Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He fell from a high rise? Can’t blame Clinton for this one. It is most definitely a C-19 related death.
Add rape to list of violence.
“On Monday, some CHOP members called for changes to the zone over the violence. In an open letter addressed to organizers, a group of 25 activists and volunteers asked leaders to set up a safe use area on the outskirts of the zone, create different signage encouraging intoxicated persons to stay away and implement a curfew to prevent destructive behavior at night.”
A safe area? I thought CHAZ is a SAFE area. Encourage intoxicated people to stay away? With signs? OMG, who are these people?
So here we have a another lib hoping that not taking action would produce a desired outcome. Yeah, like that plan works all the time.
Roscoe, he didn’t forget anything. Thomas addressed APA head on, stating it couldn’t apply to Obama’s XO because it was not legally executed.
What process do you follow to eliminate a rule that technically can’t exist?
Roscoe, a couple of things.
In my limited understanding, USSC ruled on the procedure rather than the legality of the action. Justice Thomas hit the nail on the head.“Thomas’ main objection to the majority of the court, which voted to uphold the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, also called DACA, in the face of Trump efforts to roll it back, was that the Obama administration did not go through the proper channels in the first place. Thomas said because of that, Trump should have been able to dismantle the program without justification.”
Obama questioned if had authority to legally implement DACA. When Congress wouldn’t act, he did. Trump gave Congress a chance to implement a LEGAL version of DACA, giving it 6 months. Granted, he wanted his wall, end of chain migration and the lottery. Dems could have gotten DACA and more, but they refused to budge and give Trump a win. How is Trump’s action remarkably different from Obama’s?
“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may,” the Chief Justice wrote. “The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”
Thomas countered with:”Then-Attorney General Sessions correctly concluded that this ultra vires program should be rescinded. These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct,” Thomas said. “Without grounding its position in either the APA or precedent, the majority declares that DHS was required to overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law.”
Thomas also said that even though the reason DHS gave for the rescinding the policy — that DACA was not done under the proper legal authority — was more than enough, it wasn’t even required to do that.
“Nothing in the APA suggests that DHS was required to spill any ink justifying the rescission of an invalid legislative rule, let alone that it was required to provide policy justifications beyond acknowledging that the program was simply unlawful from the beginning,” he said.
Sotomayor railed that Roberts should have considered Trumps comments about Hipanics as racist, and racism was his motivation for rescinding DACA. So now we have a ruling about process and intent. No examination of Trump rolling back an illegal XO, but did he follow correct procedure and was it racially motivated.
For those celebrating the decision, claiming DACA is saved, just ain’t so. Dreamers are still in jeopardy until Congress passes a law that gives legal status. All that happened is more uncertainty for Dreamers.
“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote. “The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own.”
The majority opened the door for more executive order fookery. What stops Trump- or a future president – from writing executive orders that will stand for years waiting for courts?
Not like Bolton hasn’t carpet bombed everyone and everything in DC.
“George W. Bush later appeared to regret his choice of Bolton, reportedly saying he didn’t “consider Bolton credible.” Those remarks, made in the final days of his administration, came after Bolton wrote a column in the Journal, criticizing the Bush administration: “Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.””
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/john-bolton/556346/
He is going to sell a shit load of books, regardless of what he says about Trump.
What’s the difference between God and liberals? God will forgive you.
Here is another example of woke culture upending a good deed.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/anheuser-busch-cuts-ties-with-beer-money-fundraiser-carson-king-after-racist-tweets-surface-2019-09-25I am actually more pissed off at A-B than I am the Des Moines Register. Busch could have come out in support of the guy, pointing to how he grew up and so the error in his thinking. Missed a moment to bring folks together.
From personnal experience, if someone lays hands on you it is open season on them up to the point you have beat them senseless. Most of these azzhats have an overinflated opinion of their own toughness.
“Supporters of the sanctuary laws say they make communities safer by encouraging undocumented victims of crime to cooperate with police.”
If there are no police, how will communities be safer? Oh- Group hug!! Maintain social distancing though…
Ban all mascots. No more cheerleaders. No team songs that have words like fight, fighting, marching on to victory etc. Bye bye to the Fighting Irish. No scoreboards. Everyone must take Xanax before the game starts. Maybe we just ban sporting events all together. Don’t want to offend someone by cheering or celebrating a score.
Why call? What happened to “If you see something, say something”? A person falling asleep in a drive through is out of the ordinary, yes? Person is impaired, possibly has a medical condition, possibly DUI. In any case, there is a potential risk to the public if he drives away.
Shoot the guy? Inexcusable. He posed no risk when fleeing. IMO, there was a greater public risk with shooting at the guy.
How about this as an example of what should have happened. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/entertainment/denzel-washington-helps-man/index.html
PL, Political Correctness IS a religion and we are in the middle of a modern day Inquisition. Today acolytes identify heretics and initiate punishment for their heresy. The Church gained a lot of converts. Easy to do when your options are convert or be burned at the stake.
Today, it is not enough to not be a racist. You must declare yourself as anti-racist and join the cult for assimilation. Sort of like The Borg meets The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
