The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

And I say TREASONOUS, but if this ISN'T treasonous, then PLEASE, TELL ME WHAT IS... and what in the HELL is going on in TEXAS? I thought Texas was CONSERVATIVE! But the anti American CRAP just keeps coming from TEXAS...

===========

UNREAL: Texas School Board Votes To FIRE Teacher For Reporting ILLEGAL ALIEN Students


The war on illegal immigration heated up today after a controversial decision by the Fort Worth Independent School Board, who unanimously decided to fire a teacher for attempting to report students that were not in the country legally.

One could see how the teacher, Georgia Clark, could have thought she was well within her rights after comments by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Clark stating that schools can make the decision to report, or not report students and their families.

Breibart reported on the story:

At a hearing of the House Education and the Workforce committee, former illegal immigrant Rep. Adriano Espaillat pressed DeVos to explain her views on immigration enforcement.

“Inside the school,” the New York Democrat asked, “if a principal or a teacher finds out that a certain child is undocumented, or his or her family members are undocumented, do you feel that the principal or teacher is responsible to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and to have that family reported?”

“Sir, I think that’s a school decision,” DeVos responded. “That’s a local community decision. And again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate, and I urge this body to do its job and address or clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Still, the Fort Worth teacher was not given any mercy.

As reported by NBC:

A Texas school board unanimously voted to fire a teacher who tried to report undocumented students in her school district to President Donald Trump through a series of public tweets — that she thought were private messages to the president.

The Fort Worth Independent School District voted 8-0 to terminate the employment of Georgia Clark at a special meeting Tuesday.

The unanimous vote of 8-0 is not surprising when you consider that the majority of the school’s population is made up by the Hispanic community.

When “nearly 90 per cent of the students are Hispanic” at your school, that means that there is probably a similar racial makeup of the parent/teacher community that would be voting against you.

Also, NBC Dallas Fort-Worth reported that this isn’t the first time that Clark had been investigated for racially-motivated comments, such as asking a student to prove that they were legal before they could use the restroom.

If that weren’t enough, Clark accidentally made her comments publicly on Twitter in an attempt to communicate directly with President Trump, according to NBC:

Clark, an English teacher at Amon Carter-Riverside High School, tweeted that the school she worked at had been “taken over” by “illegal students from Mexico” and that Trump was elected “on the promise that a wall would be built to protect our borders.” She also referred to “illegals” in her tweets.

The tweets started gaining attention on social media last week, and Clark’s account was deleted May 29. She was placed on administrative leave after the school district became aware of them.

According to district documents, Clark told an investigator she thought the tweets were direct messages to Trump and didn’t know they were public.

Although things look pretty dire for the newly fired teacher, isn’t there a light at the end of the tunnel? I mean, she works for the teacher’s union, for crying out loud!

As reported by Time:

Clark has 15 days to choose to seek an appeal with the state, according to the outlet.

Clark’s attorney, Brandon Y. Brim, told TIME in an email that she “intends to request a hearing for the purpose of contesting the proposed action against her contract.”

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/unreal-texas-school-board-votes-to-fire-teacher-for-reporting-undocumented-students/?utm_source=realjack&utm_medium=twitter

[Kathianne]

It seems for some unfathomable reason, she thought her tweets were 'private.' Just her and the president.

She will get her hearing, but from the face of it, she broke her contract. Just like here, 'free speech' is not without caveats, decided by the person(s) in charge. There is an 'agreement' when one signs up. A contract, if you will. This was not her 'first offense,' of being in breach, nor the first discipline.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/04/fort-worth-teacher-georgia-clark-asked-trump-tweets-round-up-illegal-students/?utm_term=.b73e0be7e56e

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It seems for some unfathomable reason, she thought her tweets were 'private.' Just her and the president.

She will get her hearing, but from the face of it, she broke her contract. Just like here, 'free speech' is not without caveats, decided by the person(s) in charge. There is an 'agreement' when one signs up. A contract, if you will. This was not her 'first offense,' of being in breach, nor the first discipline.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/04/fort-worth-teacher-georgia-clark-asked-trump-tweets-round-up-illegal-students/?utm_term=.b73e0be7e56e

So are teachers forbidden by contract to report suspected crime?
If so, then it is no surprise to me that our kids are graduating from a great many public schools with about 5th/6th grade level of education(as judged from education standards of the 50's/60's/70's).
If teacher are forbidden to be law abiding citizens and thus report illegals, then why are they teachers?
Is there not any standard that a teacher be a moral person. be a believer in law and order?
Be an upright citizen?
I think I know the answer to these questions, but would appreciate hearing answer from a teacher....
I admire teachers greatly, at least the teachers I had over 45 years ago, before the public school system went all to hell, thanks to liberalism and the socialist dem party.

One of the greatest tragedies in this nation is its public school system that the liberal dem party has destroyed, IMHO.--Tyr

[Kathianne]

So are teachers forbidden by contract to report suspected crime?
If so, then it is no surprise to me that our kids are graduating from a great many public schools with about 5th/6th grade level of education(as judged from education standards of the 50's/60's/70's).
If teacher are forbidden to be law abiding citizens and thus report illegals, then why are they teachers?
Is there not any standard that a teacher be a moral person. be a believer in law and order?
Be an upright citizen?
I think I know the answer to these questions, but would appreciate hearing answer from a teacher....
I admire teachers greatly, at least the teachers I had over 45 years ago, before the public school system went all to hell, thanks to liberalism and the socialist dem party.

One of the greatest tragedies in this nation is its public school system that the liberal dem party has destroyed, IMHO.--Tyr

Actually teachers are not police and there is that pesky SCOTUS case mentioned in the article.

Teachers cannot be all of the societal persons that they are currently assigned to be. Now you want to add cop.

I left my position for the craziness that was expected. I was accidentally hit trying to prevent a fight. Had to buy over $1000 of supplies for the 215 kids I had every week. 44 kids in one class, 40 desks. Over half the families in poverty; the well off homeschool or send private. Rules and curriculum designed by the fed, Title I school. Have to make sure the kids have breakfast and lunch and take home dinner if they ask. Ran out of money for paper and pencils in March. No computers in classes for the kids. Reading level for class of 7th graders was third grade.

Yep, now spend any free time calling ICE.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's a shame. Illegal aliens are bleeding America, everything from health care that they use going into emergency rooms to having to teach them in Spanish.

We shouldn't be doing that in America.

[Kathianne]

It's a shame. Illegal aliens are bleeding America, everything from health care that they use going into emergency rooms to having to teach them in Spanish.

We shouldn't be doing that in America.

I’m between Phoenix and Tucson, no bilingual classes. They have a 6 week course for those who cannot speak English, then they are put in class. This the reading levels.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I’m between Phoenix and Tucson, no bilingual classes. They have a 6 week course for those who cannot speak English, then they are put in class. This the reading levels.
That's fantastic, but I know in CA they teach them in Spanish. No matter how you look at it though, it's costing us American taxpayers a lot of money to teach these kids that are illegally in this country.

Our generosity is killing us...

The Elephant in the Classroom: Mass Immigration's Impact on Public Education

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/elephant-classroom-mass-immigrations-impact-public-education

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually teachers are not police and there is that pesky SCOTUS case mentioned in the article.

Teachers cannot be all of the societal persons that they are currently assigned to be. Now you want to add cop.

I left my position for the craziness that was expected. I was accidentally hit trying to prevent a fight. Had to buy over $1000 of supplies for the 215 kids I had every week. 44 kids in one class, 40 desks. Over half the families in poverty; the well off homeschool or send private. Rules and curriculum designed by the fed, Title I school. Have to make sure the kids have breakfast and lunch and take home dinner if they ask. Ran out of money for paper and pencils in March. No computers in classes for the kids. Reading level for class of 7th graders was third grade.

Yep, now spend any free time calling ICE.

True, teachers are not police--but such is also true of citizens that are often asked to report crime.
I have no doubt in my mind but that you are a truly caring and fantastic teacher.
I also think you being so puts you in an ever dwindling group of great teachers in this day and age.
One that harkens back to the standards and caring once so inspiring and beneficial to our children
as was lived and displayed by those admirable and magnificent caring teachers of the past.
The very same teachers that gave me such hope, in my own deprived childhood and its sad poverty.--Tyr

[Kathianne]

True, teachers are not police--but such is also true of citizens that are often asked to report crime.
I have no doubt in my mind but that you are a truly caring and fantastic teacher.
I also think you being so puts you in an ever dwindling group of great teachers in this day and age.
One that harkens back to the standards and caring once so inspiring and beneficial to our children
as was lived and displayed by those admirable and magnificent caring teachers of the past.
The very same teachers that gave me such hope, in my own deprived childhood and its sad poverty.--Tyr
Thanks for that. Seriously, it's not the teachers' or schools' job to report illegals, it's to teach. No matter the legality, the kids aren't the ones who need to be singled out.

Arrest the employers, pressure the real police to report to ICE, not the kids.

Especially on the borders, as AZ is, the pressure the schools are under is way to much to add cop roll. Personally, I believe that cutting things like feeding year round at school, would help. There should also be pressure on parents, legal or not, to provide basic supplies for their kids. Computers? No. Paper, pencils, notebooks? Yes. Make them responsible also for lack of care of school provided materials, including texts-SS text is $80 per. They were trashed, but the kids aren't held 'responsible,' as my kids were in non-Title I schools-as it should be.

[Drummond]

It's a shame. Illegal aliens are bleeding America, everything from health care that they use going into emergency rooms to having to teach them in Spanish.

We shouldn't be doing that in America.

... which is why, surely, having Trump for a President must be such a godsend to you. His policy, the whole direction of his Presidency: 'AMERICA FIRST'. He's strong against the issue of your southern border. He's strong on the matter of admitting those who there's good reason to believe hold 'values' which makes them enemies of your country.

Trump clearly has more work to do, though, and ensuring that teachers uphold the law, not defy it (!!) is clearly something deserving of his attention (or that of his Administration, at minimum).

Tyr's spot on. If teachers act in a way which proves they're NOT guardians of the values they represent that they SHOULD be teaching, then they have no right to be teachers. By what possible right do teachers opt out of responsible behaviour, when surely as teachers, they're role models for the kids in their charge ?

More ... to not report known illegals is to be complicit in their illegality (a point Tyr has addressed ... it isn't a matter of being 'police', but it IS a matter of being a responsible citizen). Arresting teachers who willfully do this, is surely no less than deserved ... and any case proven against an offending teacher should result in their never being allowed to teach again.

I fail to see how that isn't blindingly obvious.

Seems to me that President Trump has more than one swamp to drain.

[Noir]

If teachers act in a way which proves they're NOT guardians of the values they represent that they SHOULD be teaching, then they have no right to be teachers.

Remarkable that you would post (or indeed believe) such a sentiment giving I know you know the character of Kathianne. I think you should apologetically retract this comment and consider why you believe it.

[Drummond]

Remarkable that you would post (or indeed believe) such a sentiment giving I know you know the character of Kathianne. I think you should apologetically retract this comment and consider why you believe it.

Doing a bit of stirring, there, Noir ? H'mm .. ??

A pity that you would stoop to this.

I'm actually going to repost the comment you seemingly 'object' to ... because I really think you should give more thought to both our positions !! Consider - very carefully, this time - what it is you're objecting to:


If teachers act in a way which proves they're NOT guardians of the values they represent that they SHOULD be teaching, then they have no right to be teachers.

For the life of me, I can't see what reputable argument could be offered which counters what I've said. Are you actually joking ?? You can only be suggesting that teachers should NOT live up to such a standard, and in not living up to it, they nonetheless continue on, credibly, as teachers of standards they don't consider themselves to be bound by.

What kind of example would THAT set ????

I think you're joking. You must be. Either that, or you're exhibiting something highly revealing about the Leftie mind !!

.... a 'do as I say, and not what I do' approach .. ?

I don't need to comment further. Rather, Noir, I invite you - if you even can - to defend your position.

[If you're joking ... good one. You got me !]

[Kathianne]

Doing a bit of stirring, there, Noir ? H'mm .. ??

A pity that you would stoop to this.

I'm actually going to repost the comment you seemingly 'object' to ... because I really think you should give more thought to both our positions !! Consider - very carefully, this time - what it is you're objecting to:



For the life of me, I can't see what reputable argument could be offered which counters what I've said. Are you actually joking ?? You can only be suggesting that teachers should NOT live up to such a standard, and in not living up to it, they nonetheless continue on, credibly, as teachers of standards they don't consider themselves to be bound by.

What kind of example would THAT set ????

I think you're joking. You must be. Either that, or you're exhibiting something highly revealing about the Leftie mind !!

.... a 'do as I say, and not what I do' approach .. ?

I don't need to comment further. Rather, Noir, I invite you - if you even can - to defend your position.

[If you're joking ... good one. You got me !]

I have no DOUBT that you read the article I posted and it seems you feel that teachers should just ignore the SCOTUS decision, the highest court in the land.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Remarkable that you would post (or indeed believe) such a sentiment giving I know you know the character of Kathianne. I think you should apologetically retract this comment and consider why you believe it.

Hold on there, jackanape. He made no such allegation against Kathianne, he said if teachers ( as in a very broad and general statement ), etc.....
Just as I make comments about bad cops without insulting my own nephew who is a cop.
I suggest that you stop trying to impugn his character with such garbage as you just spit out in your post.....
And just who are you to cast such condemnations and then demand an apology!!??
Especially so, when no such condemnation is justified??
I make the same statement against modern day American teachers as a whole-- which obviously does not include each and every teacher!
For you to pretend that it does is either very disingenuous to serve a personal agenda of yours or else childishly ignorant, IMHO..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Hold on there, jackanape. He made no such allegation against Kathianne, he said if teachers ( as in a very broad and general statement ), etc.....
Just as I make comments about bad cops without insulting my own nephew who is a cop.
I suggest that you stop trying to impugn his character with such garbage as you just spit out in your post.....
And just who are you to cast such condemnations and then demand an apology!!??
Especially so, when no such condemnation is justified??
I make the same statement against modern day American teachers as a whole-- which obviously does not include each and every teacher!
For you to pretend that it does is either very disingenuous to serve a personal agenda of yours or else childishly ignorant, IMHO..-Tyr

I really did appreciate your comments after my response. However, both you and Drummond stated that if teachers DIDN'T do what was being said regarding ICE reporting, in spite of the SCOTUS ruling, then they shouldn't be teaching.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I really did appreciate your comments after my response. However, both you and Drummond stated that if teachers DIDN'T do what was being said regarding ICE reporting, in spite of the SCOTUS ruling, then they shouldn't be teaching.

And in my case that is not a condemnation as a whole on any one specific teacher, as that is a personal expression on morality and the betterment of teaching-- as teaching was long ago, pre-1970's, IMHO....
I do immensely admire teachers but I admire good teachers and those that do not dismiss morality due to signed contracts.
I firmly believe every teacher should report illegals that are invading our nation and soaking up billions of tax dollars monthly in this nation..
They have zero rights to be here or to receive even one penny of our tax dollars.
The fact that teachers are-- "made"--( by the public education system) to abrogate their civic duties, and thus aid illegals is a travesty, a tragedy and one that the teachers union should attempt to rectify...
That they do not attempt to do so, and thus give aid to criminals is in itself an obvious transgression of civic duty, IMHO....
Noir, in his reply was wrong. I can and do criticize teachers without insulting you personally. Same as I criticize cops without insulting my nephew who is a cop, a detective now.
That teachers are being forced to abandon morality and civic duty is a shame and one that should be addressed, imho----Tyr

[Drummond]

Hold on there, jackanape. He made no such allegation against Kathianne, he said if teachers ( as in a very broad and general statement ), etc.....
Just as I make comments about bad cops without insulting my own nephew who is a cop.
I suggest that you stop trying to impugn his character with such garbage as you just spit out in your post.....
And just who are you to cast such condemnations and then demand an apology!!??
Especially so, when no such condemnation is justified??
I make the same statement against modern day American teachers as a whole-- which obviously does not include each and every teacher!
For you to pretend that it does is either very disingenuous to serve a personal agenda of yours or else childishly ignorant, IMHO..-Tyr

Thanks, Tyr, that's very appreciated.

I didn't address Kathianne at all, much less make any 'allegation' against her specifically [and if Kathianne feels she has any form of dispute against views I express, nothing stops HER from taking them on, directly, without 'stirring' efforts emanating from Noir !]

I stand by my view, because I consider it to be a correct one to hold. As ever, I invite anyone to disprove its worth ... within the context of decent, civilised debate. If this doesn't successfully occur, then compromise from myself isn't called for ...

.. much less any 'apology'.

[What's next ? Should I apologise for being a Conservative thinker ... ?]

[Drummond]

And in my case that is not a condemnation as a whole on any one specific teacher, as that is a personal expression on morality and the betterment of teaching-- as teaching was long ago, pre-1970's, IMHO....
I do immensely admire teachers but I admire good teachers and those that do not dismiss morality due to signed contracts.
I firmly believe every teacher should report illegals that are invading our nation and soaking up billions of tax dollars monthly in this nation..
They have zero rights to be here or to receive even one penny of our tax dollars.
The fact that teachers are-- "made"--( by the public education system) to abrogate their civic duties, and thus aid illegals is a travesty, a tragedy and one that the teachers union should attempt to rectify...
That they do not attempt to do so, and thus give aid to criminals is in itself an obvious transgression of civic duty, IMHO....
Noir, in his reply was wrong. I can and do criticize teachers without insulting you personally. Same as I criticize cops without insulting my nephew who is a cop, a detective now.
That teachers are being forced to abandon morality and civic duty is a shame and one that should be addressed, imho----Tyr

Totally agree.

As a general principle, I can neither make sense of, nor concede the supposed 'right', of a teacher to knowingly act totally contrary to the standards that said teacher teaches. Really, how does that represent consistency ? Have a set of pupils who are receiving lessons taught to them, who are then aware that the standards taught by the person teaching them aren't being adhered to by the teacher of them (!) ... it sends the worst of messages.

How CAN'T it ?

If anyone can explain to me how my position doesn't hold up ... that I 'must be wrong' ... OK. Bring it on. PROVE me wrong.

[Drummond]

I really did appreciate your comments after my response. However, both you and Drummond stated that if teachers DIDN'T do what was being said regarding ICE reporting, in spite of the SCOTUS ruling, then they shouldn't be teaching.

I don't know about 'ICE' or 'SCOTUS'. If I need to remind you, Kathianne, I'm not American.

So shall we widen the discussion a little ? Please see the case I've just posted to Tyr. If you think the principle I've described doesn't make sense, or is incorrect or in any way 'indefensible', you're welcome to disprove my position through reasoned argument.

[Kathianne]

Which of you are going to take it to SCOTUS? They’ve ruled that it’s not OK.

[Drummond]

Which of you are going to take it to SCOTUS? They’ve ruled that it’s not OK.

I'd like some clarity as to the position you're taking (I've just looked up what 'SCOTUS' is, by the way ... the British don't use such a term).

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a ruling coming from 'SCOTUS' defies moral and societal norms of consistency ? Putting teachers in a position where they cannot remain loyal to values which their teachings reflect (or should reflect) ?

Tyr's exactly right in his argument, as I see it, and I won't attempt to improve on his own wording. Rather, I'd like you to expand on the position you're adopting, Kathianne. Please explain the correctness of any disparity between a SCOTUS ruling and its 'right' to defy a societal norm, i.e the reporting of a known illegal, AS SUCH ...

[Kathianne]

Not going to have a change in discussion, regardless of who's making the demand.

The SCOTUS case simplified: Phyler v. Doe https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538


Facts of the case

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question

Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Sort:

by seniority
by ideology




5–4 DECISION
MAJORITY OPINION BY WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR.



Yes. The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Ever since TX, AZ, NM have all had schools as 'safe zones.' I do not think one would characterize either TX or AZ as being far left bastions of liberalism, but argue as you wish.

Sorry if teachers aren't lining up to make kids the bullets you'd like, n matter what we think of their parents choices.

Now as I said earlier, who wants to line up to have the chance to overturn the case?

[Drummond]

Not going to have a change in discussion, regardless of who's making the demand.

The SCOTUS case simplified: Phyler v. Doe https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538


Ever since TX, AZ, NM have all had schools as 'safe zones.' I do not think one would characterize either TX or AZ as being far left bastions of liberalism, but argue as you wish.

Sorry if teachers aren't lining up to make kids the bullets you'd like, no matter what we think of their parents choices.

Now as I said earlier, who wants to line up to have the chance to overturn the case?

I'll start my post by restating the title of this thread, because it's certainly worth remembering and keeping to the context it sets. This is:

The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

Sorry to see that you've ducked the discussion I wanted from my last post, Kathianne. However, the post I'm replying to did prove instructive, so, thanks for that.

The ruling you posted the summary of, from 'Phyler v Doe' ... the deciding judge in this ruling was one William J Brennan ?

Was he - and I think he was - the same William J Brennan referred to in this Wikipedia entry .. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr.


On the Supreme Court, Brennan was known for his outspoken progressive views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights. He authored several landmark case opinions, including Baker v. Carr, establishing that the apportionment of legislative districts is a justiciable issue, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which required "actual malice" in libel suits brought by public officials. Due to his ability to shape a variety of wide opinions and "bargain" for votes in many cases, he was considered to be among the Court's most influential members. Justice Antonin Scalia called Brennan "probably the most influential Justice of the [20th] century.


An outspoken liberal throughout his career, he played a leading role in the Warren Court's expansion of individual rights. Brennan played a behind-the-scenes role during the Warren Court, coaxing more conservative colleagues to join the Court's decisions.


Brennan strongly believed in the Bill of Rights, arguing early on in his career that it should be applied to the states in addition to the federal government. He often took positions in favor of individual rights against the state, often favoring criminal defendants, minorities, the poor, and other underrepresented groups.

Much of that Wikipedia entry goes way over my head, no doubt due in large measure to my not being American, and so I lack familiarity with the American legal system. This much is clear, though ... Brennan, the judge who was the deciding factor behind the 'Phyler v Doe' outcome, was a Democrat-leaning judge who used his position to judge cases according to what passed for his 'political conscience', and exercised influence in the service of such sensibilities in his role as judge !!

In the case we're discussing, Kathianne, Brennan, along with the judges who agreed with him, evidently crafted a 'legal loophole' allowing certain illegals immunity against the consequences of their illegality !! After all, kids requiring an education need their parents, right ? So, illegal OR NOT, they evade culpability for their legal status for as long as their kids are being schooled !!

I have but one thing, then, to say ... and I'm still inviting a challenge, whether or not it'll still be ducked .... so, in the words of this thread's creator:

"The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND."

In my humble opinion ... wise words. Where things can be taken to such an extreme, where illegality is warped into legality, WITHOUT actually even changing the law !!

[Kathianne]

I'll start my post by restating the title of this thread, because it's certainly worth remembering and keeping to the context it sets. This is:

The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND.

Sorry to see that you've ducked the discussion I wanted from my last post, Kathianne. However, the post I'm replying to did prove instructive, so, thanks for that.

The ruling you posted the summary of, from 'Phyler v Doe' ... the deciding judge in this ruling was one William J Brennan ?

Was he - and I think he was - the same William J Brennan referred to in this Wikipedia entry .. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr.







Much of that Wikipedia entry goes way over my head, no doubt due in large measure to my not being American, and so I lack familiarity with the American legal system. This much is clear, though ... Brennan, the judge who was the deciding factor behind the 'Phyler v Doe' outcome, was a Democrat-leaning judge who used his position to judge cases according to what passed for his 'political conscience', and exercised influence in the service of such sensibilities in his role as judge !!

In the case we're discussing, Kathianne, Brennan, along with the judges who agreed with him, evidently crafted a 'legal loophole' allowing certain illegals immunity against the consequences of their illegality !! After all, kids requiring an education need their parents, right ? So, illegal OR NOT, they evade culpability for their legal status for as long as their kids are being schooled !!

I have but one thing, then, to say ... and I'm still inviting a challenge, whether or not it'll still be ducked .... so, in the words of this thread's creator:

"The TREASONOUS Behavior by DEMOCRATS In The Nation Is Getting WAY OUT OF HAND."

In my humble opinion ... wise words. Where things can be taken to such an extreme, where illegality is warped into legality, WITHOUT actually even changing the law !!

I guess your country doesn't have two or more parties? People don't have differing points of view? Of course it does and they do.

Brennan was a liberal judge indeed, but Constitutionally appointed and he carried every bit as much right to make his decisions as did one of my personal favorites, Anton Scalia. See, the way our system is supposed to work is that whomever is president, they get to appoint, with Senate approval, anyone they wish to the court. In the case of Brennan, it was a democrat. You like it with Trump, no?

One doesn't get to just wave one's hand if they disagree with the court's decisions-as I said, find a case to overturn the decision.

Then again, it's always a joy to watch those whom are so vested in their political point of view, to dismiss little ideas like rule of law and constitutionality. Of course when it's to bully school children it does prove one's strengths.

[Drummond]

I guess your country doesn't have two or more parties? People don't have differing points of view? Of course it does and they do.

Brennan was a liberal judge indeed, but Constitutionally appointed and he carried every bit as much right to make his decisions as did one of my personal favorites, Anton Scalia. See, the way our system is supposed to work is that whomever is president, they get to appoint, with Senate approval, anyone they wish to the court. In the case of Brennan, it was a democrat. You like it with Trump, no?

One doesn't get to just wave one's hand if they disagree with the court's decisions-as I said, find a case to overturn the decision.

Then again, it's always a joy to watch those whom are so vested in their political point of view, to dismiss little ideas like rule of law and constitutionality. Of course when it's to bully school children it does prove one's strengths.

'Bully school children', eh ? I'm wondering why you're pushing the notion of ill-treatment towards children. Previously you posted about 'making kids bullets'. For myself .. I tend to think of them (those who could be involved) as victims. It isn't THEIR fault that their parents chose to place them in an environment where they could experience a fundamental lack of personal security, and neither is it their fault that they're taught one notion of values which their teachers could be observed, thanks to a politically biased judiciary, to be in conflict with, through legalised force !!

What we have here is perhaps (in my case, anyway) a degree of cultural difference. The idea that judges could get away with, much less have sanctioned, a freedom to skew legal judgments according to personal political bias, would definitely NOT be at all easily tolerated in the UK, if AT ALL !!

See this:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/


Independence from whom and what?

It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other so that those who appear before them and the wider public can have confidence that their cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law. When carrying out their judicial function they must be free of any improper influence. Such influence could come from any number of sources. It could arise from improper pressure by the executive or the legislature, by individual litigants, particular pressure groups, the media, self-interest or other judges, in particular more senior judges.

Why is independence important?

It is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court by the parties and in accordance with the law. Only relevant facts and law should form the basis of a judge's decision. Only in this way can judges discharge their constitutional responsibility to provide fair and impartial justice; to do justice as Lord Brougham, a 19th Century Lord Chancellor, put it ‘between man and man’ or as Lord Clarke, former Master of the Rolls put it more recently in 2005, ‘between citizen and citizen or between citizen and the state’.

I think that's clear, don't you ? I don't believe judges judging according to political bias, much less having politically motivated judges influencing OTHER judges to fall in line with their personal beliefs (!!!), would ever be tolerated here in the UK. It couldn't reasonably happen. Because if it did, an element of subversion would automatically be suspected.

Isn't that what we see from your example ? A judge, or a group of them, found a way of making a certain 'class' of illegal immigrant immune from the consequences of their illegal act of being within a territory they had no legal basis to enter, much less set up home within ! That's subversion of a legal position, and one contrived out of a politically motivated perspective. Worse, the subversion impinges upon and taints the credibility of teachers who simultaneously teach values, but can simultaneously make a mockery of them through judicial precedence.

To me, if perhaps not to you, that's staggeringly outrageous. What possible 'example' are teachers setting their pupils, when they themselves defy the standards they'd be teaching ?

