, it doesn’t apply in the abstract. Thus, if a policy is put into place in an arbitrary way, but doesn’t negatively affect discrete individuals in a concrete manner, then the standard probably wouldn’t apply. However, once the policy is in place, it cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed if the removal would have adverse consequences to one or more discrete persons. That is the case here.
-
I'm sure Judge Allwet would have ruled differently if it weren't for the Twit.
-
And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.
That is correct. If not the tweets, then something else. And if not Trump, had Cruz or any Republican done the same thing, tweets or no tweets it would be the same.
-
I'm sure Judge Allwet would have ruled differently if it weren't for the Twit.
I am sure you're point is correct, that she would have found something else.
The tweets, however, were used to bolster her (fallacious) argument.
Trump did give her some of the ammo to use against him, unfortunately.
-
I am sure you're point is correct, that she would have found something else.
The tweets, however, were used to bolster her (fallacious) argument.
Trump did give her some of the ammo to use against him, unfortunately.
Trump is actually the twit I was talking about. :laugh:
-
This is the same judge who learned all about Java programming to be well versed in his ruling, then had it overturned anyway.
-
This is the same judge who learned all about Java programming to be well versed in his ruling, then had it overturned anyway.
The One and only.
-
However, once the policy is in place, it cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed if the removal would have adverse consequences to one or more discrete persons. That is the case here.
It's not arbitrary if getting rid of it restores law and order. Actually keeping it in place is dangerous to legal citizens.
-
That is correct. If not the tweets, then something else. And if not Trump, had Cruz or any Republican done the same thing, tweets or no tweets it would be the same.
Good point. Every republican in my lifetime got the same treatment from the liberal left.
Does anyone seriously think if Trump backed down, humbled himself before his critics that anything would be different?
-
It's not arbitrary if getting rid of it restores law and order. Actually keeping it in place is dangerous to legal citizens.
This judge disagrees with you. We’ll just have to see what the appeals courts say.
-
Does anyone seriously think if Trump backed down, humbled himself before his critics that anything would be different?
Does anyone seriously think he knows what 'humble' means?
-
This judge disagrees with you. We’ll just have to see what the appeals courts say.
This judge needs to be unemployed in the worst way.
-
This judge disagrees with you. We’ll just have to see what the appeals courts say.
Do you seriously have any doubt of the final verdict in this exercise in judicial activism in the end. Tell the truth now.
-
Does anyone seriously think he knows what 'humble' means?
Trump shot to the top of three different fields: real estate, entertainment, politics. What does he have to be humble about? He knows he’s good.
-
I’m not saying the ruling is correct; however, the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedures Act - assuming it applies - applies generally to prevent adverse actions against persons, it doesn’t apply in the abstract. Thus, if a policy is put into place in an arbitrary way, but doesn’t negatively affect discrete individuals in a concrete manner, then the standard probably wouldn’t apply. However, once the policy is in place, it cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed if the removal would have adverse consequences to one or more discrete persons. That is the case here.
The Judge is just applying an old saw from the Soviet Secret Police. Paraphrased here: Show me the EO and I'll show you the arbitrary.
-
This judge disagrees with you. We’ll just have to see what the appeals courts say.
How many times has the SCOTUS overturned this particular Judge? Sounds like they don't agree with him either.
-
Trump shot to the top of three different fields: real estate, entertainment, politics. What does he have to be humble about?
Aside from the fact 2/3 of those things aren't true, nothing, I suppose. Trump's best Apprentice season was nowhere near the first seasons of the other Burnett show, Survivor. Donny wasn't the most successful developer in NYC, much less anywhere else.
-
Well the judge made their stupid little ruling, and it should apply only to their jurisdiction, to be otherwise ignored everywhere else.
-
Trump shot to the top of three different fields: real estate, entertainment, politics. What does he have to be humble about? He knows he’s good.
He has daddy’s money to thank for that.
-
How many times has the SCOTUS overturned this particular Judge? Sounds like they don't agree with him either.
Like I said: let’s wait to see what the appeals courts say.
-
Do you seriously have any doubt of the final verdict in this exercise in judicial activism in the end. Tell the truth now.
Yeah, ‘cause I doubt a lot of things.
-
Well the judge made their stupid little ruling, and it should apply only to their jurisdiction, to be otherwise ignored everywhere else.
In this case, that was nationwide.
-
Yeah, ‘cause I doubt a lot of things.
Even doubting your own "Gut" when it comes to such things. Come on man.
-
Yeah, ‘cause I doubt a lot of things.
