Judge Roll

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?

 

And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.

 

Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.

[Westside Steve]

Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?

 

And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.

 

Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.

 

 

Not to question this particular decision Heck but of course there's ideology involved in the law.

If there wasn't every SC decision would be unanimous.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.

 

Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.

 

"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."

 

When the decision ends up being something conservatives disagree with, they think it's because someone inserted their liberal political beliefs into the equation, as if the Constitution doesn't leave certain gray areas that are subject to different interpretations.

 

And it's even gone beyond that - now base conservatives think that if you can't find the actual words of something in the Constitution, that means it's unconstitutional. Ex: Michelle Bachman asking Tim Geithner where in the Constitution it says he could bailout the banks.

 

Well, where does it say you can drill for oil? Where does it say you can tell businesses they can't dump untreated waste into a watershed?

 

Maybe it's that part where it says Congress gets to make laws about all of this stuff.

[Mr. T]

heck you are comparing oranges to pears in your analogy. I know that is your opinion but lets get real.

 

Does the Constitution say you have to buy oil?

 

Does the Constitution say you have to buy insurance?

 

And when is one judge allowed to create laws because that it is their political belief?

[heckofajobbrownie]

"The freakin ILLEGALS have no civil rights."

 

You think that's true, Cal? Read that Constitution you're so big on.

[calfoxwc]

YOU go read the Constitution that you couldn't care less about.

"WE THE PEOPLE", are us.

 

When it talks about taxes, it's talking about citizens. When it ...

you know. The whole Constitution is about AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Or, do you think illegal aliens have the right to vote...

 

Iow's, OUR Constitution doesn't apply to any other country on earth.

It's OURs. Illegal aliens with no citizenship here, are citizens somewhere freakin else.

Therefore, our CONSTITUTION does not apply to them.

 

Let me know if you find that "We the People" refers to people from other countries

who officially don't even exist here, and are criminals right off the bat.

 

People in prison lost their civil rights because they are... criminals.

Illegal aliens never had them to begin with, because they are already freakin illegal.

 

Do not confuse "human rights" with "civil rights". Even if it would mean more dependents

, therefore, more VOTES for your corrupted political party.

[Westside Steve]

This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.

 

Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.

 

"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."

 

I think you're wrong Heck.

It seems to me the "conservatives" are all about strict constructionist judges while the "liberals" seek those who see a living breathing document.

They seem to be the ones who wish the constitution says something and strive to make it so.

 

I think uncle John Marshall (in a nutshell) felt "if it isn't specifically denied then it's not the courts problem."

 

But (again I'm not speaking of the Roll decision) you don't think everybody on earth should have exactly the same rights benefits anbd responsibilities as US citizens do you?

If so why even have citizens?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, of course not. Which is why it would be nice if we used words and knew what they meant in here.

 

Cal said illegal aliens have no civil rights. That's simply not true. They obviously don't have the same legal rights as citizens do, but they do have some civil rights afforded to them in the Constitution.

 

Is it really too much to ask for the people who yell the loudest about the Constitution to have actually read it?

 

Here you go, Cal. This is the first section of the 14th Amendment:

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

 

All Judge Roll did was allow a lawsuit to proceed. Then he got lots and lots of death threats from people who are misinformed like Cal and don't understand how the man was simply doing his job.

 

And no, you're not right about the other stuff either. Whether or not you think the Constitution is set in stone or a living document that evolves, you're going to find judges who interpret the language that is already there differently.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, any response? That's the 14th Amendment of the Constitution laying out some basic civil rights for anyone who happens to be in our country.

 

You said illegal alien have no civil rights. Were you wrong?

 

Judge Roll didn't decide the case in the plaintiff's favor, but decided that there was enough evidence that the illegal aliens' rights may have been violated to allow the case to continue. How was he wrong to do that?

 

Also, how does a Republican and a conservative judge show a liberal bias? Do liberals hypnotize him into thinking something he doesn't? How does that work?

[calfoxwc]

Dear Mr. Heck:

 

You are wrong.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

********************************************************

In the day, the primary subject tended to be established up front. At the very front, is "WE the PEOPLE"... of the United States.

Show me where it says "We the people and other people from other countries who illegally sneak into our country...".

 

Until then, you got nothin. @@

 

That is referring to PERSONS, born or naturalzed.

