Legal/scotus thread

[Julio3000]

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?

 

[Super]

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?

 

[Hawk]

I’m not talking about voting. Most green card holders don’t have the desire to even pursue citizenship. It’s actually a disincentive.

 

[nsacpi]

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?

 

[Jaw]

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.

(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?

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."

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.

 

[Julio3000]

Naturalization and citizenship are two separate things.

That is correct.

 

[Julio3000]

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.

 

[Super]

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.

 

[Super]

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.

 

[Julio3000]

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.

 

[sturg33]

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?

 

[50PoundHead]

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.

 

[sturg33]

Outside of the left pushing the narrative, I havent seen a single person say this. Not a single one.

[TW]1043252519177277440[/TW]

 

[sturg33]

[TW]1043137993387716613[/TW]

 

[sturg33]

Never too late to open these things back open, right?

[TW]1043200421542748160[/TW]

 

[Julio3000]

Outside of the left pushing the narrative, I havent seen a single person say this. Not a single one.

[TW]1043252519177277440[/TW]

‘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”

 

[sturg33]

‘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

 

[sturg33]

[TW]1043341000989712384[/TW]

 

[Julio3000]

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.

 

[sturg33]

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)