So do I. The courts have become a crapshoot on most issues, and the most surefire way for a lawyer to look foolish is to try to guess what they'll do. That Napolitano guy on Fox News looks like a fool on a regular basis, and he's paid to predict these things. That's the way it looks to this non-lawyer.
-
Half of the time, these kinds of judges make idiotic rulings. The other half, IMO, they are purposely delaying the inevitable through judicial action. This is an abuse of their power and should be dealt with accordingly.
-
Even doubting your own "Gut" when it comes to such things. Come on man.
Trump effed up the president’s power over immigration issues with his asinine tweets about Muslims, which I didn’t think would happen since border entry is a core executive function, but he did, the courts took the opening, and those rulings are still there. So yeah, I think there’s a non-negligible chance that Trump screwed the pooch on this one too with his jackassed tweeting.
-
Trump effed up the president’s power over immigration issues with his asinine tweets about Muslims, which I didn’t think would happen since border entry is a core executive function, but he did, the courts took the opening, and those rulings are still there. So yeah, I think there’s a non-negligible chance that Trump screwed the pooch on this one too with his jackassed tweeting.
Alrighty then. I move to disqualify this juror.
-
Trump effed up the president’s power over immigration issues with his asinine tweets about Muslims, which I didn’t think would happen since border entry is a core executive function, but he did, the courts took the opening, and those rulings are still there. So yeah, I think there’s a non-negligible chance that Trump screwed the pooch on this one too with his jackassed tweeting.
I am of the belief California Judges would be ruling against Trump on a consistent basis even if he had never heard of Twitter. The tweets are nothing but a pretext, this Judge would have found anther reason to overturn a policy he disagrees with.
-
Alrighty then. I move to disqualify this juror.
Hopefully I’m wrong. I’ve seen a decent bit of commentary from the usual suspects that criticizes the ruling, so there’s a chance it gets overruled.
-
I am of the belief California Judges would be ruling against Trump on a consistent basis even if he had never heard of Twitter. The tweets are nothing but a pretext, this Judge would have found anther reason to overturn a policy he disagrees with.
You can bet your sweet bippy on it!
-
I am of the belief California Judges would be ruling against Trump on a consistent basis even if he had never heard of Twitter. The tweets are nothing but a pretext, this Judge would have found anther reason to overturn a policy he disagrees with.
Maybe so. But the tweets are objective evidence of Trumps bias and put a strong foundation under what might have been just speculative hokum.
-
Maybe so. But the tweets are objective evidence of Trumps bias and put a strong foundation under what might have been just speculative hokum.
Now that is just a bunch of jurisprudence gibberish right there.
-
Maybe so. But the tweets are objective evidence of Trumps bias and put a strong foundation under what might have been just speculative hokum.
This is a lot of Hokum.....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/4AaR.q.EUm6R8IJt7R4OFQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz01NDA-/http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Maks2005/Highlights/Ka50TopView1oClock.jpg.cf.jpg)
Kamov KA-50
-
Maybe so. But the tweets are objective evidence of Trumps bias and put a strong foundation under what might have been just speculative hokum.
Bias? So what? He's a President, not a judge. If he wasn't biased he wouldn't have been elected.
-
Good point. Every republican in my lifetime got the same treatment from the liberal left.
Does anyone seriously think if Trump backed down, humbled himself before his critics that anything would be different?
Everyone knew the horse thief was going to be hung at dawn. But what surprised the town folk was that the horse thief provided his own rope.
-
Bias? So what? He's a President, not a judge. If he wasn't biased he wouldn't have been elected.
Because that indicates that the decision was made on the basis of his bias, which is an arbitrary and capricious basis on which to make government policy, and that is forbidden by the Administrative Procedures Act when it comes to adversely affecting the interests of people.
-
Because that indicates that the decision was made on the basis of his bias, which is an arbitrary and capricious basis on which to make government policy, and that is forbidden by the Administrative Procedures Act when it comes to adversely affecting the interests of people.
Everything Trump does is arbitrary and capricious because he's Donald Trump. It speaks for itself, and one does not need to be a Trump lover to see it. When a Judge arrogates to himself exclusively what and how something adversely affects the interest of people, we no longer have a need for either of the other two branches of government. This is how we get Judges deciding what the names of streets should be.
Show him the policy, and a Judge will show how it's arbitrary. Heck of a way to run a railroad.
-
I’m not saying the ruling is correct; however, the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedures Act - assuming it applies - applies generally to prevent adverse actions against persons, it doesn’t apply in the abstract. Thus, if a policy is put into place in an arbitrary way, but doesn’t negatively affect discrete individuals in a concrete manner, then the standard probably wouldn’t apply. However, once the policy is in place, it cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed if the removal would have adverse consequences to one or more discrete persons. That is the case here.
Quoted for sound reasoning. It is useful to remember that the judge's job isn't to frustrate the political will of the Administration, but respond to the complaint made by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must have standing, which means they must be facing actual harm. And one definition of harm that has typically been accepted by the courts is called detrimental reliance.
As wrong and as unlawful as Obama's DACA order may have been, hundreds of thousands of eligible individuals took advantage of it to apply for relief so they could work and otherwise exist "above ground". The judge's order specifically provides that the Trump Administration can suspend/end the program for those who haven't yet applied. But what of those who stuck their necks out - legally, professionally and personally - to apply for the relief? The judge is saying those folks cannot be harmed while the litigation over the DACA program remains unresolved. If they had applied for relief with the understanding they could periodically re-apply to reaffirm their status, they must be permitted to do so.
Now folks here may be correct that this judge's ruling may be overturned on appeal - the Ninth Circuit does not have a good track record. But, rhetoric in the judge's opinion aside regarding Trump and his tweets, he is promoting a very basic and very American view of fairness: if one enters into a bargain and upholds his or her end of the deal, so should the other party.
-
Trump effed up the president’s power over immigration issues with his asinine tweets about Muslims, which I didn’t think would happen since border entry is a core executive function, but he did, the courts took the opening, and those rulings are still there. So yeah, I think there’s a non-negligible chance that Trump screwed the pooch on this one too with his jackassed tweeting.
Oh, it's more than a non-negligible chance that Trump has hurt the Administration's legal position with his tweets. The courts have provided him far less leeway on his proposals to bar travel from (some) Muslim-majority countries because they interpreted his tweets as reflecting his bias against Muslims, right or wrong.
With regard to DACA, I'm not sure his tweets have any real relevance, notwithstanding that they were cited by the judge. The court on appeal likely won't address such dicta, but rather the legal principle of detrimental reliance, as noted in my post above.
President Trump frustrates the heck out of me. On matters of policy, he has delivered far more for conservatives than most of us had any hope to believe. But as a head of state, he's been a complete embarrassment.
Keep in mind that the President of the United States has two roles - he is the head of government and the head of state. Those roles are often split between two individuals - in the UK, there's the prime minister who speaks for the government and the queen who speaks for the nation. Trump speaks for our nation, and I cringe every time he tweets about bleeding facelifts and bigger buttons. Yes, I'm old fashioned - my idea of a President embodies such qualities as dignity, decorum and gravitas. And Trump is none of those things. Yes, he is moving the ball forward on issues that are vitally important to me. But his insufferable ego and temperament make me fear that all will be lost the next time the voters have the ability to speak their minds about Republicans and conservatives.
The bright side is that Trump's public meeting with Congressional leaders shows that he can change, or at least that he's enough of an actor that he can appear to change if need be. I hope someone has enough influence with him to convince him that the way ahead - starting right now - is to project a more traditional and capable vision of Presidential leadership.
-
Everything Trump does is arbitrary and capricious because he's Donald Trump. It speaks for itself, and one does not need to be a Trump lover to see it. When a Judge arrogates to himself exclusively what and how something adversely affects the interest of people, we no longer have a need for either of the other two branches of government. This is how we get Judges deciding what the names of streets should be.
Show him the policy, and a Judge will show how it's arbitrary. Heck of a way to run a railroad.
:bigsilly:
-
When the SCOTUS reverses decisions it should include instructions to execute some of these dirtbag judges.
If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.
-
If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.
They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.
-
:bigsilly:
And you wonder why people detest lawyers and judges.
-
If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.
That would set a really bad precedent that the democrats would exploit with abandon the next time they control Congress.
-
They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.
Even if they were impeached and removed, they’d just end up in congress like Alcee Hastings.
-
They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.
Doesn't matter. As long as there is impeachment proceedings in process, it will put them on the back burner.
-
And you wonder why people detest lawyers and judges.
Why? Is the pursuit of justice something you find detestable? If you've entered into a valuable contract that the other party has just now yanked away, wouldn't you appreciate the ability of a judge to force the other party to live up to the bargain?
Judges rule on disputes over alleged harm to specific people. Hundreds of thousands have changed their position on the basis of the relief afforded by DACA - including to expose themselves to potential deportation since they have registered themselves and their addresses with the government in good faith.
Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?
-
That would set a really bad precedent that the democrats would exploit with abandon the next time they control Congress.
So. Are we just to sit back and do nothing because the other side may hit back? ludicrous!
-
Why? Is the pursuit of justice something you find detestable? If you've entered into a valuable contract that the other party has just now yanked away, wouldn't you appreciate the ability of a judge to force the other party to live up to the bargain?