It is referring to CITIZENS, Heck. Citizens of the U.S. AND the states they reside in. Citizens of the U.S. are

citizens of the state they reside in, also. The primary subject sets the definition of the rest of the terms in that part of the text,

or for the whole text.

 

ps. I was an English major, Science minor in the latter year before I joined the service. I've read more books back then

and studied early American and European English structure more than you think.

 

Now, when you apparently look toward the next part, "any person", is established already in the primary subject. They simply didn't have illegals rampaging across to the border to make the point of not referring to "persons", but sticking to "citizens".

 

The entire Constitution works in this fashion, Heck. From the very beginning, in big captital letters,

"WE THE PEOPLE", is us. It has nothing to do with people from other countries sneaking across the border. That's illegal.

 

Don't tick me off to where I will go back to college and go to law school, I'm too old for that now. @@

****************************************************************

 

All Judge Roll did was allow a lawsuit to proceed. Then he got lots and lots of death threats from people who are misinformed like Cal and don't understand how the man was simply doing his job. Heck ****************************************************************

Yes, he ruled politically, figuring that a higher court would make sense of the Constitution, and tried to cha on a controversial issue.

The Constititution is not a living breathing, configurable to what political party wants to distort it for their own ends document.

 

It's the "Ten Commandments" of our freedom. It is capable of being amended, and I don't know the extent of

how amendments are configured and allowed, but it is still the concrete guide to prevent oppression, given to us,

to provide absolute law for our protection from government tyranny.

***************************************************************

And no, you're not right about the other stuff either. Whether or not you think the Constitution is set in stone or a living document that evolves, you're going to find judges who interpret the language that is already there differently. HECK

****************************************************************

I understand that. But how many times have you seen courts rule strictly along idealogical lines? Doesn't that negate

the idea that "well, we just interpret that part a little differently" ???

 

The greatest danger to our country, regarding our freedoms, is activist judges who will rule against the Constitution,

as in, OVERRULING, out of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY, and not being able to defend their reasoning validly.

 

The most notable example, is on the 2nd Amendment. How many judges ruled in different cities that the 2nd Amendment

didn't guarantee the rights of American citizens to bear arms? The libs were berserk and arrogant over this.

But, it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we conservatives were right all along.

 

There is no precedent, for the Founding Fathers to have arbitrarily put things in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federal Papers, that they didn't really mean. They were very, very, very, very serious men.

 

The worst thing in the world for our country, is to allow judges to "reinvent" the Constitution as they see fit. Any judge

who rules that the Constitution doesn't really say what it says, should be disbarred. All these years of legal precedent,

and some liberal activist judge decides that the liberal side can do what it wants, because he can cherry pick a word in the Constitution, and go look it up for similar words, then rule based on what he wants, or his party wants the power to do.

 

There is already a move to consider "international law" as a way of letting their political party ignore our Constitution.

 

Not happenin here. They can ratiionalize til the end of times, won't happen.

 

It's already been a leftist opinion touted by high ranking leftist Dems, that they want to "rewrite" the Constitution

to fit today's society.

 

I'm sure Fidel and Chavez would be proud.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, Cal. Read it again. It says:

 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Clearly, there are people here from other countries all the time - tourists, people here on business, and yes, people who are here illegally. They're all "people within our jurisdiction."

 

The first part is about American citizens, the second part is about "any person" who is here for other reasons. They get rights, too.

 

I know you don't like this idea, but the Founders did. They wrote it right in there.

 

I thought you loved the Constitution and its principles. And yet, like so many of your ilk, you don't even know what they are.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And if you don't believe me, try the Supreme Court:

 

 

While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

 

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

 

Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)

Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

 

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

 

It's All About Equal Protection

When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the 14th Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the 5th and 14th Amendments apply equally to illegal aliens, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.

 

In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:

 

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

 

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

 

 

Sorry, buddy. You're wrong. And you're going to have to show that you can admit that you're wrong like a man.

[calfoxwc]

You first, you big dummy.

 

The Courts ruled that illegal aliens had the same rights to vote as we do? to get

 

driver's licenses and free public education ...?

 

Nope. Not the same. Your cherry picked quote, is taken out of context

 

and ignores the primary subject. Apparently, the courts did too.

 

Human rights, yes. But even distinguished visitors here do not have any right to vote.

