Page 19 of 154 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969119 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 3063

Thread: Legal/scotus thread

  1. #361
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaw View Post
    The three main tenets of the Democrat's immigration policy are oppose additional border security, sanctuary cities, and amnesty with a path to citizenship.
    Wrong on the first, wrong on the second (so called “sanctuary cities” are largely a state and local issue, and stem from the very legitimate concern that it is not the job of local police to enforce federal immigration policy), more or less correct on the third, albeit often joined by non-Freedom Caucus Republicans in this.

    Now it looks like they are going to follow Ocasio-Cortez down the rabbit hole of pushing for the abolishment of ICE. Neither of us is naive enough to think that is only because of the goodness in their hearts. Sanctuary city laws exist, meeting your bar of "concrete actions." As a party, the Democrats have taken the "concrete action" of opposing and sinking any immigration reform legislation that either includes additional physical barriers or does not include amnesty.
    So you’re comparing the existence of sanctuary cities with, say, improper purged of voter rolls or election-law shenanigans deemed racist and illegal by federal courts. Got it. As for opposing and sinking legislation, etc, that’s just wrong. They have opposed such legislation (true on the second point, not true on the first), sure. Not sure how you can say they have sunk it. Republicans have a majority in both houses. They don’t need a single Democratic vote to pass such legislation.

    Again, this is an action taken to achieve a desired result of changing the electorate, which will, in your words, "undermine the democratic process."
    That’s...uh, quite a take, Tucker.

    Instead of exploiting a permanent underclass of cheap, disenfranchised labor, some people want to provide a path—and hardly an easy one—to citizenship. For the third time, what’s anti-democratic about citizens voting?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Julio3000 For This Useful Post:

    Super (09-21-2018)

  3. #362
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,951
    Thanked in
    1,360 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Naturalization and citizenship are two separate things.
    not once you become a naturalized citizen? at that point you're a citizen. are you less of a citizen? should you not be allowed to vote?
    "Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly

    “I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg

  4. #363
    Co-Owner, BravesCenter
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    10,516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,345
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,305
    Thanked in
    2,446 Posts
    I’m not talking about voting. Most green card holders don’t have the desire to even pursue citizenship. It’s actually a disincentive.

  5. #364
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    I’m not talking about voting. Most green card holders don’t have the desire to even pursue citizenship. It’s actually a disincentive.
    Are there data on % of green card holders who become citizens?
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  6. #365
    It's OVER 5,000! Jaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    7,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,202
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,344
    Thanked in
    1,625 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    Wrong on the first, wrong on the second , more or less correct on the third, albeit often joined by non-Freedom Caucus Republicans in this.
    President Trump will be glad to hear that Democrats are now in favor of a physical barrier to secure our border.

    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    (so called “sanctuary cities” are largely a state and local issue, and stem from the very legitimate concern that it is not the job of local police to enforce federal immigration policy)
    This argument reminds me of how we had a federal DoMA law, but Democrats decided gay marriage should be up to states, but then it failed on the California ballot, so then it really needed to be federally mandated. I am unsurprised to see you guys are keeping that going with immigration laws. And "the very legitimate concern that it is not the job of local police to enforce federal immigration policy"? I mean, surely you realize that law enforcement has worked together to hold prisoners for other jurisdictions since the Old West, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    So you’re comparing the existence of sanctuary cities with, say, improper purged of voter rolls or election-law shenanigans deemed racist and illegal by federal courts. Got it.
    A more reasonable summation of what I wrote and the context in which I wrote it would be "Rs are trying to keep legit voters out and Ds are trying to get illegit voters in. They both suck and they both should stop."

    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    For the third time, what’s anti-democratic about citizens voting?
    I am a big fan of citizens voting. I am not a big fan of changing or ignoring the rules and process of granting citizenship simply to benefit one party.
    Go get him!

    Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club

  7. #366
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
    Naturalization and citizenship are two separate things.
    That is correct.

  8. #367
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Pretty much the entire world seems to agree that this Ed Whelan business is rotten. So we should definitely find out which Senators on the committee and what WH personnel knew about it ahead of time, eh?

    Tangentially, the Kavanaugh rollout (as pretty much every other like it) really struck a bitter note with me...one that’s been put into relief by subsequent developments. Like, it’s one thing to have to acknowledge that certain people are born into situations that give them access to elite institutions, which is going to in turn provide access to sinecures on the court or in elected office, etc. It’s yet another to get smothered with this idea that, in addition to being our ruling class by birthright, they’re also superior to the masses in their conduct and moral rectitude...being told, in essence, that these are your betters, when they’re obviously not. They’re just mostly immune to the consequences of mistakes and bad behavior and beneficiaries of system that sustains itself via this whitewashing.