Judges rule on disputes over alleged harm to specific people. Hundreds of thousands have changed their position on the basis of the relief afforded by DACA - including to expose themselves to potential deportation since they have registered themselves and their addresses with the government in good faith.
Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?
It's the way they twist the meanings of plain English words to achieve the desired results. The same way you do.
An example in the manner you just did: "So, @Jazzhead, why and when did you stop beating your wife?"
-
It's the way they twist the meanings of plain English words to achieve the desired results. The same way you do.
An example in the manner you just did: "So, @Jazzhead, why and when did you stop beating your wife?"
How am I twisting words? How is this not a case of detrimental reliance? Do you disagree that these folks placed themselves at potential risk in order to enroll in the program? Are they not entitled to a judge's fair pursuit of justice the same way you or I would be?
-
So. Are we just to sit back and do nothing because the other side may hit back? ludicrous!
It would be foolhardy to impeach every judge who, in your subjective opinion, made a bad ruling. The court system has two levels of review and is generally good at weeding out the worst errors.
-
How am I twisting words? How is this not a case of detrimental reliance? Do you disagree that these folks placed themselves at potential risk in order to enroll in the program? Are they not entitled to a judge's fair pursuit of justice the same way you or I would be?
You said, "Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?"
I don't. I refuse to have discussions with people who say shit like that to me. Bye.
-
It would be foolhardy to impeach every judge who, in your subjective opinion, made a bad ruling. The court system has two levels of review and is generally good at weeding out the worst errors.
I don't think this is the only "Ludicrous" ruling this Judge has made. Don't know for sure because I'm busy right now.
-
You said, "Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?"
I don't. I refuse to have discussions with people who say shit like that to me. Bye.
And you maligned my profession, and by implication the pursuit of justice.
And now you're too cowardly to respond? Pathetic.
-
I don't think this is the only "Ludicrous" ruling this Judge has made. Don't know for sure because I'm busy right now.
Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals? If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.
-
Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals? If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.
Yeah I'm not so sure impeaching would be effective. You'd still need 2/3rds of Senators to convict... good luck with that.
-
Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals? If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.
Of course the GOP would not prevail! I said upthread they could not get 2/3 of the Senate to convict any liberal judge. The Democrats would never permit it, even if the Judge has a stroke and literally has the mind of a child. If Alcee Hasting was on the bench today, he would be safe and secure in that chair.
I don't have a solution other than for conservatives to get and hold the Executive office and a majority of the Senate, then wait for the existing Judges to croak. It's how the Rats did it, and it wasn't done overnight.
-
And now you're too cowardly to respond?
I’ll answer it.
First of all, they’re here illegally, no matter the circumstances. Life can be unfair. Also, at some point, people are going to need to stop leaving Mexico and be the agents of change the country so desperately needs. As supposedly literate, educated people and professionals, they’re uniquely qualified for the task. The only thing better than a 2K mile wall on the southern border is a stable, mostly self-sufficient nation as a neighbor. We have one to the north.
-
I will just repeat what James Woods tweeted today:
"Why in God's name are we having to negotiate with our own government to obey the laws?
We have LAWS for legal immigration.
Anyone who breaks those laws or enables another person to do so should be deported or imprisoned respectively.
Why is this concept so damn difficult to grasp?"
-
Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals? If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.
There is a god damn good hill to die on.
-
I’ll answer it.
First of all, they’re here illegally, no matter the circumstances. Life can be unfair. Also, at some point, people are going to need to stop leaving Mexico and be the agents of change the country so desperately needs. As supposedly literate, educated people and professionals, they’re uniquely qualified for the task. The only thing better than a 2K mile wall on the southern border is a stable, mostly self-sufficient nation as a neighbor. We have one to the north.
If I'd have known he is a Lawyer, I never would have ever responded to him.
-
I will just repeat what James Woods tweeted today:
"Why in God's name are we having to negotiate with our own government to obey the laws?
We have LAWS for legal immigration.
Anyone who breaks those laws or enables another person to do so should be deported or imprisoned respectively.
Why is this concept so damn difficult to grasp?"
@GrouchoTex
It's a mystery to me! Works that way in every other country on earth!
-
There is a god damn good hill to die on.
:amen: 888high58888
-
If I'd have known he is a Lawyer, I never would have ever responded to him.
Fills in a lot of blanks don't it!
-
Put James in charge of middle east negotiations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwS5WsjPg9U
-
I’ll answer it.
First of all, they’re here illegally, no matter the circumstances. Life can be unfair. Also, at some point, people are going to need to stop leaving Mexico and be the agents of change the country so desperately needs. As supposedly literate, educated people and professionals, they’re uniquely qualified for the task. The only thing better than a 2K mile wall on the southern border is a stable, mostly self-sufficient nation as a neighbor. We have one to the north.
Those are fair points - actually quite legitimate arguments for retaining NAFTA, which helps create a healthy middle class in Mexico so folks won't need to head north for opportunity.
But the narrow issue here is the rights of the 800,000 who took Obama up on his offer. The fact they are illegal doesn't mean they deserve to be denied due process. A government program was proffered to normalize their situations, and they came forward to take advantage of it. That creates the conditions of detrimental reliance that lie behind the judge's temporary ruling. Trump can stop the program, but the issue is whether he can pull the rug out from under those who took the very real risk of coming forward in good faith.
-
If I'd have known he is a Lawyer, I never would have ever responded to him.
<Nope> I've never hidden the fact that I'm a lawyer (although I'm not the kind that ever goes to court - my bag is pensions and employee benefits).
-
There is a god damn good hill to die on.
Right. If we do not defend the Constitution, we might as well die. In fact, if we do not defend the Constitution, we will die as a nation.
I read somewhere that Obama appointees make up 40% of District judges, 30% of Circuit Court judges, and 20% of the SCOTUS.
-
Fills in a lot of blanks don't it!
Justice, fairness, due process - alien concepts, eh, Bigun? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Those are fair points - actually quite legitimate arguments for retaining NAFTA, which helps create a healthy middle class in Mexico so folks won't need to head north for opportunity.
But the narrow issue here is the rights of the 800,000 who took Obama up on his offer. The fact they are illegal doesn't mean they deserve to be denied due process. A government program was proffered to normalize their situations, and they came forward to take advantage of it. That creates the conditions of detrimental reliance that lie behind the judge's temporary ruling. Trump can stop the program, but the issue is whether he can pull the rug out from under those who took the very real risk of coming forward in good faith.
The only thing they were ever promised was a review. The process has been in place for more than 5 years. There's no reason that shouldn't have been completed by now.
-
Justice, fairness, due process - alien concepts, eh, Bigun? *****rollingeyes*****
Whatever in the world would we do without you Jazzy. You are our little ray of sunshine. You bring daily doses of Truth Justice and the American way to our poor pathetic existences. Bless you. .
-
Those are fair points - actually quite legitimate arguments for retaining NAFTA, which helps create a healthy middle class in Mexico so folks won't need to head north for opportunity.
But the narrow issue here is the rights of the 800,000 who took Obama up on his offer. The fact they are illegal doesn't mean they deserve to be denied due process. A government program was proffered to normalize their situations, and they came forward to take advantage of it. That creates the conditions of detrimental reliance that lie behind the judge's temporary ruling. Trump can stop the program, but the issue is whether he can pull the rug out from under those who took the very real risk of coming forward in good faith.
@Jazzhead
If people don't respect our country and our laws then I could give a crap if they have a middle class. We are not the worlds piggy bank.
If they want to blame someone about life being unfair tell them to call their parents who brought them here illegally.
Since when is there a requirement NOT to prosecute someone for a crime just because they came forward? they were here illegally, they came forward in response to an illegal EO and they are still illegal. eff em
I want to know when Congress cares more about American citizens then those here soaking up our largesse.
-
Whatever in the world would we do without you Jazzy. You are our little ray of sunshine. You bring daily doses of Truth Justice and the American way to our poor pathetic existences. Bless you. .
If people weren't continually showing me, I would have NO idea what Jazzhead says about anything! Just sayin!
-
@Jazzhead
Since when is there a requirement NOT to prosecute someone for a crime just because they came forward? they were here illegally, they came forward in response to an illegal EO and they are still illegal. eff em
You're a Christian?
The government has for years created and sustained the conditions for employers to affirmatively recruit illegal labor. Forgive me if I have Christian compassion toward those who were lured here by the promise of opportunity.
The Obama administration set up a voluntary program whereby certain illegals could come forward with the promise of normalization. Those folks took risks to do so. Forgive me if I have Christian compassion towards those who would now have the rug pulled out from under them.
-
If people weren't continually showing me, I would have NO idea what Jazzhead says about anything! Just sayin!
My Apologies Big Guy. No more hitting the "quote" feature of known asshats that are on many a posters Ignore list.
-
You're so full of shit. I've never hidden the fact that I'm a lawyer (although I'm not the kind that ever goes to court - my bag is pensions and employee benefits).
You never told me you weren't a garbage man, either. BTW, you forgot to say "disgraceful."
Mod note: Cyber! :nono:
-
My Apologies Big Guy. No more hitting the "quote" feature of known asshats that are on many a posters Ignore list.
Yeah, I need to restore that practice, too. Do it for our friends Every time we quote an asshat, God kills a kitten.
-
Right. If we do not defend the Constitution, we might as well die. In fact, if we do not defend the Constitution, we will die as a nation.
:amen: Either we adhere to the Constitution or we don't. there is no middle ground.
-
My Apologies Big Guy. No more hitting the "quote" feature of known asshats that are on many a posters Ignore list.
Thank you for your kind consideration! MUCH appreciated!
-
You're a Christian?
The government has for years created and sustained the conditions for employers to affirmatively recruit illegal labor. Forgive me if I have Christian compassion toward those who were lured here by the promise of opportunity.
The Obama administration set up a voluntary program whereby certain illegals could come forward with the promise of normalization. Those folks took risks to do so. Forgive me if I have Christian compassion towards those who would now have the rug pulled out from under them.
@Jazzhead
Part of being a Christian means obeying the law.
Part of being a Christian is demanding others do as well.
Part of being a Christian is helping others but that doesn't require you open your home up.
I would think as a lawyer you would have more respect for the law.
-
:amen: Either we adhere to the Constitution or we don't. there is no middle ground.
Just as I don't believe in torturing the definitions of words in order to achieve the desired outcome. That seems to be the nature of law today, and why courts have become glorified Roulette wheels.
-
@Jazzhead
Part of being a Christian means obeying the law.
Part of being a Christian is demanding others do as well.
Part of being a Christian is helping others but that doesn't require you open your home up.
I would think as a lawyer you would have more respect for the law.
I think Mr. Head is at his best when he's lecturing Christians on how to be Christians. It's even more amusing than when he's lecturing conservatives on how to be conservative.
-
You never told me you weren't a garbage man, either. BTW, you forgot to say "disgraceful bag of <Nope>."
That would be disparaging the bag. Totally unacceptable here in Brieferland.
-
Just as I don't believe in torturing the definitions of words in order to achieve the desired outcome. That seems to be the nature of law today, and why courts have become glorified Roulette wheels.
I know a fella who went to law school many years ago and passed the bar with ease. Spent about a year working in that trade and spent the next fifty trying to get the stink off!
-
Yeah, I need to restore that practice, too. Do it for our friends Every time we quote an asshat, God kills a kitten.
A fine PSA it would make, if I might add.
-
That would be disparaging the bag. Totally unacceptable here in Brieferland.
Does that include paper bags, or just burlap? We're dealing with a lawyer here, and we don't want to get caught up in his torts.
-
Does that include paper bags, or just burlap? We're dealing with a lawyer here, and we don't want to get caught up in his torts.
Well I was think Plastic but maybe we do need to define it. Wouldn't want to be sued. So lets Put a warning Label on it. And besure to add the extra one that The State of California requires. WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. The wording can be changed as necessary, so long as it communicates that the chemical in question is known to the state to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
-
A fine PSA it would make, if I might add.
Give me a few minutes, I have something in mind, but the web page is really, really slow loading today.
-
But the narrow issue here is the rights of the 800,000 who took Obama up on his offer. The fact they are illegal doesn't mean they deserve to be denied due process. A government program was proffered to normalize their situations, and they came forward to take advantage of it. That creates the conditions of detrimental reliance that lie behind the judge's temporary ruling. Trump can stop the program, but the issue is whether he can pull the rug out from under those who took the very real risk of coming forward in good faith.
What was the party line vote, for that program? No vote you say? Congress did NOT vote? Obama imposed this "program" administratively?
But Trump cannot reverse it administratively?
It seems to me like our Congress needs to get to work, past, present and future--taking care of these matters so we do not get stuck like this.
Maybe Congress should divide issues like this, into smaller bite size pieces.
-
Part of being a Christian means obeying the law.
Part of being a Christian is demanding others do as well.
Funny, that isn't the argument I heard you making on the gay wedding cake threads.
-
What was the party line vote, for that program? No vote you say? Congress did NOT vote? Obama imposed this "program" administratively?
But Trump cannot reverse it administratively?
Of course he can reverse it administratively. The judge made clear no new DACA applicants need be accepted. The issue is what to do with those who've come forward and put their asses on the line in good faith reliance on the program.
-
A fine PSA it would make, if I might add.
Please!
Think of the kittens!
-
@Jazzhead
Part of being a Christian means obeying the law.
Part of being a Christian is demanding others do as well.
Part of being a Christian is helping others but that doesn't require you open your home up.
I would think as a lawyer you would have more respect for the law.
Really? I know some bakers in Oregon, and a passel of their supporters here, who say otherwise.
-
Funny, that isn't the argument I heard you making on the gay wedding cake threads.