 

I wonder why libs want to cherry pick and quibble over words all the time....

 

BTW, are those the judgements of the US Supreme Court? Or a state(s) supreme courts?

 

I disagree. Those judges should have majored in early English stucture.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess you're not much of a man.

 

You wrote this: "The freakin ILLEGALS have no civil rights." I showed you the part of the Constitution that says they do. You said it didn't say what it says. Except that it does. Then I showed you some Supreme Court cases that backed me up. Now you pretend that we're talking about whether illegal aliens have voting rights, which isn't what we were talking about.

 

So do they have civil rights guaranteed to them under the US Constitution or not?

[calfoxwc]

You show me where you ever said you were wrong, boy.

 

The part: "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property " clearly leaves the sherif in the clear. He didn't deprive any

freakin illegal of life, liberty or property. He merely captured them committing a crime on his property, which he

is entitled to do, and did the right thing - he called the sheriff, and they, as usual, turned them over to authorities.

 

As to your question, NO, LIBBOY, FREAKIN ILLEGAL ALIENS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS,

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE, BOY".

 

So, until it's ruled that illegal aliens have the right to vote, you're wrong. The illegals were caught breaking the law, trespassing,

threatening, etc... and he had them arrested. They are NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE, right?

 

So NOW, do you admit, that illegal aliens most certainly do NOT have the same rights as American citizens?

 

Was that the US Supreme Court, or state Supreme Courts? You chickened out on answering my question.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wow. This is embarrassing for you.

[calfoxwc]

In other words, Heck,

 

"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."

 

****************

It merely says the STATES are not allowed to DISCRIMINATE against non-citizen people. It does NOT say, that the rights of

American citizens and other persons are the SAME RIGHTS, it says the basic rights that non-American citizens have, human

rights, safety from being harrassed, mistreated, as a CLASS of PEOPLE.

 

The sheriff never did that. The rancher never did that. The state never did that. It's dumb to twist words, redefine them, and

then smart off to me that I don't see where you are right.

You don't see where I am right.

[calfoxwc]

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

*************************************

I don't know where you got this, but it says illegal aliens do not enjoy all the rights.

 

Then, it says they have the same rights.

 

It's baloney. It's contradictory. I have in mind a new amendment, but we'll have to get a lot more conservatives

 

into the Senate, and a Republican president.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, stop. Really. You can pretend that someone was making the case that illegal aliens have the same rights as citizens and are allowed to vote if you like, but nobody was. Stop flogging your straw man.

 

While I'd like to see how far down the rabbit hole you can take this before you'll admit you were wrong, it's getting kind of sad, even for you.

 

You said that illegal aliens have no rights. Was that wrong?

 

And can you produce someone who made the case that illegal aliens have all the rights of citizens and are allowed to vote? Or can you admit that this is just a smoke screen you're throwing up to avoid having to admit that you don't know what the constitution says?

 

Aren't you a grown man? Just admit you were wrong.

[calfoxwc]

While illegal aliens do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to U.S. citizens convicted of felonies. In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

*******************************

So, illegals are not granted all the rights granted to citizens.

 

And then, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable Constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

 

Explain how those two sentiments are the same.

 

I say, they are contraDICKtory. That's you. Man, you really are locked in to attacking, and defending attacking from

 

the ultra left side. You say you do this for a living? (no comment. I will not comment. I really won...'t....NO. I ... well,

maybe I should, but... NO. I will not comment. grrrrrr.)

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal? Can you admit you were wrong? I'll give one more shot.

[calfoxwc]

No, I'm not wrong. You are, as evidenced by your usual avoidance of pointed questions. You dance around them,

 

you never answer, then you insist that the other person is wrong.

 

Now I feel like Steve. You do it in discussions with him ALL the TIME.

 

The sheriff never deprived those illegals of "life, liberty, or property". He caught them COMMITTING A CRIME ON HIS PROPERTY.

 

This isn't about poor legal Chinese immigrants, dammit. The sheriff and the rancher DID GIVE THE criminal illegals

 

OVER TO THE AUTHORITIES, FOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Please, stop being a twit. Surely you know better.

 

He caught them trespassing, and he and the sheriff turned them over to immigration officials.

 

Stop working so hard to be dumb. If you catch 16 illegals trying to break into your land,

 

tossing garbage all over the place, killing your cattle, breaking into your home, and threatening

 

you when you confront them, and you call the sheriff, and they are turned over to the immigration officials

 

to be deported, why in the hell would you be sued for violating some rights that THEY are said to have?

 

Regardless of previous decisions, they do not apply here. But do go on and blame conservatives for the Tuscon

 

shooting, and compare Republicans to nazis. It's par for your partisan efforts.

 

The Phyler vs Doe decision does concern me. WAS THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT OR FREAKIN NOT?

 

However, by their own stupid arse decision, you'd have to grant illegals the right to own guns and drivers licenses,

 

and land ownership, and the right to vote...

 

Oh yeah, that's what you leftists want.

[Legacy Fan]

"First Obama turned a very sad and, should-have-been, solemn event into a de facto campaign rally."

 

He did?

 

Explain how the president did that, John. By giving a speech about the victims? The "better angels of our nature" part of it?

 

Name one partisan, political thing he said. Here's the transcript.

 

You're probably going to want to take that back. You're not going to be able to find anything. Or maybe I was listening to a different speech. Or maybe you only listened to the commentary, not the speech.

 

You're probably going to want to re-read that transcript.

Ahem:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations - to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we've seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

 

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

To the 1st underlined & Bolded portion:

Really? There's no broad disagreement on gun safety laws? It doesn't happen to be a highly polarizing issue? Have I just woken up from a lobotomy?

 

To the 2nd underlined & Bolded portion:

That's actually an interpretation of what "ignorant Red-Staters" are seeking. Actually, them ignoramuses are seeking to "blame the worlds ails on those that are responsible for what ails the world." Yet, as you've endlessly suggested in other posts, "it's easier to write the story" about them thinking differently than us.

That's lazy. But you know that.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.

 

There's no pleasing some people.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, you are really something. Never met anyone like you.

 

 

 

 

[Legacy Fan]

Honestly? You find this to be partisan? He's addressing both sides. Clearly.

 

There's no fooling some people.

 

He does still represent the Democratic party right? The Democratic party does have a pretty uni-lateral stance on gun safety / gun control laws correct?

 

Discussing "merits of gun safety laws" is partisan. Discussing "gun safety laws" is not. So yes, he's clearly addressing both sides with the power of suggestion- that the view he and his party hold, is superior.

 

And if the 2nd point I underlined isn't a completely overt shot at the right, then Glenn Beck has rational thoughts not only in his head, but on his chalkboard.

 

 

 

p.s. I fixed the mistake you made in your last line.

[Legacy Fan]

Oh and one more thing...

If you catch 16 illegals trying to break into your land, tossing garbage all over the place, killing your cattle, breaking into your home, and threatening you when you confront them, and you call the sheriff...

 

Holy shit.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I just don't agree at all, Leg. I think it's about the blandest, bipartisan fare imaginable. He's talking to both sides.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

He does still represent the Democratic party right? The Democratic party does have a pretty uni-lateral stance on gun safety / gun control laws correct?

 

Discussing "merits of gun safety laws" is partisan. Discussing "gun safety laws" is not. So yes, he's clearly addressing both sides with the power of suggestion- that the view he and his party hold, is superior.

 

And if the 2nd point I underlined isn't a completely overt shot at the right, then Glenn Beck has rational thoughts not only in his head, but on his chalkboard.

 

 

 

p.s. I fixed the mistake you made in your last line.

 

 

Look who the cat dragged in. Must be getting boring in the fat no talent comics board?

[Legacy Fan]

I just don't agree at all, Leg. I think it's about the blandest, bipartisan fare imaginable. He's talking to both sides.

 

And thus the basis of his appeal (to some/most). Despite disagreeing with the majority of the content, I've never doubted his speaking/reading* ability and his speech writers have always been top notch.

 

But it's simply a really, really well-placed barb along the lines of "if we had better gun laws, these kind of things wouldn't happen." That's not what he said, but that's what he means. That's why he's good. You can go back and comb the responses to VaTech, & Columbine, and you find a pretty similar party line. It's not new, nor out of the ordinary. But it's also not absent from Obama's speech. That's all I was getting at.

 

 

 

*Are teleprompter jokes still funny? Have they jumped the shark so long ago that they're ironically funny again?