  9. #368
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,951
    Thanked in
    1,360 Posts
    promising that kavanaugh will be on the SC regardless is not giving Dr. Ford a fair hearing. at all. it means it's a sham and they don't really care (which is a major shock, i tell ya).

    kavanaugh is scum.
    "Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly

    “I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg

  10. #369
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,951
    Thanked in
    1,360 Posts
    can't stand the whole "why didn't the victim speak up years ago/at the time?!?!" bull****. the answer is always sad and painfully obvious.
    "Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly

    “I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg

  11. #370
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    can't stand the whole "why didn't the victim speak up years ago/at the time?!?!" bull****. the answer is always sad and painfully obvious.
    Of all the non-hunting dogs in this conversation, this is probably the non-huntingest.

  12. #371
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    promising that kavanaugh will be on the SC regardless is not giving Dr. Ford a fair hearing. at all. it means it's a sham and they don't really care (which is a major shock, i tell ya).

    kavanaugh is scum.
    1.what does a fair hearing look like in your eyes

    2. Why is Kauvanaugh scum?

  13. #372
    Hessmania Forever
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    13,994
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4,887
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7,678
    Thanked in
    4,941 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    What makes this more wow is that Whelan isn’t just some schmoe, but has been heavily involved with the Federalist Society’s effort to support Kavanaugh. So this appears to be a coordinated part of that effort.
    I don't know who politicized the high court in the first place (probably John Marshall or Roger Taney), but both sides are making a mockery of the whole process now. I don't agree with Kavanaugh on a lot of things (and I'm sure he loses absolutely no sleep over that, nor should he), but he strikes me as a perfect example of a first-rate brown-noser.

  14. #373
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts
    Outside of the left pushing the narrative, I havent seen a single person say this. Not a single one.


  15. #374
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts

  16. #375
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts
    Never too late to open these things back open, right?


  17. #376
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    Outside of the left pushing the narrative, I havent seen a single person say this. Not a single one.

    ‘Carrie Severino, the chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, attempted to defend Kavanaugh on Tuesday by characterizing the behavior described by Ford as “rough horseplay.”’

    Lance Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
    “The thing happened — if it happened — an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time, when the actors in the drama were minors and (the boys, anyway) under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones.”

    Rod Dreher: “I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

    Fox News columnist Stephen Miller: “It was drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven”

  18. #377
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    ‘Carrie Severino, the chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, attempted to defend Kavanaugh on Tuesday by characterizing the behavior described by Ford as “rough horseplay.”’

    Lance Morrow, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
    “The thing happened — if it happened — an awfully long time ago, back in Ronald Reagan’s time, when the actors in the drama were minors and (the boys, anyway) under the blurring influence of alcohol and adolescent hormones.”

    Rod Dreher: “I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge.”

    Fox News columnist Stephen Miller: “It was drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven”
    Thanks

  19. #378
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts

  20. #379
    A Chip Off the Old Rock Julio3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    6,273
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,790
    Thanked in
    5,155 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturg33 View Post
    1.what does a fair hearing look like in your eyes
    I would say, at a minimum, it would have to include the other alleged witnesses or those present on the night in question. That includes Mark Judge, a woman whose name was just made public, and IIRC another individual. I don’t know how you could plausibly claim to have a fair hearing without sworn testimony from those individuals.

  21. #380
    I <3 Ron Paul + gilesfan sturg33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    52,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,018
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,095
    Thanked in
    5,757 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Julio3000 View Post
    I would say, at a minimum, it would have to include the other alleged witnesses or those present on the night in question. That includes Mark Judge, a woman whose name was just made public, and IIRC another individual. I don’t know how you could plausibly claim to have a fair hearing without sworn testimony from those individuals.
    Ok... and if Ford refuses to testify? She is coming up with many excuses to keep putting this off... today's was that she doesn't want to fly.

    And if Judge refuses to testify?

    Has Ford even named the other people? Can she even remember them?

    If you think it's my position that I don't want a hearing, you are mistaken. I absolutely want her to go under oath and swear what happened. And I want to hear Kavanaugh's response to it. Otherwise, I'll have to listen to leftists scream about Republicans putting a rapist on the SC for the rest of my years (who am I kidding, that will happen no matter what comes of it)

Similar Threads

  1. Cops gun down legal carrying citizen
    By zitothebrave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 02:58 PM
  2. SCOTUS
    By 57Brave in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 08:21 AM
  3. 'Temporary Legal Status'
    By Hawk in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-22-2014, 10:02 AM
  4. Four big technology legal cases in 2014
    By Krgrecw in forum LOCKER ROOM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •