Author
Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes
(Read 2985166 times)

jgvol · « **Reply #43050 on:** March 19, 2025, 10:38:15 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on March 19, 2025, 07:47:52 AM

Someone needs to look up this judge and also find out what his daughter does for a living.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43051 on:** March 19, 2025, 10:57:46 AM »

Quote from: jgvol on March 19, 2025, 10:38:15 AM

[img width=273.619 height=500]https://i.imgur.com/RIxBUZ6.png[/img]

Color me shocked.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #43052 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:06:11 AM »

Quote from: slugsrbad on March 19, 2025, 10:30:27 AM

Even conceding that illegal immigration is "an invasion or predatory incursion" the Act follows up with "by any foreign nation or government.” So I do not think it is applicable, my opinion.

If Maduro specifically released violent criminals to go to the US, as is alleged (and quite possibly known), it should be applicable, imo. I reason that this must have come up before or the Supreme Court would not have made a ruling on it. Since we've never been invaded by what we normally think of as a foreign military force, it must have come up in something similar to this context.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the previous administration which deemed them "invaders." That doesn't change the applicability of the law, but it would strike me as odd that judges and talking heads were silent on the matter then, and are very passionate about it now.

I don't see a legal case here. The only moral case I can see is the concern over mistaken identity. I find it very, very, very unlikely that a US citizen will be wrongfully arrested and deported in this case, being mistaken for a member of Tren de Aragua, to the point of being a non-issue.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #43053 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:15:35 AM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on March 19, 2025, 07:47:52 AM

Someone needs to look up this judge and also find out what his daughter does for a living.

Look at his wife.

But better yet, just look at him and his history.

I appreciate SF's point about how most judges are good people just trying to adjudicate the law as best they can in good faith. I think he is not without merit there.

I've also been following a number of these judges for enough years to know that there's more than just a handful of them out there that I reasonably consider bad actors and no amount of SF imploring me to think otherwise because everyone is as virtuous as he is will change my opinion. The evidence just doesn't add up in too many of their cases. I'm sure the good judges still outweigh the bad ones by a significant margin, no matter whether or not I might see things differently. That doesn't mean there aren't some shady-as-hell judges doing shady-as-hell stuff with their activism and overreach.

If my opinion of his background were nothing but neutral, simply listening to his exchange demanding answers from doj and demanding they answer the ACLU's questions as well, was very telling. At best, he comes off like a guy trying to make a name for himself. At worst, he's another activist and thinks he should get a say in foreign policy, somehow.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43054 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:15:42 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 18, 2025, 12:26:34 PM

The Court didn't say they can't enforce the law. It said the government needs to comply with its Constitutional obligations when enforcing the law.

Take the politics out of it for a second. The government arrests 847Badgerfan and moves to deport him. 847Badgerfan thinks they have the wrong 847Badgerfan, or he didn't do what the government arrested him for, or he's a citizen. 847Badgerfan has the right to go to court to try to stop the deportation. Now, the government can keep 847Badgerfan detained while this is going on; it just can't deport him prior to the government proving its case. Mind you, the case for deportation is a low bar for the government. (1) The government has to show the person is not an authorized resident. If not, (2) the defendant has to prove (not the govermment, the defendant) that the deportation is not authorized for whatever reason (already established under the law). This is the opposite of any criminal procedure where the government has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is a lower bar than a plaintiff bringing a civil claim, where the plaintiff has to show he/she is more likely than not correct. Here, the defendant has the burden of proof. This is among the easiest cases for the government from a burden of proof perspective. All the Court said is: government, meet your burden before you deport. That's it.

It is a verifiable fact that the government has deported American citizens because of mistakes. Again, politics aside, surely you don't condone that. The purpose of the judicial process is to avoid those mistakes. So, unless you want the executive to have carte blanche to violate people's rights because of the vibe (as was noted in a post above), it isn't a good thing for the President to be able to ignore a court order.

There are lots of limitations on the courts' powers. Jurisprudence has always recognized that there are certain circumstances when the courts cannot stop the Executive from acting (even if they can later review the Executive's bad actions). War powers are a good example of that. But his deportation is not an exercise of war powers. This is a simple administrative act, wherein the government has the time to properly prove its case. There is no demonstrable harm to meeting the court's burden. It's just a political gripe, nothing more.

I plan to leave this argument after the following:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers:"
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"

In other words, abuse of individuals at the hand of the executive was a crucial part of our founding. But, that is not the law of the land, this is:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of greivances."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause..."
"No person* shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
"In suits at common law...the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United State, than according to the rules of common law."
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and ununsal punishments inflicted."

*Person, not citizen.