Funny thing that, isn’t it?
-
Really? I know some bakers in Oregon, and a passel of their supporters here, who say otherwise.
@Oceander
When the man made law is contrary to Gods Law then there really isn't an issue. Most especially when its as clear as your example.
-
It was bad enough when we had one Perry effing Mason wannabe on here. Now we have stereo mouth pieces?
What the hell is this world coming too?
-
Funny, that isn't the argument I heard you making on the gay wedding cake threads.
@Jazzhead
When mans law runs against Gods law then our duty is clear.
Nice try though.
So as a lawyer you only care about laws you agree with?
-
@Oceander
When the man made law is contrary to Gods Law then there really isn't an issue. Most especially when its as clear as your example.
/snicker
In other words, I only have to obey the law when I feel like obeying the law.
You’re a riot.
-
It was bad enough when we had one Perry effing Mason wannabe on here. Now we have stereo mouth pieces?
What the hell is this world coming too?
What we need is more Della Street's
-
What we need is more Della Street's
Paul Drake agrees. Hamilton Berger is on the fence. He's conferring with his assistant D.A.
-
/snicker
In other words, I only have to obey the law when I feel like obeying the law.
You’re a riot.
@Oceander
Its really not that hard. As a lawyer you should know that some laws are higher then others. I'm sure theres some legal mumbojumbo term for it that you learned in law school.
but everyone sees what you and @Jazzhead are trying to do. Divert attention from the issue to something else, because you know you don't have a valid argument on topic.
-
@Oceander
Its really not that hard. As a lawyer you should know that some laws are higher then others. I'm sure theres some legal mumbojumbo term for it that you learned in law school.
but everyone sees what you and @Jazzhead are trying to do. Divert attention from the issue to something else, because you know you don't have a valid argument on topic.
:bigsilly:
-
Of course he can reverse it administratively. The judge made clear no new DACA applicants need be accepted. The issue is what to do with those who've come forward and put their asses on the line in good faith reliance on the program.
First, I happen to support a narrow version. (end ALL chain migration). We only admit those who will benefit America and citizens, NOT people that will go on public support. We have too many of those already.
But the way things usually go it will be overly broad.
But as to the point that persons are owed anything, in exchange for having "put their asses on the line" leaves me confused. (their parents "put all of their asses on the line" when they snuck in and stayed)
Obama's full intention was to hogtie Congress and future Presidents into a policy he could not get the votes for. IOW he sought to override the will of voters.
Who's interest holds the most importance? Illegal immigrants, or American citizen voters?
On the entire subject of illegal immigration, time after time, the Left try to elevate the standing of illegal immigrants, above American citizen voters.
The only reason the Left opposes the Wall, is to ensure more illegal immigrants can get in. They do NOT oppose it over cost, or because it is ineffective.
Can't we simply be honest? Can't the American citizen voter have top billing, in his own country ?
I "put my ass on the line" serving in the military. I would think my interests would be greater/higher than any illegal immigrant.
Obama's measure was administrative, temporary. Why should it grant permanent standing? Why wouldn't return travel to the Mexican interior be enough in exchange for them having "put their asses on the line?"
Why do we owe them anything? What have they done beyond existing here, to justify anything whatsoever?
-
Who's interest holds the most importance? Illegal immigrants, or American citizen voters?
Silly you. Illegals do. And, when they get to vote, their dog's vote will be cancelling out your vote.
-
She is a duly appointed sitting federal judge.
Does that make her God? Or just Jesus?
-
Does anyone seriously think he knows what 'humble' means?
Do you want a humble President? Maybe North Korea would like one, but I wouldn't.
-
I am of the belief California Judges would be ruling against Trump on a consistent basis even if he had never heard of Twitter. The tweets are nothing but a pretext, this Judge would have found anther reason to overturn a policy he disagrees with.
So very true. Tweets are the main weapon of both the libs and the NT'ers.
Those judges are consistently biased and should be removed if there is a way.
The jury is still out on the efficacy or disaster of the tweets. I used to wish he wouldn't tweet.
But, it annoys people so much, it kinda makes me happy.
-
That would set a really bad precedent that the democrats would exploit with abandon the next time they control Congress.
True, but I don't think we should base all our actions on what the dems would do if and when they control congress again.
-
You said, "Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?"
I don't. I refuse to have discussions with people who say shit like that to me. Bye.
The use of LOL is way overdone, but I laughed for 30 seconds after reading your post. I may save it to use myself.
-
First, I happen to support a narrow version. (end ALL chain migration). We only admit those who will benefit America and citizens, NOT people that will go on public support. We have too many of those already.
But the way things usually go it will be overly broad.
But as to the point that persons are owed anything, in exchange for having "put their asses on the line" leaves me confused. (their parents "put all of their asses on the line" when they snuck in and stayed)
Obama's full intention was to hogtie Congress and future Presidents into a policy he could not get the votes for. IOW he sought to override the will of voters.
Who's interest holds the most importance? Illegal immigrants, or American citizen voters?
On the entire subject of illegal immigration, time after time, the Left try to elevate the standing of illegal immigrants, above American citizen voters.
The only reason the Left opposes the Wall, is to ensure more illegal immigrants can get in. They do NOT oppose it over cost, or because it is ineffective.
Can't we simply be honest? Can't the American citizen voter have top billing, in his own country ?
I "put my ass on the line" serving in the military. I would think my interests would be greater/higher than any illegal immigrant.
Obama's measure was administrative, temporary. Why should it grant permanent standing? Why wouldn't return travel to the Mexican interior be enough in exchange for them having "put their asses on the line?"
Why do we owe them anything? What have they done beyond existing here, to justify anything whatsoever?
I'm having trouble understand @Jazzhead point. How did those DACA folks put themselves in danger by believing in Obama and filling out papers? Aside from the fact, that is is a mortal sin to believe anything Obama said, that is.
-
True, but I don't think we should base all our actions on what the dems would do if and when they control congress again.
Just what I said too a few pages back.
-
I'm having trouble understand @Jazzhead point. How did those DACA folks put themselves in danger by believing in Obama and filling out papers? Aside from the fact, that is is a mortal sin to believe anything Obama said, that is.
Classic Jazz move. Play on, then prey on histrionics. I'll bet he's a real treat in the courtroom where he claims to work. The "danger" they face is they may be compelled to follow the laws of the country they're squatting in.
-
Classic Jazz move. Play on, then prey on histrionics. I'll bet he's a real treat in the courtroom where he claims to work. The "danger" they face is they may be compelled to follow the laws of the country they're squatting in.
Those are next to get changed after they get them all here legally. Then it will be discriminatory if we don't change those existing laws. The DemoGame. Sort of like what Sharia tries to do.
-
Those are next to get changed after they get them all here legally. Then it will be discriminatory if we don't change those existing laws. The DemoGame. Sort of like what Sharia tries to do.
Hell yeah. Change the demographics on the ground and there's no end to the pandering after that.
-
I'm having trouble understand @Jazzhead point. How did those DACA folks put themselves in danger by believing in Obama and filling out papers? Aside from the fact, that is is a mortal sin to believe anything Obama said, that is.
Emjay, the legal concept is called detrimental reliance. One party changes his position in reliance on the promise of the other party, who then breaks the promise. Here, approximately 700,000 folks came forward in response to the DACA program, letting the government know who and where they were, in exchange for renewable work permits and the chance to live life "above ground".
Yes, I understand that many here opposed DACA from the beginning, and some here harbor true animus towards these folks (even though their unwanted presence here is not because of their own actions). Yes, I agree with President Trump's position that he cannot continue the program unless and until its legal underpinnings are confirmed by Congress. As things now stand, the court agrees that Trump may suspend new DACA enrollments (approximately half of those ostensibly eligible for the program have come forward).
But what of those who enrolled in good faith, and demonstrated their ability and willingness to work, educate themselves, or otherwise serve the community as the program requires? They've come forward, and as far as they know if they cannot continue in the program they will lose their jobs, lose their status, and face deportation. Are these folks "in danger", as you snidely suggest, for "believing in Obama"? I don't know, but I do know that one poster in this thread, a proud Christian warrior, has told them to go eff themselves. To another, they're just contemptible "squatters". **nononono*
There's not a lot of empathy here for folks whose parents brought them here many years ago from shithole countries in search of work and a better life.
Yeah, I think they satisfy the legal definition of harm by reason of detrimental reliance. I therefore understand why the judge ruled as he did - to keep the government from taking away the opportunity they were promised and returning them to the shadows.
-
Those are next to get changed after they get them all here legally. Then it will be discriminatory if we don't change those existing laws. The DemoGame. Sort of like what Sharia tries to do.
Exactly. Assimilation is the furthest thing from what's been happening for decades; quite the opposite. Considering that they have broken the law by coming here in the first place and for the most part those laws have been tossed aside, the laws have already been changed to accommodate them. As for Sharia, the lower courts have already ruled in favor of Sharia law in some cases. People better wake up as to what's happening in our country. Muslim influence is creeping into our society; especially in our classrooms. 9-11 was a wake up call and for some reason a lot of people have hit the snooze button.
-
Democrats have steadily been turning America into a Balkanized country – with the help Republicans.