All of this is to say that we are a nation of laws, built on the fundamental concept that a single person cannot dictate government policy, and certainly cannot dictate how the government acts in relation to the people within its borders. Since Marbury vs. Madison we have agreed that the federal judiciary is the appropriate check on the executive branch's authority. It is not a minor thing for the executive branch to declare that it need not follow a court order because it disagrees with it. That is a breach of the fabric of our constitutional system. So where the harm to the government--keeping these people detained in the U.S. slightly longer--is microscopic, intentionally violating a court order is a really big deal.
If you are correct--these are dangerous criminals that require deportation, the government will have no trouble meeting its burden in court. And if it can't meet its very low burden, then it can't prove its case against them, and they should not be deported. Our system is premised on our government not being able to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property, without the government meeting its burden. Surely we can all agree on that.

Here is the problem with all of this:
I'm not sorry to say it, your side has a long history of abusing the court system on this issue. Decades ago back in the 1980's there was an Amnesty for Border Security deal made under President Reagan. The Amnesty happened but the border security didn't and illegal immigration soared. Leftist groups like the ACLU gummed up the deportation works with frivolous challenges in friendly courts and illegal immigration soared.

Elsewhere within this thread you suggested that Congress needed to OVERTURN DACA. That is flat wrong. There were and are existing laws on the books dealing with immigration. DACA directly violated those laws. Congress' "Failure to act" is a leftist canard. They simply mean that Congress didn't do what they wanted. Well, to bad.

We've had years of pro-illegal-immigration lawlessness from the executive branch. If you wanted to stand up for "the law" you should have started more than a decade ago. To now step in when there are some questionable anti-illegal-immigration actions by an administration and say "but but, the law" is disingenuous at best. Unless you were screaming from the rooftops about prior administrations' lawlessness jumping up and screaming it now only demonstrates that you don't actually care about "the law" you only care about supporting your side.

I frankly don't believe that this has anything to do with "the law". It is simply an effort to run out the clock. Trump only has four year and he'll likely only have a friendly Congress for two so the pro-illegal-immigration party knows that if they can gum up the works for a couple years then they'll likely get a Congress that can help then prevent the Administration from enforcing the law plus they've already shown that they'll impeach Trump over nonsense so that will distract him and they can simply run out the clock and go back to refusing the enforce the law.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Trump isn't the cause of the situation we find ourselves in, he is a symptom. If it weren't for years and years of pro-illegal-immigration lawlessness then I'd be troubled by questionable anti-illegal-immigration actions but that isn't the situation we are in.

MikeDeTiger · « **Reply #43055 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:18:35 AM »

Moreover, this is just such an odd hill for liberal-leaning folks to die on. Has anybody looked at the activities of Tren de Aragua? Do they know who these people are and the sick, evil, vile stuff they've done since being here? This is what we're gonna get worked up about? Where was the moral outrage when Obama and Biden's admins played fast and loose with the law? Silence there, but by all means, we must let a district judge dictate foreign policy and try to get murderers and rapists back into the country. None of that changes the discussion about the legality of these issues, but I can't keep a straight face when leftists suddenly are very concerned about the law, and it concerns letting the worst of the worst stick around in my state for longer. Texas being one of the states Tren de Aragua has raped and murdered in. Good riddance, and they should be glad deportation is all they face.

bayareabadger · « **Reply #43056 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:19:21 AM »

To try to stead this toward something productive, what’s the downside in offering these folks the standard process instead of disappearing them in the middle of the night?

Surely these are easy cases for the goverment to prove.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43057 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:23:37 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 18, 2025, 12:56:56 PM

"Government, do more" is fundamentally different than "government don't deprive a person of liberty without due process."

Again, disingenuous. DACA wasn't a case of the Government not doing "enough" relative to enforcement of the law. That would merely be a political issue, something for Trump to campaign on. DACA was a case of the Executive explicitly announcing that they were REFUSING to enforce the law.

My City traffic enforcement issue applies here:
If Obama/Biden had merely deprioritized immigration enforcement as applied to persons brough across the border illegally as minors those people still would have faced the possibility of legal consequences just as someone driving 90 MPH through my town would still face the possibility of legal consequences even if the Mayor deprioritized speed enforcement.

It is another matter altogether for the Executive to just flat announce that:

Properly enacted laws against immigration will NOT be enforced AT ALL against persons brought in as minors or
Properly enacted laws against speeding will NOT be enforced AT ALL against persons travelling less than 100 MPH.

In the former instance the criminal sees their chances of getting caught and facing legal consequences decrease but there still IS a chance. In the latter case the criminal effectively sees their illegal behavior legalized by executive fiat.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #43058 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:27:17 AM »

Medina, I could argue with you; I could point out the political decisions the Trump administration has made to not enforce duly passed laws, but it won't matter. It won't make you rethink your adherence to the line that you've adopted (and not just you, mind you, you're just the latest to post).

The human nature in this thread makes me sad. So be it.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43059 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:29:31 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 18, 2025, 03:18:51 PM

Also, real quick little court procedure primer. This kind of an order (the immigration thing) from the court is a temporary/emergency order. Basically one side has come to the court and argued that irreperable harm will take place if the court doesn't block the government (or in other cases, a party) from doing something, so the court should stop that action, at least until the court can determine whether the government has the right to do it. There is a balancing act between the harm (and whether it can be reset later) and the likelihood of success. Unsurprisingly, the higher the degree of irreperable harm (i.e., you can't go back and fix it later: think death penalty, or, say deporting someone to a gulag somewhere where the U.S. loses control over the person), the lower the need to show a likelihood of success. Remember, this is just at the emergency relief/temporary stage. If the court orders the temporary relief, the parties will still litigate the question of who is right/who is wrong on the underlying legal issue, they will just do it before the irreperable harm takes place.

That's what happened here: the court ordered the government not to do something until it had proven its case because to do the thing was irreperable--if the government ended up being wrong on the merits of the legal question, but had already acted, there was no undoing the harm done.

And that's the point here: the reason for the court's order is to prevent irreparable harm, but if the government (or any other litigant) ignores that order, the irreperable harm takes place. That's what the system is intended to prevent--and that's why it is important to implement the court's order (while at the same time appealing it, or immediately arguing the underlying legal issue).

A different hypothetical: the IRS determines that 847Badgerfan hasn't properly paid his taxes, so the IRS seizes his business and begins to sell it off to satisfy the tax burden. 847Badgerfan goes to court to say (1) the IRS hasn't proven its case against me; and (2) if it sells off my business, even if I am right, I will still have suffered the injury. Now, the IRS says we wouldn't have done this if we weren't right, but how many of you think the IRS--or any other department of the government--should have the right to sell of 847Badgerfan's business just on that assertion? So 847Badgerfan says to the Court: if the IRS sells off my business, I can never fix that, so stop the IRS from doing that until the case--whether I properly paid my taxes--is decided. What if the Court orders the IRS not to sell the assets, but the IRS does so anyway because the President just won an election in which a primary issue was whether business owners are paying their fair share of taxes? Ok?
Not in my view of the world.

Elsewhere you mentioned that most Federal Judges are good people. I'll take your word for it, I only know one (and she is definitely a good person). The thing is that it doesn't matter. This is a National Issue which means that literally any Federal Judge in the Nation can rule on it. Also, the plaintiffs have the ability to pick and choose where to file and to simply dismiss and refile if they don't get the judge they want. Consequently, we aren't dealing with the average Federal Judge here, we are dealing with the most activist leftwing Judge in the Country (if the pro-crime side chooses that).

It has been shown in this thread that THIS particular Judge's family is up to their neck in NGO the fraud/waste/abuse that Trump is attacking so he has a pretty clear bias against this Administration. Of course he does. Whoever filed this case would have been guilty of malpractice if they didn't steer it in front of a leftwing activist judge.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43060 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:35:46 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 19, 2025, 11:27:17 AM

Medina, I could argue with you; I could point out the political decisions the Trump administration has made to not enforce duly passed laws, but it won't matter. It won't make you rethink your adherence to the line that you've adopted (and not just you, mind you, you're just the latest to post).

The human nature in this thread makes me sad. So be it.

The only instance I know of where Trump decided not to enforce a duly passed law was his insistence on dropping the prosecution of the NYC Mayor. The precedent comes from Obama/Biden. If a President can choose not to enforce laws against immigration then a President can choose not to enforce laws against corrupt NYC Mayors.

I wish I could find it, but back during Obama's (or possibly Biden's) Administration I read what I thought was a VERY good article by a leftist lawyer, I think it was in Slate. He argued against DACA (back then) by pointing out that if a Democrat President could choose to refuse to enforce immigration law then a Republican President could refuse to enforce Environmental law.

The problem is that he was literally the ONLY leftist who I saw objecting to the awful precedent that DACA set. As far as I am concerned the rest of you made your bed, sleep in it. Even as to the author of that article and you, if you were genuinely for "the law" even when Obama/Biden were breaking it well, unfortunately for you far too many of your co-ideologues weren't.

I'm way past the point of expecting my side to follow the law while the other side ignores it, that simply doesn't work out for my side and the other side has been ignoring the law for generations so if you don't like it when my side does it, well tough.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43061 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:38:30 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 18, 2025, 05:25:23 PM

The federal courts--and federal law--absolutely reach federal employees outside of the United States, whether in international waters, or in other sovereign nations.

Yes but a reasonable argument could be made that it wasn't possible to recall the specific plane.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43062 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:39:40 AM »

Quote from: bayareabadger on March 19, 2025, 08:22:18 AM

Distressing that trying to follow THE LAW leads to this.

His interpretation of the law was most certainly colored by animus.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43063 on:** March 19, 2025, 11:39:59 AM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on March 18, 2025, 07:38:48 PM

You got me. I'm all in for violent criminals and I hate women's sports.

Maybe not you, but your side, yes.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: OT-Politics Thread: please TRY to keep it civil, you damned dirty apes

jgvol

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MikeDeTiger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MikeDeTiger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

MikeDeTiger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

bayareabadger

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

SFBadger96

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT-Catch all thread - Personal attacks will result in a time out