I think the premise of the thread's title is incontrovertibly proven. Don't you ? Establish acceptance of a precedent where, from active political bias, laws and therefore the values underpinning them can be twisted, sidelined, nullified ... and all on a 'judicial whim' ... how far away is that from outright treason ? A force capable of materially subverting the values of a society, one supposedly 'loyal' to the system and culture being subverted (!), is at best a hairs' breadth away from treasonous activity. Break down the values a society is loyal to, defy them, and the society - and what defines it - IS BETRAYED.

Laws reflect the values a society is founded upon, and to which its citizens should feel loyal to, and BE loyal to. Otherwise, what's the point of them ?

The worse all this gets, the greater the harm to the very fabric of society. If that isn't ultimately treasonous in (- at minimum -) its consequential effect, what is ?

This is surely completely obvious.

Your words, Kathianne: 'Brennan was a liberal judge indeed'. In my system, no judge should ever be politically definable from his or her legal pronouncements. In yours, not only does that happen, but the result is to allow a level of exception of a law where to do so, undermines the worth of that law.

I don't think I need say more -- my case is made.

[Kathianne]

'Bully school children', eh ? I'm wondering why you're pushing the notion of ill-treatment towards children. Previously you posted about 'making kids bullets'. For myself .. I tend to think of them (those who could be involved) as victims. It isn't THEIR fault that their parents chose to place them in an environment where they could experience a fundamental lack of personal security, and neither is it their fault that they're taught one notion of values which their teachers could be observed, thanks to a politically biased judiciary, to be in conflict with, through legalised force !!

What we have here is perhaps (in my case, anyway) a degree of cultural difference. The idea that judges could get away with, much less have sanctioned, a freedom to skew legal judgments according to personal political bias, would definitely NOT be at all easily tolerated in the UK, if AT ALL !!

See this:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/



I think that's clear, don't you ? I don't believe judges judging according to political bias, much less having politically motivated judges influencing OTHER judges to fall in line with their personal beliefs (!!!), would ever be tolerated here in the UK. It couldn't reasonably happen. Because if it did, an element of subversion would automatically be suspected.

Isn't that what we see from your example ? A judge, or a group of them, found a way of making a certain 'class' of illegal immigrant immune from the consequences of their illegal act of being within a territory they had no legal basis to enter, much less set up home within ! That's subversion of a legal position, and one contrived out of a politically motivated perspective. Worse, the subversion impinges upon and taints the credibility of teachers who simultaneously teach values, but can simultaneously make a mockery of them through judicial precedence.

To me, if perhaps not to you, that's staggeringly outrageous. What possible 'example' are teachers setting their pupils, when they themselves defy the standards they'd be teaching ?

I think the premise of the thread's title is incontrovertibly proven. Don't you ? Establish acceptance of a precedent where, from active political bias, laws and therefore the values underpinning them can be twisted, sidelined, nullified ... and all on a 'judicial whim' ... how far away is that from outright treason ? A force capable of materially subverting the values of a society, one supposedly 'loyal' to the system and culture being subverted (!), is at best a hairs' breadth away from treasonous activity. Break down the values a society is loyal to, defy them, and the society - and what defines it - IS BETRAYED.

Laws reflect the values a society is founded upon, and to which its citizens should feel loyal to, and BE loyal to. Otherwise, what's the point of them ?

The worse all this gets, the greater the harm to the very fabric of society. If that isn't ultimately treasonous in (- at minimum -) its consequential effect, what is ?

This is surely completely obvious.

The Supreme Court has 9 justices, it takes the majority to render a decision. You chose to focus on the one you could find a source for labeling. That's fine, but it's your bias that becomes obvious.

I'm pretty sure we vetoed the British system more than 200 years ago.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It is my opinion, regardless of whether or not a judge imposed his own personal point of view by the authority vested in him, which they're not supposed to do, that illegal aliens should have zero "rights" in this nation, and that includes the children.

But when you strip away all the hype and partisan diatribe, there's glaring facts of the matter that are always ignored, like the public education system in America is a virtual leftist democrat indoctrination camp, from kindergarten through college, and there's no denying that, and it is in part due to the fact that the vast majority of teachers are left leaning liberal democrats, as are the vast majority of school administrations, and THEY KNOW, that they can't churn out new DEMOCRATS that believe what THEY believe if they can't teach them, and they can't teach them if they're turned into ICE or deported.

It's a sinister plan, and yes, in my opinion, extremely un-American and treasonous, and the American taxpayer is funding this anti American leftist plot and can't do a damn thing about it. But it's just not the schools. The democrats in America today are getting more and more anti American. They want total opens borders, because they believe illegal aliens VOTE DEMOCRAT, and they want SOCIALISM, FREE, FREE, FREE, and ALL their policies are just more and more RADICAL, like allowing TERRORISTS VOTE FROM PRISON. It's all part of who and what the democrat party has turned into, and it's disgusting, and why I titled this thread the way I did.

Change the law? I doubt our BILLIONAIRE PRESIDENT could get the law change, let alone some poor broke average citizen schmuck.

[jimnyc]

IMO, ALL and ANY illegals should be reported when found out. Same as with employment, if an employer knows, or a fellow employee, take care of business. The ignoring of the issue for decades is what got us where we are. And I mean that last one way less to do with schools, if at all, and more about border/employment and everyone looking the other way. I don't think anyone should ever be punished for reporting anything to the police.

I read something yesterday that really made me think about America, the choices we make, and the bending over backwards that only harms us in the end. DON'T widen the plate throughout life, we all should have standards... These things are changing our country.

I'm not taking a hard stance on teachers, respect the hell out of them. I know they have a hard enough job to do, and let them do that. But I hate to see someone get punished for what any other citizen wouldn't be. But that happens all the time, unfair or not, home plate or not. This is easily one I would like to see the law/schools change on.

--

https://i.imgur.com/rB9Bdv9.jpg

Twenty years ago, in Nashville, Tennessee, during the first week of January, 1996, more than 4,000 baseball coaches descended upon the Opryland Hotel for the 52nd annual ABCA's convention.

While I waited in line to register with the hotel staff, I heard other more veteran coaches rumbling about the lineup of speakers scheduled to present during the weekend. One name kept resurfacing, always with the same sentiment — “John Scolinos is here? Oh, man, worth every penny of my airfare.”

Who is John Scolinos, I wondered. No matter; I was just happy to be there.

In 1996, Coach Scolinos was 78 years old and five years retired from a college coaching career that began in 1948. He shuffled to the stage to an impressive standing ovation, wearing dark polyester pants, a light blue shirt, and a string around his neck from which home plate hung — a full-sized, stark-white home plate.

Seriously, I wondered, who is this guy?

After speaking for twenty-five minutes, not once mentioning the prop hanging around his neck, Coach Scolinos appeared to notice the snickering among some of the coaches. Even those who knew Coach Scolinos had to wonder exactly where he was going with this, or if he had simply forgotten about home plate since he’d gotten on stage. Then, finally …

“You’re probably all wondering why I’m wearing home plate around my neck,” he said, his voice growing irascible. I laughed along with the others, acknowledging the possibility. “I may be old, but I’m not crazy. The reason I stand before you today is to share with you baseball people what I’ve learned in my life, what I’ve learned about home plate in my 78 years.”

Several hands went up when Scolinos asked how many Little League coaches were in the room. “Do you know how wide home plate is in Little League?”

After a pause, someone offered, “Seventeen inches?”, more of a question than answer.

“That’s right,” he said. “How about in Babe Ruth’s day? Any Babe Ruth coaches in the house?” Another long pause.

“Seventeen inches?” a guess from another reluctant coach.

“That’s right,” said Scolinos. “Now, how many high school coaches do we have in the room?” Hundreds of hands shot up, as the pattern began to appear. “How wide is home plate in high school baseball?”

“Seventeen inches,” they said, sounding more confident.

“You’re right!” Scolinos barked. “And you college coaches, how wide is home plate in college?”

“Seventeen inches!” we said, in unison.

“Any Minor League coaches here? How wide is home plate in pro ball?”............“Seventeen inches!”

“RIGHT! And in the Major Leagues, how wide home plate is in the Major Leagues?

“Seventeen inches!”

“SEV-EN-TEEN INCHES!” he confirmed, his voice bellowing off the walls. “And what do they do with a Big League pitcher who can’t throw the ball over seventeen inches?” Pause. “They send him to Pocatello !” he hollered, drawing raucous laughter. “What they don’t do is this: they don’t say, ‘Ah, that’s okay, Jimmy. If you can’t hit a seventeen-inch target? We’ll make it eighteen inches or nineteen inches. We’ll make it twenty inches so you have a better chance of hitting it. If you can’t hit that, let us know so we can make it wider still, say twenty-five inches.'”

Pause. “Coaches… what do we do when your best player shows up late to practice? or when our team rules forbid facial hair and a guy shows up unshaven? What if he gets caught drinking? Do we hold him accountable? Or do we change the rules to fit him? Do we widen home plate? "

The chuckles gradually faded as four thousand coaches grew quiet, the fog lifting as the old coach’s message began to unfold. He turned the plate toward himself and, using a Sharpie, began to draw something. When he turned it toward the crowd, point up, a house was revealed, complete with a freshly drawn door and two windows. “This is the problem in our homes today. With our marriages, with the way we parent our kids. With our discipline.

We don’t teach accountability to our kids, and there is no consequence for failing to meet standards. We just widen the plate!”

Pause. Then, to the point at the top of the house he added a small American flag. “This is the problem in our schools today. The quality of our education is going downhill fast and teachers have been stripped of the tools they need to be successful, and to educate and discipline our young people. We are allowing others to widen home plate! Where is that getting us?”

Silence. He replaced the flag with a Cross. “And this is the problem in the Church, where powerful people in positions of authority have taken advantage of young children, only to have such an atrocity swept under the rug for years. Our church leaders are widening home plate for themselves! And we allow it.”

“And the same is true with our government. Our so-called representatives make rules for us that don’t apply to themselves. They take bribes from lobbyists and foreign countries. They no longer serve us. And we allow them to widen home plate! We see our country falling into a dark abyss while we just watch.”

I was amazed. At a baseball convention where I expected to learn something about curve balls and bunting and how to run better practices, I had learned something far more valuable.

From an old man with home plate strung around his neck, I had learned something about life, about myself, about my own weaknesses and about my responsibilities as a leader. I had to hold myself and others accountable to that which I knew to be right, lest our families, our faith, and our society continue down an undesirable path.

“If I am lucky,” Coach Scolinos concluded, “you will remember one thing from this old coach today. It is this: "If we fail to hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard of what we know to be right; if we fail to hold our spouses and our children to the same standards, if we are unwilling or unable to provide a consequence when they do not meet the standard; and if our schools & churches & our government fail to hold themselves accountable to those they serve, there is but one thing to look forward to …”

With that, he held home plate in front of his chest, turned it around, and revealed its dark black backside, “…We have dark days ahead!.”

Note: Coach Scolinos died in 2009 at the age of 91, but not before touching the lives of hundreds of players and coaches, including mine. Meeting him at my first ABCA convention kept me returning year after year, looking for similar wisdom and inspiration from other coaches. He is the best clinic speaker the ABCA has ever known because he was so much more than a baseball coach. His message was clear: “Coaches, keep your players—no matter how good they are—your own children, your churches, your government, and most of all, keep yourself at seventeen inches."

And this my friends is what our country has become and what is wrong with it today, and now go out there and fix it!

"Don't widen the plate."

[High_Plains_Drifter]

IMO, ALL and ANY illegals should be reported when found out. Same as with employment, if an employer knows, or a fellow employee, take care of business. The ignoring of the issue for decades is what got us where we are. And I mean that last one way less to do with schools, if at all, and more about border/employment and everyone looking the other way. I don't think anyone should ever be punished for reporting anything to the police.

I read something yesterday that really made me think about America, the choices we make, and the bending over backwards that only harms us in the end. DON'T widen the plate throughout life, we all should have standards... These things are changing our country.

I'm not taking a hard stance on teachers, respect the hell out of them. I know they have a hard enough job to do, and let them do that. But I hate to see someone get punished for what any other citizen wouldn't be. But that happens all the time, unfair or not, home plate or not. This is easily one I would like to see the law/schools change on.

--

https://i.imgur.com/rB9Bdv9.jpg

Twenty years ago, in Nashville, Tennessee, during the first week of January, 1996, more than 4,000 baseball coaches descended upon the Opryland Hotel for the 52nd annual ABCA's convention.

While I waited in line to register with the hotel staff, I heard other more veteran coaches rumbling about the lineup of speakers scheduled to present during the weekend. One name kept resurfacing, always with the same sentiment — “John Scolinos is here? Oh, man, worth every penny of my airfare.”

Who is John Scolinos, I wondered. No matter; I was just happy to be there.

In 1996, Coach Scolinos was 78 years old and five years retired from a college coaching career that began in 1948. He shuffled to the stage to an impressive standing ovation, wearing dark polyester pants, a light blue shirt, and a string around his neck from which home plate hung — a full-sized, stark-white home plate.

Seriously, I wondered, who is this guy?

After speaking for twenty-five minutes, not once mentioning the prop hanging around his neck, Coach Scolinos appeared to notice the snickering among some of the coaches. Even those who knew Coach Scolinos had to wonder exactly where he was going with this, or if he had simply forgotten about home plate since he’d gotten on stage. Then, finally …

“You’re probably all wondering why I’m wearing home plate around my neck,” he said, his voice growing irascible. I laughed along with the others, acknowledging the possibility. “I may be old, but I’m not crazy. The reason I stand before you today is to share with you baseball people what I’ve learned in my life, what I’ve learned about home plate in my 78 years.”

Several hands went up when Scolinos asked how many Little League coaches were in the room. “Do you know how wide home plate is in Little League?”

After a pause, someone offered, “Seventeen inches?”, more of a question than answer.

“That’s right,” he said. “How about in Babe Ruth’s day? Any Babe Ruth coaches in the house?” Another long pause.

“Seventeen inches?” a guess from another reluctant coach.

“That’s right,” said Scolinos. “Now, how many high school coaches do we have in the room?” Hundreds of hands shot up, as the pattern began to appear. “How wide is home plate in high school baseball?”

“Seventeen inches,” they said, sounding more confident.

“You’re right!” Scolinos barked. “And you college coaches, how wide is home plate in college?”

“Seventeen inches!” we said, in unison.

“Any Minor League coaches here? How wide is home plate in pro ball?”............“Seventeen inches!”

“RIGHT! And in the Major Leagues, how wide home plate is in the Major Leagues?

“Seventeen inches!”

“SEV-EN-TEEN INCHES!” he confirmed, his voice bellowing off the walls. “And what do they do with a Big League pitcher who can’t throw the ball over seventeen inches?” Pause. “They send him to Pocatello !” he hollered, drawing raucous laughter. “What they don’t do is this: they don’t say, ‘Ah, that’s okay, Jimmy. If you can’t hit a seventeen-inch target? We’ll make it eighteen inches or nineteen inches. We’ll make it twenty inches so you have a better chance of hitting it. If you can’t hit that, let us know so we can make it wider still, say twenty-five inches.'”

Pause. “Coaches… what do we do when your best player shows up late to practice? or when our team rules forbid facial hair and a guy shows up unshaven? What if he gets caught drinking? Do we hold him accountable? Or do we change the rules to fit him? Do we widen home plate? "

The chuckles gradually faded as four thousand coaches grew quiet, the fog lifting as the old coach’s message began to unfold. He turned the plate toward himself and, using a Sharpie, began to draw something. When he turned it toward the crowd, point up, a house was revealed, complete with a freshly drawn door and two windows. “This is the problem in our homes today. With our marriages, with the way we parent our kids. With our discipline.

We don’t teach accountability to our kids, and there is no consequence for failing to meet standards. We just widen the plate!”

Pause. Then, to the point at the top of the house he added a small American flag. “This is the problem in our schools today. The quality of our education is going downhill fast and teachers have been stripped of the tools they need to be successful, and to educate and discipline our young people. We are allowing others to widen home plate! Where is that getting us?”

Silence. He replaced the flag with a Cross. “And this is the problem in the Church, where powerful people in positions of authority have taken advantage of young children, only to have such an atrocity swept under the rug for years. Our church leaders are widening home plate for themselves! And we allow it.”

“And the same is true with our government. Our so-called representatives make rules for us that don’t apply to themselves. They take bribes from lobbyists and foreign countries. They no longer serve us. And we allow them to widen home plate! We see our country falling into a dark abyss while we just watch.”

I was amazed. At a baseball convention where I expected to learn something about curve balls and bunting and how to run better practices, I had learned something far more valuable.

From an old man with home plate strung around his neck, I had learned something about life, about myself, about my own weaknesses and about my responsibilities as a leader. I had to hold myself and others accountable to that which I knew to be right, lest our families, our faith, and our society continue down an undesirable path.

“If I am lucky,” Coach Scolinos concluded, “you will remember one thing from this old coach today. It is this: "If we fail to hold ourselves to a higher standard, a standard of what we know to be right; if we fail to hold our spouses and our children to the same standards, if we are unwilling or unable to provide a consequence when they do not meet the standard; and if our schools & churches & our government fail to hold themselves accountable to those they serve, there is but one thing to look forward to …”

With that, he held home plate in front of his chest, turned it around, and revealed its dark black backside, “…We have dark days ahead!.”

Note: Coach Scolinos died in 2009 at the age of 91, but not before touching the lives of hundreds of players and coaches, including mine. Meeting him at my first ABCA convention kept me returning year after year, looking for similar wisdom and inspiration from other coaches. He is the best clinic speaker the ABCA has ever known because he was so much more than a baseball coach. His message was clear: “Coaches, keep your players—no matter how good they are—your own children, your churches, your government, and most of all, keep yourself at seventeen inches."

And this my friends is what our country has become and what is wrong with it today, and now go out there and fix it!

"Don't widen the plate."
That was fantastic.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Remarkable that you would post (or indeed believe) such a sentiment giving I know you know the character of Kathianne. I think you should apologetically retract this comment and consider why you believe it.
Well, well... lookie here... the little boy who DEMANDS everyone treat him like he's special or he'll IGNORE them is showing some hypocrisy. It appears he's not above stirring some SHIT himself.

Two faced little prick.

[jimnyc]

I really did appreciate your comments after my response. However, both you and Drummond stated that if teachers DIDN'T do what was being said regarding ICE reporting, in spite of the SCOTUS ruling, then they shouldn't be teaching.

I respect you as a teacher and as a friend. From what I know of you from many years is that I would find your skills and drive to be something to applaud. I love teachers, 'cept the few that abused me (not in that sense). :)

I would say I "wish" they could report and not get in trouble. But I understand the SC and decisions until they are overturned.

And even then, I don't think it would be your style to report folks, but rather care for children and teach them.

...

It's a shame that the illegals put their children in such positions. It's a shame that employers who employ their parents don't give a crap. And I'm confident that most local communities are starting to turn blind eyes over the years.

I've seen things online of folks being reported, and the authorities doing nothing. Employers reported and nothing, or a dang fine and they do the same thing again anyway. And WAY WAY WAY too many people are supporting them, giving freebies galore and giving them non-stop reasons to continue to come. That's the blind eyes and the widening of home plate. So many of America's standards over the years have literally disappeared.

Laws ignored, borders ignored, kids coddled and given safe spaces up until and maybe more than college. The kids make demands and get them. Sports teams give 99 teams a trophy. And many other things Mr. Scolinos spoke of. That's an in general take of the state of America, and started way back in the 80's from my POV, but others may see/say different or longer/shorter timing.

[Kathianne]

I respect you as a teacher and as a friend. From what I know of you from many years is that I would find your skills and drive to be something to applaud. I love teachers, 'cept the few that abused me (not in that sense). :)

I would say I "wish" they could report and not get in trouble. But I understand the SC and decisions until they are overturned.

And even then, I don't think it would be your style to report folks, but rather care for children and teach them.

...

It's a shame that the illegals put their children in such positions. It's a shame that employers who employ their parents don't give a crap. And I'm confident that most local communities are starting to turn blind eyes over the years.

I've seen things online of folks being reported, and the authorities doing nothing. Employers reported and nothing, or a dang fine and they do the same thing again anyway. And WAY WAY WAY too many people are supporting them, giving freebies galore and giving them non-stop reasons to continue to come. That's the blind eyes and the widening of home plate. So many of America's standards over the years have literally disappeared.

Laws ignored, borders ignored, kids coddled and given safe spaces up until and maybe more than college. The kids make demands and get them. Sports teams give 99 teams a trophy. And many other things Mr. Scolinos spoke of. That's an in general take of the state of America, and started way back in the 80's from my POV, but others may see/say different or longer/shorter timing.

Thanks Jim! Truth is the bolded blue is what the definition of teacher is. Seems at the time, the court agreed. Many years back I wrote that the problem wasn't more laws, but enforcement. That is regarding the adults, those that made the choice to come without papers. That they dragged their kids here is on them. Again, until the 14th amendment is repealed, the kids born here have citizenship, let the parents return to their homeland and the kids can stay or come back, legally, when they are older.

I don't think kids should be the tool, and the court agreed, to get the family. Hit the adults.

Considering how many agree with the 'dreamers' type of legislation, it wasn't just the court.

The teacher involved in the original case had prior instances of proclaiming her prejudices, not just about Hispanics either. Bottom line, that is NOT a woman that should be teaching.

[Drummond]

The Supreme Court has 9 justices, it takes the majority to render a decision. You chose to focus on the one you could find a source for labeling. That's fine, but it's your bias that becomes obvious.

I'm pretty sure we vetoed the British system more than 200 years ago.

Sure, I'm biased. Why wouldn't I admit it ? But then ... what of it ?

Do I hold a position of power, one I can use to channel that bias, and wield that power, for my own ends ?!?

You say that your Supreme Court has 9 justices, OK. But the casting vote in the case you cited came from a particular judge with a proven track record of following his own political agenda. This he - along with the judges he convinced to agree with him !! - then used, to subvert the law of your land into a 'two track' system, one where its application is radically altered (in fact, turned on its head !) to satisfy a preferred politically-gratifying outcome.

You say you vetoed the British system long ago. Well ... with all due respect, where has this led you ? In our system, having a judge skew laws to fit a political imperative would be an abuse of his or her power (in fact, it'd never be allowed). Judges, here, don't tinker with the law: that isn't their purview at all, and it cannot be. What they do is to operate within the confines of that law, and any 'interpretations' of the law have to satisfy that criterion. Have a judge do otherwise, and - demonstrably - that judge then is, provably, 'above' that law, if he or she can redefine its boundaries to achieve a preferred political status quo !!

It's as well Brennan isn't a British judge, acting in the same way, over here. I think he'd not last long in our system ... he'd be disbarred, and rightly so. [He might even face a corruption charge !]

What if he'd had to judge a case against a defendant whose political outlook matched his own ? In your system, surely, any judgment favouring the defendant could be said to have come from political sympathy, rather than a fair enactment of justice !!

Kathianne, I really don't want to be here to 'bash' your system !! But my case is an obvious one. Subversion of laws for the achievement of a politically preferred outcome, does NOT serve JUSTICE.

How isn't that clear ?

Brennan was at minimum 'Democrat-friendly'. We see where it's led ... as an example, I submit, of the proof of the thread's title.

[Drummond]

It is my opinion, regardless of whether or not a judge imposed his own personal point of view by the authority vested in him, which they're not supposed to do, that illegal aliens should have zero "rights" in this nation, and that includes the children.

But when you strip away all the hype and partisan diatribe, there's glaring facts of the matter that are always ignored, like the public education system in America is a virtual leftist democrat indoctrination camp, from kindergarten through college, and there's no denying that, and it is in part due to the fact that the vast majority of teachers are left leaning liberal democrats, as are the vast majority of school administrations, and THEY KNOW, that they can't churn out new DEMOCRATS that believe what THEY believe if they can't teach them, and they can't teach them if they're turned into ICE or deported.

It's a sinister plan, and yes, in my opinion, extremely un-American and treasonous, and the American taxpayer is funding this anti American leftist plot and can't do a damn thing about it. But it's just not the schools. The democrats in America today are getting more and more anti American. They want total opens borders, because they believe illegal aliens VOTE DEMOCRAT, and they want SOCIALISM, FREE, FREE, FREE, and ALL their policies are just more and more RADICAL, like allowing TERRORISTS VOTE FROM PRISON. It's all part of who and what the democrat party has turned into, and it's disgusting, and why I titled this thread the way I did.

Change the law? I doubt our BILLIONAIRE PRESIDENT could get the law change, let alone some poor broke average citizen schmuck.

Great post ... I agree with it, of course !

But see the portion of it I've 'bolded'.

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with your legal system. I've been using Kathianne's postings as a basis for trying to understand what happens in the US ... specifically in this instance, to take on board an understanding of how it's possible for an American Democrat-friendly judge to subvert your laws, taken to the point where the best interests of the American people are overturned by that subversion.

Here, we have two situations: one, illegals afforded 'protection' against a law that, unhindered, would act against them, to favour legality itself (!) ... and, two, a situation where teachers can be expected to teach values which they then stand in violation of, courtesy of a politically-skewed judicial judgment emanating from someone serving an agenda !!

To me, that's madness.

You say that a judge isn't supposed to impose his own personal point of view when judging. THAT is surely right and proper. But Kathianne's postings seem to suggest an acceptance of that status quo, apparently, one which the likes of Brennan have the power to make stick.

So, what's the truth here ? DID Brennan, and those agreeing with him, exceed their authority, or .. not ?

[Drummond]

Thanks Jim! Truth is the bolded blue is what the definition of teacher is. Seems at the time, the court agreed. Many years back I wrote that the problem wasn't more laws, but enforcement. That is regarding the adults, those that made the choice to come without papers. That they dragged their kids here is on them. Again, until the 14th amendment is repealed, the kids born here have citizenship, let the parents return to their homeland and the kids can stay or come back, legally, when they are older.

I don't think kids should be the tool, and the court agreed, to get the family. Hit the adults.

Considering how many agree with the 'dreamers' type of legislation, it wasn't just the court.

The teacher involved in the original case had prior instances of proclaiming her prejudices, not just about Hispanics either. Bottom line, that is NOT a woman that should be teaching.

I agree with the words I've bolded. 'Hit the adults', indeed. It is they who stand in violation of American law, after all.

However ... this following wording comes from your own post, in which you posted a summary of the case you cited. From that summary:


The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

The judgment, Kathianne, did not 'hit the adults'. It did the precise opposite of that -- didn't it ? For the sake of considering children, the status of illegality as it should've applied to the parents, was 'sidelined' ...

... or, if you prefer, 'SUBVERTED'. Or ... to put this in the wording bolded in red above .. 'The court struck down the law'.

Incredible.

Maybe in your system, courts have the right to 'strike down' a law that judges personally don't want to be bound by !! I can only say that, in Britain, it would violate the terms by which our courts can operate.

So: getting back on track .. what should happen to illegal aliens ? Answer: DEPORTATION. It's obvious.

But, how can you deport them, indeed, act against them to any appreciable degree at all, without adversely affecting their children; specifically, their 'right' to an education ?

So, you don't deport them. You don't act against them. You instead make a mockery of a law, a legal status, defined in law, by sidelining it altogether.

Fact is, those illegal aliens don't legally belong in America, so, how is it that their children do ?

Answer: courtesy of the ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS, WHOSE ACTIONS AND STATUS IS AFFORDED PROTECTION FROM THE LAW BY THE DECIDING VOTE OF A LEFT-LEANING JUDGE !

Maybe this doesn't 'stink' according to Kathianne's viewpoint (she'll have to tell us whether it does) ... but, in mine, it definitely does.

[Kathianne]

Great post ... I agree with it, of course !

But see the portion of it I've 'bolded'.

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with your legal system. I've been using Kathianne's postings as a basis for trying to understand what happens in the US ... specifically in this instance, to take on board an understanding of how it's possible for an American Democrat-friendly judge to subvert your laws, taken to the point where the best interests of the American people are overturned by that subversion.

Here, we have two situations: one, illegals afforded 'protection' against a law that, unhindered, would act against them, to favour legality itself (!) ... and, two, a situation where teachers can be expected to teach values which they then stand in violation of, courtesy of a politically-skewed judicial judgment emanating from someone serving an agenda !!

To me, that's madness.

You say that a judge isn't supposed to impose his own personal point of view when judging. THAT is surely right and proper. But Kathianne's postings seem to suggest an acceptance of that status quo, apparently, one which the likes of Brennan have the power to make stick.

So, what's the truth here ? DID Brennan, and those agreeing with him, exceed their authority, or .. not ?

Seriously? Brennan is one of 9, you only considered him when you found a favorable Wiki calling him liberal. I do think you know enough about our justice system to know that the only court that can change the ruling is the Supreme Court itself. It happens, not often.

[Noir]

Watching Drummond learn about the SCOTUS in real time is a joy ^,^

Drummond if I takes your interest I would recommend reading ‘The Nine’ by Jeffery Tobin, it’s a bit outdated as it came out a fair few years ago, but in broad strokes the book gives an interesting insight into how Supreme Justices operate within their constitutional mandate.

[Kathianne]

Great post ... I agree with it, of course !

But see the portion of it I've 'bolded'.

I'm not American, so I'm not familiar with your legal system. I've been using Kathianne's postings as a basis for trying to understand what happens in the US ... specifically in this instance, to take on board an understanding of how it's possible for an American Democrat-friendly judge to subvert your laws, taken to the point where the best interests of the American people are overturned by that subversion.

Here, we have two situations: one, illegals afforded 'protection' against a law that, unhindered, would act against them, to favour legality itself (!) ... and, two, a situation where teachers can be expected to teach values which they then stand in violation of, courtesy of a politically-skewed judicial judgment emanating from someone serving an agenda !!

To me, that's madness.

You say that a judge isn't supposed to impose his own personal point of view when judging. THAT is surely right and proper. But Kathianne's postings seem to suggest an acceptance of that status quo, apparently, one which the likes of Brennan have the power to make stick.

So, what's the truth here ? DID Brennan, and those agreeing with him, exceed their authority, or .. not ?

No, he did not. He, like all the other justices render their opinions. They may choose to comment or not. Usually there is one-though sometimes more-that writes a 'majority report,' with some of those on that side making additional comments. All those remarks become part and parcel of the written record-which may be used in future cases, but both lower courts and SCOTUS later decisions.

BTW, the original title was about a local school department-that chose to fire said teacher. Considering only what is now available in news reports, including her belief it was a private message to the president, they certainly acted correctly. As stated, this wasn't her first go round in trying to hurt the kids she was responsible for.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Again, until the 14th amendment is repealed, the kids born here have citizenship,IDK there... there's many legal scholars that agree that the 14th amendment is being grossly misrepresent when it comes to birthright, and could be successfully argued in front of SCOTUS that being born to two illegal aliens, or even one, on America soil, does not automatically constitute you're an American citizen. I do wish someone would challenge the way we're doing things to the SCOTUS, it needs to be done.

(Just kind of a side debate, since it was mentioned...)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/

[Kathianne]

[/B]IDK there... there's many legal scholars that agree that the 14th amendment is being grossly misrepresent when it comes to birthright, and could be successfully argued in front of SCOTUS that being born to two illegal aliens, or even one, on America soil, does not automatically constitute you're an American citizen. I do wish someone would challenge the way they're doing things to the SCOTUS, it needs to be done.

(Just kind of a side debate, since it was mentioned...)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/

That seems feasible, though just repealing it seems the best way to go. There is no longer a need for this type of law. Due process is covered by another amendment, which is the big bugaboo about not repealing.

[Drummond]

Seriously? Brennan is one of 9, you only considered him when you found a favorable Wiki calling him liberal. I do think you know enough about our justice system to know that the only court that can change the ruling is the Supreme Court itself. It happens, not often.

The judgment passed had, to me, a 'Leftie' feel to it. So, I was suspicious. What might lie behind it, I wondered ? To what extent did political bias play a part ?

I'd never heard of Brennan before yesterday. Why would I have ? I had heard, though, even in our news broadcasts, of how the political makeup of senior judges was somehow 'an issue' in America. So it seemed reasonable to do some checking.

So, I did .. and, 'surprise surprise' ... the casting vote came from a judge with a long-standing reputation for Left-leaning political sympathies !!

As to the status of your Supreme Court ... that's only relevant to a degree. The real issue (to me, even if not to you ?) is ... how does ANY court, of 'lofty' status or otherwise, wield a power ostensibly 'to serve justice', when what's really in play, to ANY degree, is the satisfaction of a preferred political status quo !

In your system, one politically-biased judge can be free to subjectively judge with personal biases playing a part, and can even employ a persuasive effort to influence the views of other judges !!

I really don't want to bash your system ! So, I'll just say ... 'INCREDIBLE' ... and leave it there ...

.... with, of course, the acknowledgment in place that the thread title's statement has been comprehensively proven.

[Kathianne]

The judgment passed had, to me, a 'Leftie' feel to it. So, I was suspicious. What might lie behind it, I wondered ? To what extent did political bias play a part ?

I'd never heard of Brennan before yesterday. Why would I have ? I had heard, though, even in our news broadcasts, of how the political makeup of senior judges was somehow 'an issue' in America. So it seemed reasonable to do some checking.

So, I did .. and, 'surprise surprise' ... the casting vote came from a judge with a long-standing reputation for Left-leaning political sympathies !!

As to the status of your Supreme Court ... that's only relevant to a degree. The real issue (to me, even if not to you ?) is ... how does ANY court, of 'lofty' status or otherwise, wield a power ostensibly 'to serve justice', when what's really in play, to ANY degree, is the satisfaction of a preferred political status quo !

In your system, one politically-biased judge can be free to subjectively judge with personal biases playing a part, and can even employ a persuasive effort to influence the views of other judges !!

I really don't want to bash your system ! So, I'll just say ... 'INCREDIBLE' ... and leave it there ...

.... with, of course, the acknowledgment in place that the thread title's statement has been comprehensively proven.

Yet with each Trump appointee, we hear the glees from all, (including myself) on how they will change the 'balance' of the court. Well slick, seems that bias doesn't bother a soul, as long as the judge's biases are the same as your own. Elections do have consequences. You wouldn't have heard all the happiness about SCOTUS picks, if they weren't reflective of this audience. Color me shocked that you feign ignorance after the past 2+ years of the applause for judicial appointments.

[Drummond]

That seems feasible, though just repealing it seems the best way to go. There is no longer a need for this type of law. Due process is covered by another amendment, which is the big bugaboo about not repealing.

Here's a thought:

Doesn't it occur to anyone that to have a status quo in place that confers a 'legality' towards children of illegal aliens to have an unchallengeable right to stay in the US to receive a US education ... ENCOURAGES illegal immigration, and enhances its practicability ??

A would-be 'illegal' viewing all this from his or her rightful country of origin might conclude: 'If we enter the US illegally and bring our children with us, we can use the childrens' education needs to defy the law of the land, and get protection from any consequences of it'.

Basically, all this adds up as a loophole that's exploitable by illegals. One engineered, moreover, by a Leftie !

I have to repeat the word, because, it fits so well !! MADNESS.

[Drummond]

Posted for the hell of it ... a small taste of the British approach ....

12093

[Kathianne]

Here's a thought:

Doesn't it occur to anyone that to have a status quo in place that confers a 'legality' towards children of illegal aliens to have an unchallengeable right to stay in the US to receive a US education ... ENCOURAGES illegal immigration, and enhances its practicability ??

A would-be 'illegal' viewing all this from his or her rightful country of origin might conclude: 'If we enter the US illegally and bring our children with us, we can use the childrens' education needs to defy the law of the land, and get protection from any consequences of it'.

Basically, all this adds up as a loophole that's exploitable by illegals. One engineered, moreover, by a Leftie !

I have to repeat the word, because, it fits so well !! MADNESS.

Hmmm, who would have ever thought the Radical Republicans would be called liberals over 150 years later?

[Drummond]

Yet with each Trump appointee, we hear the glees from all, (including myself) on how they will change the 'balance' of the court. Well slick, seems that bias doesn't bother a soul, as long as the judge's biases are the same as your own. Elections do have consequences. You wouldn't have heard all the happiness about SCOTUS picks, if they weren't reflective of this audience. Color me shocked that you feign ignorance after the past 2+ years of the applause for judicial appointments.

'Slick', eh ?

Should I be flattered ?

The system employed here isn't the same as yours. Your judicial system apparently has a political dimension to it, that the one I would naturally favour, DOES NOT.

I thought I'd made that clear ?

As for yours (which isn't mine) ... well, doesn't it follow that inbuilt biases will need to be countered ?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you defending your previous appointees' status quo, on the basis that it has to be 'defended' from what Trump will do, from his own choice of appointees ?

If you somehow 'have' to have a judicial system in which POLITICAL appointments are the norm (and, do you ??), then it stands to reason that anyone injecting balance into all that, to correct a previous and proven IMbalance, is doing a GOOD thing, and therefore doesn't deserve censure because of it !

Imbalances require counterbalances, to effect a remedy to them.

On what basis do you think that censure is deserved, Kathianne ?

[Kathianne]

'Slick', eh ?

Should I be flattered ?

The system employed here isn't the same as yours. I thought I'd made that clear ?

As for yours (which isn't mine) ... well, doesn't it follow that inbuilt biases will need to be countered ?

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you defending your previous appointees' status quo, on the basis that it has to be 'defended' from what Trump will do, from his own choice of appointees ?

If you somehow 'have' to have a judicial system in which POLITICAL appointments are the norm, then it stands to reason that anyone injecting balance into all that, to correct a previous and proven IMbalance, is doing a GOOD thing, and therefore doesn't deserve censure because of it !

On what basis do you think that censure is deserved, Kathianne ?

Umm, the court doesn't bend to 'the current tide,' as it were. With Trump it looks like he's had at least one more than normal and likely more to come. The appointments on the lower court are even more impressive. Now, will the people decide the courts have become 'too conservative' over time? Perhaps. It could influence future elections, though no elected executive is guaranteed many or any judicial vacancies.

The systems are NOT the same, you claim not to understand ours, thus probably not a good choice to interject so forcefully.

[Drummond]

Hmmm, who would have ever thought the Radical Republicans would be called liberals over 150 years later?

... sorry ... what ?

Judge Brennan is a 'radical Republican', now ??

[STTAB]

And I say TREASONOUS, but if this ISN'T treasonous, then PLEASE, TELL ME WHAT IS... and what in the HELL is going on in TEXAS? I thought Texas was CONSERVATIVE! But the anti American CRAP just keeps coming from TEXAS...

===========

UNREAL: Texas School Board Votes To FIRE Teacher For Reporting ILLEGAL ALIEN Students


The war on illegal immigration heated up today after a controversial decision by the Fort Worth Independent School Board, who unanimously decided to fire a teacher for attempting to report students that were not in the country legally.

One could see how the teacher, Georgia Clark, could have thought she was well within her rights after comments by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Clark stating that schools can make the decision to report, or not report students and their families.

Breibart reported on the story:

At a hearing of the House Education and the Workforce committee, former illegal immigrant Rep. Adriano Espaillat pressed DeVos to explain her views on immigration enforcement.

“Inside the school,” the New York Democrat asked, “if a principal or a teacher finds out that a certain child is undocumented, or his or her family members are undocumented, do you feel that the principal or teacher is responsible to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and to have that family reported?”

“Sir, I think that’s a school decision,” DeVos responded. “That’s a local community decision. And again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate, and I urge this body to do its job and address or clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Still, the Fort Worth teacher was not given any mercy.

As reported by NBC:

A Texas school board unanimously voted to fire a teacher who tried to report undocumented students in her school district to President Donald Trump through a series of public tweets — that she thought were private messages to the president.

The Fort Worth Independent School District voted 8-0 to terminate the employment of Georgia Clark at a special meeting Tuesday.

The unanimous vote of 8-0 is not surprising when you consider that the majority of the school’s population is made up by the Hispanic community.

When “nearly 90 per cent of the students are Hispanic” at your school, that means that there is probably a similar racial makeup of the parent/teacher community that would be voting against you.

Also, NBC Dallas Fort-Worth reported that this isn’t the first time that Clark had been investigated for racially-motivated comments, such as asking a student to prove that they were legal before they could use the restroom.

If that weren’t enough, Clark accidentally made her comments publicly on Twitter in an attempt to communicate directly with President Trump, according to NBC:

Clark, an English teacher at Amon Carter-Riverside High School, tweeted that the school she worked at had been “taken over” by “illegal students from Mexico” and that Trump was elected “on the promise that a wall would be built to protect our borders.” She also referred to “illegals” in her tweets.

The tweets started gaining attention on social media last week, and Clark’s account was deleted May 29. She was placed on administrative leave after the school district became aware of them.

According to district documents, Clark told an investigator she thought the tweets were direct messages to Trump and didn’t know they were public.

Although things look pretty dire for the newly fired teacher, isn’t there a light at the end of the tunnel? I mean, she works for the teacher’s union, for crying out loud!

As reported by Time:

Clark has 15 days to choose to seek an appeal with the state, according to the outlet.

Clark’s attorney, Brandon Y. Brim, told TIME in an email that she “intends to request a hearing for the purpose of contesting the proposed action against her contract.”

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/unreal-texas-school-board-votes-to-fire-teacher-for-reporting-undocumented-students/?utm_source=realjack&utm_medium=twitter

First, Twitter is the damn devil, When will people learn this

Second, this woman deserves to be fired just being too stupid to figure out the difference between a public Tweet and a private DM

Third, this wasn't her first situation like this

Fourth, she wasn't reporting suspected criminal activity to the government, she was tweeting to the President.

Fifth, you will never ever ever find an example a child being prosecuted for being in this country illegally, so that argument doesn't hold water.

Sixth, the reality is this woman is a racist, she's running around asking brown kids if they are citizens? My wife is brown, our two kids are brown. Everyone is a citizen of this country and NO ONE better ask one of my kids such a question.

Seventh, The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue, teachers do NOT enjoy their full Constitutional rights pursuant to their jobs. This woman was speaking to the President AS A TEACHER, IE pursuant to her job.

She will not win her appeal, and she will not win in court if she sues.

[Kathianne]

... sorry ... what ?

Judge Brennan is a 'radical Republican', now ??
14th amendment.

[Drummond]

Umm, the court doesn't bend to 'the current tide,' as it were. With Trump it looks like he's had at least one more than normal and likely more to come. The appointments on the lower court are even more impressive. Now, will the people decide the courts have become 'too conservative' over time? Perhaps. It could influence future elections, though no elected executive is guaranteed many or any judicial vacancies.

The systems are NOT the same, you claim not to understand ours, thus probably not a good choice to interject so forcefully.

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?

[Kathianne]

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?

LOL! What color is your sky?

If one doesn't bow to your superior intellect, one is just wrong. Yet, you act as though those that disagree with you are intolerant. Look in a mirror.

You do not ask questions for knowledge, but rather to preserve your self-image of superiority. There is no backing down for you, quite a feat. Not even when you choose to feign ignorance of our system-one you follow better than most of our citizens.

[STTAB]

People deciding - if in fact they do - that courts have become 'too conservative' over time - will no doubt be a product of who puts what case, and how, and the success or otherwise of propagandist efforts to sway opinion in one direction or another.

The people COULD decide (?) that the courts have been far too liberal, and a counterweight to that was long, and badly, overdue.

All of these shenanigans, mercifully, our British system is devoid of. Our courts have the perfectly simple duty to administer justice, using ONLY the law, as those laws stand, for the basis of judgments.

So tell me, Kathianne, do I have no right, in your view, to observe a comparison, and draw conclusions ?

Perhaps, since I'm not American, therefore not 'expert' on all things American, I shouldn't even be on this forum, daring to express any viewpoints ?

H'mm .. ?


Oh please , no one - save me - is an expert on everything and I've never seen ANYTHING from Kathianne to suggest that she believes you shouldn't have an opinion . That's just lame Drummond.

[STTAB]

LOL! What color is your sky?

If one doesn't bow to your superior intellect, one is just wrong.


To be fair to Drummond, this is EXACTLY how I feel, if you disagree with ME you are wrong LOL . It's usually true as well:dance:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yet with each Trump appointee, we hear the glees from all, (including myself) on how they will change the 'balance' of the court. Well slick, seems that bias doesn't bother a soul, as long as the judge's biases are the same as your own. Elections do have consequences. You wouldn't have heard all the happiness about SCOTUS picks, if they weren't reflective of this audience. Color me shocked that you feign ignorance after the past 2+ years of the applause for judicial appointments.
That is very true, and I can only say that as a conservative, I view conservative judge appointees to do a better job of interpreting the law without bias, and more times than not I see leftist judges interpret the law to suit their liberal agenda. Good example of that is the ultra leftist 9th circus in CA, of which 90% of their injunctions are overturned. Most see them as activists that meddle in affairs they have no business meddling with and legislating from the bench, and immigration is a good example of that. Of course, that goes without saying that any judgement made by a leftist judge, the left views that as "fair," regardless of what the law actually is, and judgments made by conservative judges to be "biased." Then it's the same way with the way conservatives view conservative judgments.

It's what it is. It's America and all we got. It's served us rather well so far, but I don't think there's any denying that political and ideological bias has infected it. The judiciary has become as big of a political weapon as the executive and legislative branches.

[Kathianne]

That is very true, and I can only say that as a conservative, I view conservative judge appointees to do a better job of interpreting the law without bias, and more times than not I see leftist judges interpret the law to suit their liberal agenda. Good example of that is the ultra leftist 9th circus in CA, of which 90% of their injunctions are overturned. Most see them as activists that meddle in affairs they have no business meddling with, and immigration is a good example of that. Of course, that goes without saying that any judgement made by a leftist judge, the left views that as "fair," regardless of what the law actually is, and judgments made by conservative judges to be "biased." Then it's the same way with the way conservatives view conservative judgments.

It's what it is. It's America and all we got. It's served us rather well so far, but I don't think there's any denying that political and ideological bias has infected it. The judiciary has become as big of a political weapon as the executive and legislative branches.

and liberals feel the same about liberal judges. The right wanted to impeach Obama-even heard more than once, "If someone were to off him..." and now the left wants to impeach Trump and there are all sorts of wishes for his demise.

A real conundrum. LOL! Everyone thinks they are unbiased and clear thinking.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

and liberals feel the same about liberal judges. The right wanted to impeach Obama-even heard more than once, "If someone were to off him..." and now the left wants to impeach Trump and there are all sorts of wishes for his demise.

A real conundrum. LOL! Everyone thinks they are unbiased and clear thinking.
Couldn't agree more. It's America today. Very polarized. Maybe more so than even before the first Civil War. It's a shame everything has turned into a battle and working together has been thrown out the window. Comprise is nonexistent.

[Drummond]

LOL! What color is your sky?


Currently, a sort of a murky grey (possibly threatening rain). How about yours ?

@Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8) ...

Just to let you know I was right, Kathianne. The murky grey sky did threaten rain. We've since had a downpour.

And now, it's getting dark .. evening, where I am.

.... whew !!! I SO BADLY NEEDED to PROVE MYSELF RIGHT ... MY EGO CLAMOURED FOR IT, BY JINGO !!

... eh, Kathianne .. ??:coffee::coffee::laugh::laugh::laugh::rolleyes:: rolleyes:

... ok. I feel so much better, now ... venting my self-esteem was SO vital to me !!

Isn't that right ?

.... eh, Kathianne .. ?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Currently, a sort of a murky grey (possibly threatening rain). How about yours ?



... eh ??

I'm not even sure I need answer that one. Still, as I'm here ...

I've said this repeatedly on this forum: a forum such as this, is here (- surely ?? -) for its participants to express views, then have them countered by (if they're offered) countering views !! The success of one or the other is decided by the merits of each view when tested against the other.

That is how I see all this, and I've said that for a rather long time. So ... to what extent is your personal attack uncalled for ??



In your comment, you're essentially claiming I'm just driven by egotism .. when my approach, the one I've just described to you, is one devoid of all that. If you choose not to believe me, do some research ... you'll find I've stated what my approach to debate is, at least several times in the past.

You therefore KNOW that your judgmentality against me is uncalled for.

I'm sorry that you see such a need to personalise this debate against me. If you make good points, better ones than mine, it stands to reason that they should prevail over my own. The sheer strength of your argument SHOULD carry you through. And if by chance it doesn't .. why not ?

See my point ?

As for 'feigning ignorance' of your system, I fail to see how I could even do that with any credibility, since to do that implies a comparison between what is typically known by an American, and what is not, and how what I know compares against all that.

... And, how would I judge any of that with any accuracy ? Please ... tell me.

I'm 100% sure that there are big, gaping voids in my knowledge of your American judicial system. But HOW big they are, and how to quantify them ... I've no means of judging.

Do I ?

Personalised attacks aren't helpful, Kathianne. Stating opinions and positions, then testing them through debate ... IS.

Agreed ?


Hmmm, Drummond, I think you doth protest too much. Eh, Drummond?

[Kathianne]

Couldn't agree more. It's America today. Very polarized. Maybe more so than even before the first Civil War. It's a shame everything has turned into a battle and working together has been thrown out the window. Comprise is nonexistent.


Compromise takes at least two. Bottom line is, those that don't agree with one, deserve death and destruction. Everything is 'nuclear now.'

[Noir]

Posted for the hell of it ... a small taste of the British approach ....

12093

Adding some context - for the hell of it.

Operation Vaken was a pilot a few years ago, part of which involved advertising vans with ‘illegal immigrants go home’ driving around 6 London boroughs.

The vans were *so popular* that the advertising watchdog received dozens of complaints from the public, and the home office confirmed they would not be using the vans again, the British approach indeed.

The full evaluation of Vaken can be viewed here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254411/Operation_Vaken_Evaluation_Report.pdf

[Drummond]

Hmmm, Drummond, I think you doth protest too much. Eh, Drummond?

You'd rather, then, that I'd not defended myself ... and with truth ? Verifiable truth, at that ...

Eh, Kathianne ?

A question for you: when will you stop personalising your comments against me, and just get back to reasoned debate ?

I invite that debate. Personalised and uncalled-for attacks ... 'strangely', I don't invite those.

So, what's your pleasure ?

[Kathianne]

You'd rather, then, that I'd not defended myself ... and with truth ? Verifiable truth, at that ...

Eh, Kathianne ?

A question for you: when will you stop personalising your comments against me, and just get back to reasoned debate ?

I invite that debate. Personalised and uncalled-for attacks ... 'strangely', I don't invite those.

So, what's your pleasure ?

You never stop with the personal. Get real. I liked how Noir called you out on the van for illegals to go home.

[Drummond]

Adding some context - for the hell of it.

Operation Vaken was a pilot a few years ago, part of which involved advertising vans with ‘illegal immigrants go home’ driving around 6 London boroughs.

The vans were *so popular* that the advertising watchdog received dozens of complaints from the public, and the home office confirmed they would not be using the vans again, the British approach indeed.

The full evaluation of Vaken can be viewed here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254411/Operation_Vaken_Evaluation_Report.pdf

Hey ... yes, I think I remember that, now that you mention it.

Ok, thanks for that 'context'. Conceded.

Still, I do think it counted as a British approach. 'Dozens' of complaints doesn't exactly constitute an electoral majority, Noir. I for one would heartily approve of that van's message. I take it (subject to correction) that you, Noir, wouldn't ?

[Drummond]

You never stop with the personal. Get real. I liked how Noir called you out on the van for illegals to go home.

Oh, really ?

For your information, I saw Noir's post, replied to it, thanked him for it, even conceded his point to a degree ... why wouldn't I ? All that was before I even saw your latest post.

Your belief that I wouldn't, that I'd be driven by ego in my response, just isn't true. I didn't even see Noir's post as a 'calling out' of me ... that's your invention (possibly his, too, though I wouldn't actually know, one way or the other).

Do you genuinely not understand what I'm all about ? I say here, now, just as I've said many times before, that if I'm bested in a debate, I'll concede it ! Any idea that ego drives me has literally zero connection with the truth.

You have an opinion which you think is better than mine, more deserving of success and acceptance ? Fine. BRING IT ON. And, if yours is obviously more meritorious than mine, I WILL concede that.

But you know this already. How many times in the past have I said so ?

In fact, I'm getting a little tired of making myself clear about that. I shouldn't have to.

I'll ask again if you will now go back to reasoned debate. It's what we're here for ... isn't it ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which of you are going to take it to SCOTUS? They’ve ruled that it’s not OK.
SCOTUS is wrong in this case, as it gives benefits to children of criminals and this gives succor to those invading and provides that which it oft denies its own legal citizens.

My morality rules my stand on this, not some twisted thinking. Not some liberal idea of a million shades of gray that must be adhered to.
Additionally, since when has SCOTUS been declared to be perfect in their rulings?
What they have done is to mandate by judicial decree that the offspring of criminals(not alleged criminals but already known criminals, as is every illegal in this nation) also be beneficiaries of that crime!
And be beneficiaries by way of our tax dollars!
No way can that be right, nor can that be justice...
This well played -- "but it is for the children"-- gets mighty old when it has been twisted to circumvent law , justice, order and primarily done so, in order to benefit the dem party..
All of that plays into it-- so it is not just about treating poor little children well.
A comparison if I may..
A robber breaks into my home, he steals my property, later gets caught (or even does not get caught) but his kids are rewarded by our tax dollars
by way of a damn insane ruling placed by the deciding vote of one judge. A judge well known to the a biased asshole that rule by his political views, instead of Constitutional grounds/and/or a sense of maintaining justice and the Rule of Law...
That this is so obviously seen is self-evident to any person that understands when citizens are deprived of their money in order to reward lawbreakers and the children of said law breakers- justice has been trampled upon and shat on too., IMHO...

What you have not addressed is how many teachers are against being "forced" to abrogate their civic duty, conscience, personal morality, and thus become a party to the rewarding of these invaders and their children.
I have no problem with your morality and kindness, however I do think that you are perhaps missing too much of the bigger picture .
And maybe ignoring that the ruling is an error, because your kindness leads to want to help the children.
While that is admirable, to me it is also in error, as Law and Order is to be maintained and not trampled upon in the name of kindness and mercy.
-Tyr

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Compromise takes at least two. Bottom line is, those that don't agree with one, deserve death and destruction. Everything is 'nuclear now.'
Yep... it's all about winning. Nothing else matters.

[Drummond]

Oh please , no one - save me - is an expert on everything and I've never seen ANYTHING from Kathianne to suggest that she believes you shouldn't have an opinion . That's just lame Drummond.

I bow to your superior expertise !! :wink2:

Being fair: maybe Kathianne does believe I should have an opinion ... but, maybe she reserves judgment on the worth of them ?

Which is all fine .. IF .. she wants to test their worth through reasoned and balanced debate. It's a more productive exercise than personalised comment.

I don't know how many times I'll have to invite her to take that approach.

[Drummond]

Yep... it's all about winning. Nothing else matters.

I'd say it's all about the RIGHT SIDE winning.

Naturally, that'd be the Conservative side.

Just saying' ....

[Noir]

Hey ... yes, I think I remember that, now that you mention it.

Ok, thanks for that 'context'. Conceded.

Hold the bus a second - you posted that image without any knowledge or context for it yourself? and presented it as ‘the British approach’?!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Couldn't agree more. It's America today. Very polarized. Maybe more so than even before the first Civil War. It's a shame everything has turned into a battle and working together has been thrown out the window. Comprise is nonexistent.

The dems/libs/leftists call for compromise.
Only problem is -to them compromise means those opposing then get down and lick their boots!
Tragic for them , that so many of us would rather knock hell out of them than ever to be so spat on , degraded and forced to bend to the will of sad, depraved, perverted, degenerate, too oft insane assholes like they are.
This comes to mind, Don't Tread On Me...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIxxtV6Fw4I

[Drummond]

SCOTUS is wrong in this case, as it gives benefits to children of criminals and this gives succor to those invading and provides that which it oft denies its own legal citizens.

My morality rules my stand on this, not some twisted thinking. Not some liberal idea of a million shades of gray that must be adhered to.
Additionally, since when has SCOTUS been declared to be perfect in their rulings?
What they have done is to mandate by judicial decree that the offspring of criminals(not alleged criminals but already known criminals, as is every illegal in this nation) also be beneficiaries of that crime!
And be beneficiaries by way of our tax dollars!
No way can that be right, nor can that be justice...
This well played -- "but it is for the children"-- gets mighty old when it has been twisted to circumvent law , justice, order and primarily done so, in order to benefit the dem party..
All of that plays into it-- so it is not just about treating poor little children well.
A comparison if I may..
A robber breaks into my home, he steals my property, later gets caught (or even does not get caught) but his kids are rewarded by our tax dollars
by way of a damn insane ruling placed by the deciding vote of one judge. A judge well known to the a biased asshole that rule by his political views, instead of Constitutional grounds/and/or a sense of maintaining justice and the Rule of Law...
That this is so obviously seen is self-evident to any person that understands when citizens are deprived of their money in order to reward lawbreakers and the children of said law breakers- justice has been trampled upon and shat on too., IMHO...

What you have not addressed is how many teachers are against being "forced" to abrogate their civic duty, conscience, personal morality, and thus become a party to the rewarding of these invaders and their children.
I have no problem with your morality and kindness, however I do think that you are perhaps missing too much of the bigger picture .
And maybe ignoring that the ruling is an error, because your kindness leads to want to help the children.
While that is admirable, to me it is also in error, as Law and Order is to be maintained and not trampled upon in the name of kindness and mercy.
-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Damn, Tyr ... you've done it again ... put that case far better than I could have. And not for the first time.

I agree with every word. Spot on.

[Drummond]

Hold the bus a second - you posted that image without any knowledge or context for it yourself? and presented it as ‘the British approach’?!

At the time, I had a vague recollection of the van, and its being a news story. I also noted that it was undeniably British ... for one thing, there was the UK website address featured. For another, there was the London telephone number (020 7 ... inner London code).

In any case, I still think of it as 'the British approach'. It was obviously advertising a message sanctioned by our authorities. And mere 'dozens' of people objecting, really isn't many people !

Why, we've got far bigger numbers of people in the House of Commons, frustrating Brexit ! And how did the REAL British public react, in our recent MEP elections ??

Did they express APPROVAL of those 'many dozens' of MP's ... ?

[Kathianne]

SCOTUS is wrong in this case, as it gives benefits to children of criminals and this gives succor to those invading and provides that which it oft denies its own legal citizens.

My morality rules my stand on this, not some twisted thinking. Not some liberal idea of a million shades of gray that must be adhered to.
Additionally, since when has SCOTUS been declared to be perfect in their rulings?
What they have done is to mandate by judicial decree that the offspring of criminals(not alleged criminals but already known criminals, as is every illegal in this nation) also be beneficiaries of that crime!
And be beneficiaries by way of our tax dollars!
No way can that be right, nor can that be justice...
This well played -- "but it is for the children"-- gets mighty old when it has been twisted to circumvent law , justice, order and primarily done so, in order to benefit the dem party..
All of that plays into it-- so it is not just about treating poor little children well.
A comparison if I may..
A robber breaks into my home, he steals my property, later gets caught (or even does not get caught) but his kids are rewarded by our tax dollars
by way of a damn insane ruling placed by the deciding vote of one judge. A judge well known to the a biased asshole that rule by his political views, instead of Constitutional grounds/and/or a sense of maintaining justice and the Rule of Law...
That this is so obviously seen is self-evident to any person that understands when citizens are deprived of their money in order to reward lawbreakers and the children of said law breakers- justice has been trampled upon and shat on too., IMHO...

What you have not addressed is how many teachers are against being "forced" to abrogate their civic duty, conscience, personal morality, and thus become a party to the rewarding of these invaders and their children.
I have no problem with your morality and kindness, however I do think that you are perhaps missing too much of the bigger picture .
And maybe ignoring that the ruling is an error, because your kindness leads to want to help the children.
While that is admirable, to me it is also in error, as Law and Order is to be maintained and not trampled upon in the name of kindness and mercy.
-Tyr

Tryr, I’m trying to figure out if you are arguing that we should only follow the laws we think are right?

[STTAB]

SCOTUS is wrong in this case, as it gives benefits to children of criminals and this gives succor to those invading and provides that which it oft denies its own legal citizens.

My morality rules my stand on this, not some twisted thinking. Not some liberal idea of a million shades of gray that must be adhered to.
Additionally, since when has SCOTUS been declared to be perfect in their rulings?
What they have done is to mandate by judicial decree that the offspring of criminals(not alleged criminals but already known criminals, as is every illegal in this nation) also be beneficiaries of that crime!
And be beneficiaries by way of our tax dollars!
No way can that be right, nor can that be justice...
This well played -- "but it is for the children"-- gets mighty old when it has been twisted to circumvent law , justice, order and primarily done so, in order to benefit the dem party..
All of that plays into it-- so it is not just about treating poor little children well.
A comparison if I may..
A robber breaks into my home, he steals my property, later gets caught (or even does not get caught) but his kids are rewarded by our tax dollars
by way of a damn insane ruling placed by the deciding vote of one judge. A judge well known to the a biased asshole that rule by his political views, instead of Constitutional grounds/and/or a sense of maintaining justice and the Rule of Law...
That this is so obviously seen is self-evident to any person that understands when citizens are deprived of their money in order to reward lawbreakers and the children of said law breakers- justice has been trampled upon and shat on too., IMHO...

What you have not addressed is how many teachers are against being "forced" to abrogate their civic duty, conscience, personal morality, and thus become a party to the rewarding of these invaders and their children.
I have no problem with your morality and kindness, however I do think that you are perhaps missing too much of the bigger picture .
And maybe ignoring that the ruling is an error, because your kindness leads to want to help the children.
While that is admirable, to me it is also in error, as Law and Order is to be maintained and not trampled upon in the name of kindness and mercy.
-Tyr

By definition SCOTUS can NOT be wrong on matters of what is and what is unconstitutional. They are the final word, not Tyr.


It's truly amazing how many people hate our system of government that has worked well for nigh on 275 years.

And I will ask again Tyr. I realize you don't like me, but I don't think my love for my country nor my patriotism can be questioned, the fact that you don't like me makes this an even better question, actually.

Do you think it would be right for a teacher to harraass my brown children before allowing them to use the restroom? Do you think it would be right for a teacher to tweet to the President that my beautiful patriotic brown wife might be an illegal?

I pray to God you get the point I am making.

[Drummond]

By definition SCOTUS can NOT be wrong on matters of what is and what is unconstitutional. They are the final word, not Tyr.

I can't assess the literal truth of that. I don't know. So, in the absence of proper basis to challenge that statement, I'm forced to accept it.

But ... my God ! That's scary !! What has to be inferred from the truth of this, is that 'SCOTUS' possesses judicial absolute power !

Is it totally 'impossible' for them to misuse it ??

A little earlier in this thread, confirmation was reached that a certain Judge Brennan Jr held to a Left-wing mindset, and, that he'd made judgments in 'deference' to his political beliefs (the Wikipedia entry I cited was very clear on that). So, with his freedom to do this, and ALSO with his freedom to persuade other judges to fall in line with him ... this supposed 'infallibility' could easily translate into a SCOTUS whose 'infallibilty' could bend laws to a Left-wing interpretation of them, and get away with it, by 'virtue' of such judgments being inviolable.

We've seen an example of it discussed here ... that of a 'two track' handling of illegal immigrants, and their protection from the law if they happen to have kids being educated in American schools. This sanctioned by a 'SCOTUS' led by a Left-winger, casting his deciding vote.

So .. is this a justifiable phenomenon ? Or not ? Have a SCOTUS capable, and willing, to bend laws to their choosing ... and, it's 'all OK' ?

Forgive the, ahem, 'arrogance' of a Brit here. But, I dare to say ... ideally, at least ... IT ISN'T. Misuse of power, its subversion, isn't automatically 'OK' because those doing the subverting, have the power to do it !!

[Kathianne]

I can't assess the literal truth of that. I don't know. So, in the absence of proper basis to challenge that statement, I'm forced to accept it.

But ... my God ! That's scary !! What has to be inferred from the truth of this, is that 'SCOTUS' possesses judicial absolute power !

Is it totally 'impossible' for them to misuse it ??

A little earlier in this thread, confirmation was reached that a certain Judge Brennan Jr held to a Left-wing mindset, and, that he'd made judgments in 'deference' to his political beliefs (the Wikipedia entry I cited was very clear on that). So, with his freedom to do this, and ALSO with his freedom to persuade other judges to fall in line with him ... this supposed 'infallibility' could easily translate into a SCOTUS whose 'infallibilty' could bend laws to a Left-wing interpretation of them, and get away with it, by 'virtue' of such judgments being inviolable.

We've seen an example of it discussed here ... that of a 'two track' handling of illegal immigrants, and their protection from the law if they happen to have kids being educated in American schools. This sanctioned by a 'SCOTUS' led by a Left-winger, casting his deciding vote.

So .. is this a justifiable phenomenon ? Or not ? Have a SCOTUS capable, and willing, to bend laws to their choosing ... and, it's 'all OK' ?

Forgive the, ahem, 'arrogance' of a Brit here. But, I dare to say ... ideally, at least ... IT ISN'T. Misuse of power, its subversion, isn't automatically 'OK' because those doing the subverting, have the power to do it !!

Marbury V Madison

We can disagree on how a win was a loss, but it’s never been overturned.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tryr, I’m trying to figure out if you are arguing that we should only follow the laws we think are right?

Truth is I am in a pickle over this- the problem is--SCOTUS has erred and done so in a spectacular way.
Also in a very harmful destructive way to the Rule of Law and justice. Whether a teacher acts or not is a personal decision each one can or else should make in regards to this issue.
Be that as it may, in my opinion, SCOTUS has engaged in a very destructive action by sanctioning a circumvention of justice, of encouraging civic duty and of forcing a group (teachers) to act to reward and encourage invaders , to encourage law breakers, to give succor to said law breakers.
That a teacher may feel or say - "well it is the law and I must obey is their business", that I myself may, can and do say- that is an abrogation of civic duty, a slap to the very face of logic and justice and definitely giving aid to criminals and doing so with our tax dollars to boot.
If my reasoning is greatly in error be so kind as to explain exactly how so.
Does one obey blindly that which they --know-- is wrong?
Nobody, and I mean nobody on this planet gets to tell me I must obey or bow down to such a forced order that came from one POS judge.
When one can so easily see that order is aiding criminals and their families-- thus encouraging them and more of them to come over here to destroy, steal, rape, pillage, use our welfare system, engage in crime and flaunt our justice system because the dem party gives them cover for their future votes, etc.!
And adding insult upon injury have a law, mandate that a citizen( teachers are citizens) --NOT REPORT A CRIME!!!!!!
Such an attack upon justice threatens our way of life, our Rule of Law and our survival as a nation bound by the Constitution.
For that to stand and not be properly addressed while we are in the midst of a massive invasion that weakens this nation is a true and great tragedy.
I am sorry that teachers that should be greatly admired are thus commanded by a SCOTUS decision that goes against logic, common sense, justice, rule of law, civic duty and decent morality....
Yet the teacher's union should have already addressed this issue and demanded that such an unconstitutional edict be nullified.
Of course we know why they have not addressed it -since they are also --owned by the totally corrupt and treasonous dem party.. -Tyr

[STTAB]

I can't assess the literal truth of that. I don't know. So, in the absence of proper basis to challenge that statement, I'm forced to accept it.

But ... my God ! That's scary !! What has to be inferred from the truth of this, is that 'SCOTUS' possesses judicial absolute power !

Is it totally 'impossible' for them to misuse it ??

A little earlier in this thread, confirmation was reached that a certain Judge Brennan Jr held to a Left-wing mindset, and, that he'd made judgments in 'deference' to his political beliefs (the Wikipedia entry I cited was very clear on that). So, with his freedom to do this, and ALSO with his freedom to persuade other judges to fall in line with him ... this supposed 'infallibility' could easily translate into a SCOTUS whose 'infallibilty' could bend laws to a Left-wing interpretation of them, and get away with it, by 'virtue' of such judgments being inviolable.

We've seen an example of it discussed here ... that of a 'two track' handling of illegal immigrants, and their protection from the law if they happen to have kids being educated in American schools. This sanctioned by a 'SCOTUS' led by a Left-winger, casting his deciding vote.

So .. is this a justifiable phenomenon ? Or not ? Have a SCOTUS capable, and willing, to bend laws to their choosing ... and, it's 'all OK' ?

Forgive the, ahem, 'arrogance' of a Brit here. But, I dare to say ... ideally, at least ... IT ISN'T. Misuse of power, its subversion, isn't automatically 'OK' because those doing the subverting, have the power to do it !!



That is why we must have serious debate about who we do and do not put on that illustrious council. Mistakes have been made obviously, and without question there are judges and even Justices who allow their personal feelings to override good legal analysis. That is why lower courts can be appealed and why the SCOTUS has 9 members. It nullifies the effects of bad actors as much as possible.

SCOTUS isn't the final word because they always rule exactly as we believe they should. They are the final word because practicality says that SOMEONE has to be. Look at it the way you run your household Drummond. You tell your kids you are the final word, and you are, that doesn't mean you are always correct, but it does mean that your word is final.

And much like you could at some point change your mind and still be right, so to could SCOTUS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I can't assess the literal truth of that. I don't know. So, in the absence of proper basis to challenge that statement, I'm forced to accept it.

But ... my God ! That's scary !! What has to be inferred from the truth of this, is that 'SCOTUS' possesses judicial absolute power !

Is it totally 'impossible' for them to misuse it ??

A little earlier in this thread, confirmation was reached that a certain Judge Brennan Jr held to a Left-wing mindset, and, that he'd made judgments in 'deference' to his political beliefs (the Wikipedia entry I cited was very clear on that). So, with his freedom to do this, and ALSO with his freedom to persuade other judges to fall in line with him ... this supposed 'infallibility' could easily translate into a SCOTUS whose 'infallibilty' could bend laws to a Left-wing interpretation of them, and get away with it, by 'virtue' of such judgments being inviolable.

We've seen an example of it discussed here ... that of a 'two track' handling of illegal immigrants, and their protection from the law if they happen to have kids being educated in American schools. This sanctioned by a 'SCOTUS' led by a Left-winger, casting his deciding vote.

So .. is this a justifiable phenomenon ? Or not ? Have a SCOTUS capable, and willing, to bend laws to their choosing ... and, it's 'all OK' ?

Forgive the, ahem, 'arrogance' of a Brit here. But, I dare to say ... ideally, at least ... IT ISN'T. Misuse of power, its subversion, isn't automatically 'OK' because those doing the subverting, have the power to do it !!

My God! For any person to say that SCOTUS is never wrong!
Such is to me the very essence of blindness. Are they not human-- "to err is human"..
The idea that SCOTUS is infallible, that it is perfect defies Reality, Logic , Common sense and History!
I have to laugh at such a biased, blind and ignorant statement.

Below are 5 famous examples of SCOTUS being wrong.-Tyr

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.

5. The Civil Rights Cases (1883): Another testament to the Court's failure to protect civil rights, the Civil Rights Cases struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. That law sought to ban racial discrimination in businesses and public accommodations. The court, in an 8-1 decision, held that the enforcement provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do not allow Congress to prevent non-governmental racial discrimination. It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S -- this time under the Commerce Clause.

[Kathianne]

If one wants to look at this as 'compassionate/milquetoast' teachers-neither of which is engendered by the teacher in the OP, perhaps the second view of law should take precedence?

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/05/betsy_devos_undocumented_students_ICE_schools_repo rt.html

Again, Plyer is the decision that stands-whether you agree with it or not, it was decided in the Reagan era, 1982:


Betsy DeVos: Schools Can Choose to Report Students to ICE. Advocates: She's Wrong.

By Andrew Ujifusa (http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/andrew.ujifusa_5926680.html) on May 23, 2018 7:26 AM

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos told the House education committee Tuesday that it's up to schools whether to report undocumented immigrant students to federal immigration authorities (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/05/betsy_devos_school_safety_house_hearing_teacher_pa y.html). That's created quite a stir, and some say her view is totally inaccurate. Let's go over some background.

The topic came up when Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., asked DeVos whether she thought a teacher or principal who "finds out that a certain child is undocumented or his or her family is undocumented" has the responsibility to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement about that family.
"Sir, I think that's a school decision, it's a local community decision," DeVos told Espaillat. "We have laws, and we also are compassionate. And I urge this body to do its job and address and clarify where there is confusion around this." Espaillat repeated the question and stressed that immigration law is federal law, but DeVos did not change her stance. He did not say under what circumstances he envisioned educators and schools learning about a student or family's immigration status.

Immigration advocates pounced. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund said DeVos was guilty of "dereliction of duty" by sharing her viewpoint. "Any public school or school district that denies an education to any undocumented child—whether by refusing to enroll, by limiting access to the programs and benefits provided to other students, or by reporting a child to ICE—has violated the United States Constitution," MALDEF said.

And the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said it would be against the law for schools to take the option DeVos presented:

So was DeVos right? The key case here is Plyer v. Doe. In a 1982 ruling on that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that public schools can't adopt policies that discourage certain groups of students (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1982/06/23/02310017.h01.html), including undocumented immigrants, from enrolling. A 2014 fact sheet put out by the Education and Justice Departments (http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/08/plylerfact.pdf) states that schools "may not ask about your or your child's citizenship or immigration status to establish residency within the district." They also can't require parents to show driver's licenses or state-issued identification.

In addition, a "Dear Colleague" letter from both those departments (http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/08/plylerletter.pdf) in 2014 says schools "may not deny access to a basic public education to any child residing in the State, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise."

(That 1982 ruling didn't stop an Illinois district from asking students applying to enroll about their immigation status (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/03/08/26elmwood.h25.html)—this district agreed to stop the practice in 2006.)

After the hearing, Liz Hill, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, stated that DeVos' position is that "schools must comply with Plyler and all other applicable law and regulation." Hill also said there are "absolutely no plans" to rescind the Obama-era "Dear Colleague" letter or guidance on this issue.

Schools' relationship with immigration enforcement can be tricky. Our colleague Corey Mitchell reviewed some of these issues for schools last year (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/03/01/how-much-can-schools-protect-undocumented-students.html).



Schools can limit their interactions with immigration enforcement, but federal immigration agents can access school grounds when high-level federal officials give approval; that's according to a 2012 ICE memo. Immigration officials can also argue they need urgent access to a school under certain circumstances.
"ICE is a federal immigration agency and they do have legal authority to enforce immigration law and there could be scenarios where ICE could access campus," Jessica Hanson, a lawyer with the National Immigration Law Center, told Corey last year.
Schools can claim "sanctuary" status and share information with families about their rights, although that status might overstate the legal protections schools can provide to undocumented immigrants.

Last year, Broward County schools adopted a policy stating that federal agents seeking information about students or access to them must produce a warrant or other court document (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2017/03/heres_what_schools_should_do_if_immigration_agents _show_up.html) that the district's attorney must first review. Other districts have made similar moves to protect undocumented students.

And immigration officials—but not those who conduct enforcement—visited a New York City school in 2017 to verify information (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2017/05/immigration_agents_were_not_stalking_a_student.htm l) about a green card applicant through the school's front office.

In a question-and-answer document from both departments also published in 2014 (http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/08/plylerqa.pdf), here's a relevant section about district disclosure of student information:

Once in possession of personal information about a student, are there circumstances when a school district may disclose that information from a student's education records without the consent of the student or a parent?

There are circumstances when a school district may disclose information from a student's education records, but these are limited and unlikely to be applicable in the majority of situations school districts confront. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) generally prohibits school districts that receive Federal funds from the Department of Education from disclosing information from a student's education records that alone or in combination with other information can identify that student, without the prior written consent of a parent or the student (if that student is 18 years of age or older or attends a postsecondary institution). ... There are some limited exceptions in FERPA to the requirement that written consent must be obtained before disclosing personally identifiable information from students' education records ... as well as narrow, enumerated circumstances under which Federal immigration laws require or permit a school district to provide specific information about a student to another Federal, state, or local government entity. One such circumstance is where the issuance of a non-immigrant visa to a student--and the maintenance of that student's non-immigrant status--is conditioned on the student's attendance at a specific school. Note that in that case, a school district would have preexisting information about the student that he or she would have presented to the school in order to obtain the underlying visa, and so the school would not have any reason to initiate a request for information about immigration status.

Immigration and other advocates are essentially arguing that if a public school were to report an undocumented student to a federal immigration authority, it would be tantamount to improperly depriving that student of his or her right to an education.

Time will tell if schools' obligations and options with respect to undocumented students are tested and clarified—or altered—under the Trump administration.




So ICE or another enforcement agency can use a warrant to enter a school, but it's clear that the law does not permit teachers to be the enforcers or by extension informers.

That's the law. Now the question remains, do we only obey the laws we want to obey? What about the 'liberals?' They only have to follow the laws they agree with?

[Kathianne]

My God! For any person to say that SCOTUS is never wrong!
Such is to me the very essence of blindness. Are they not human-- "to err is human"..
The idea that SCOTUS is infallible, that it is perfect defies Reality, Logic , Common sense and History!
I have to laugh at such a biased, blind and ignorant statement.

Below are 5 famous examples of SCOTUS being wrong.-Tyr

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.

5. The Civil Rights Cases (1883): Another testament to the Court's failure to protect civil rights, the Civil Rights Cases struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. That law sought to ban racial discrimination in businesses and public accommodations. The court, in an 8-1 decision, held that the enforcement provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do not allow Congress to prevent non-governmental racial discrimination. It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S -- this time under the Commerce Clause.


I know you know your history. How did those cases end up in the long run? That's the system, sometimes it takes many years-like Plessy to be overturned-even when many knew the wrongness at the time.

Without common agreement to follow the laws or pay the price of civil disobedience, there is no governing and it all becomes Hobbesian.

[jimnyc]

Hold the bus a second - you posted that image without any knowledge or context for it yourself? and presented it as ‘the British approach’?!

I believe he conceded, but you're gonna push it. And while normally this doesn't phase me - it always makes me wonder when it's someone that rarely offers but a one sided opinion, or more accurate, rarely if ever condemns things of the left/muslims and other subjects. Hard to be demanding of answers or explanations when its someone who doesn't always offer the same themselves. ALL IN GENERAL but true.

I can't offer input as to a picture but certainly believe that you're context was spot on. Then while one may see things so horribly different than another, you also have time involved and is someone truly not recalling correctly. I thought that was the point of the 'concession'.

I think a land of laws is perhaps one of the most important things about our great country. 'Some'/many on the left don't see laws quite as important.

[Kathianne]

I believe he conceded, but you're gonna push it. And while normally this doesn't phase me - it always makes me wonder when it's someone that rarely offers but a one sided opinion, or more accurate, rarely if ever condemns things of the left/muslims and other subjects. Hard to be demanding of answers or explanations when its someone who doesn't always offer the same themselves. ALL IN GENERAL but true.

I can't offer input as to a picture but certainly believe that you're context was spot on. Then while one may see things so horribly different than another, you also have time involved and is someone truly not recalling correctly. I thought that was the point of the 'concession'.

I think a land of laws is perhaps one of the most important things about our great country. 'Some'/many on the left don't see laws quite as important.

Respectfully, there are several in this thread saying that reporting to ICE is THE ONLY way one should go, though for teachers it flies in the face of SCOTUS and contracts and now even the Department of Education on the federal level. Thus 'feelings' over law.

[jimnyc]

By definition SCOTUS can NOT be wrong on matters of what is and what is unconstitutional. They are the final word, not Tyr.

It IS possible for even the SC to have things overturned in the future, its happened before. I wouldn't say they are always right, but they are always legal until such time something would be overturned. I see the sense you're speaking of, I'm just clarifying a little from another angle. If the left/right does something so egregious, there's a chance that a future court would change things up. ---- and yep, even some of the constitutional decisions have been overturned.

[Kathianne]

It IS possible for even the SC to have things overturned in the future, its happened before. I wouldn't say they are always right, but they are always legal until such time something would be overturned. I see the sense you're speaking of, I'm just clarifying a little from another angle. If the left/right does something so egregious, there's a chance that a future court would change things up. ---- and yep, even some of the constitutional decisions have been overturned.

Thank you. That was my point with Tyr, cases are overturned, in whole or part. Until that point though, it's the law of the land. Final arbiter as there always needs to be one.

As I said, one can go the civil disobedience way, but it's impractical for all the complaints that seem to be out there with each decision rendered.

[jimnyc]

So ICE or another enforcement agency can use a warrant to enter a school, but it's clear that the law does not permit teachers to be the enforcers or by extension informers.

That's the law. Now the question remains, do we only obey the laws we want to obey? What about the 'liberals?' They only have to follow the laws they agree with?

I would like to see it re-addressed if possible. But right now it's obviously blocking them via court decisions, as you have correctly pointed out.

In another way I find it weird that that make so many mandated reporters for so so many good things and then tie their hands with other issues. I like the mandated reporter for many folks, as it helps a tremendous amount with child abuse, drugs and other illegal happenings. I know it's a child abuse thing, but those folks will also get involved when they suspect or know of other illegals things like drugs.

It's the law pertaining to this discussion though, and in that respect there are limitations. And obviously the priorities, as it should be, is the safety of the children in care, and of course teaching them like everyone else so long as they are in the classroom. I'm just of the opinion that this would could use a revisit and untie those to an extent. Not the expectation of becoming police and investigating and all that... but if it is in fact found out, for whatever reason, they should at least have a channel within the school to report and let them take over from there. As it stands, that can't happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing it so.

---

A WAY out there example, I guess about life and reality in general - and NOT pointed to teachers or you, Kath! Or anyone for that fact. We have a bad parking situation on my street. I'm good as I have a long driveway and a garage for one as well.

At any rate, the police NEVER watch this road, never enforce signs and never ticket and therefore folks then abuse it. We called a few times many moons back. And I hated doing so as I shouldn't have to. But the police never did proactively, and when we complain to them about it, they say it's up to us to call if we see an illegally parked car. I was like - good idea? Pit neighbor against neighbor instead of simply being proactive police? But that was their resolution, to expect folks to follow the laws and to expect other folks to help call and/or help keep things in order. I learned that sometimes it takes the eyes, and reporting from all of us to sometimes accomplish things, whether we like or disagree with that or not. Simply too many citizens in the USA and not enough eyes.

[Drummond]

My God! For any person to say that SCOTUS is never wrong!
Such is to me the very essence of blindness. Are they not human-- "to err is human"..
The idea that SCOTUS is infallible, that it is perfect defies Reality, Logic , Common sense and History!
I have to laugh at such a biased, blind and ignorant statement.

Below are 5 famous examples of SCOTUS being wrong.-Tyr

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The ruling undid the Missouri Compromise, barred laws that would free slaves, and all but guaranteed that there would be no political solution to slavery. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

2. Buck v. Bell (1927): "Eugenics? Yes, please!" the Court declared in this terrible decision which still stands as good law. In an 8-1 decision written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.

5. The Civil Rights Cases (1883): Another testament to the Court's failure to protect civil rights, the Civil Rights Cases struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875. That law sought to ban racial discrimination in businesses and public accommodations. The court, in an 8-1 decision, held that the enforcement provisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do not allow Congress to prevent non-governmental racial discrimination. It would take over 80 years for the Court to switch course, allowing for the government protection of civil rights in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S -- this time under the Commerce Clause.

Brilliant ! Many thanks, Tyr. This is just the material I need to be aware of.

[I have a lot to chew over, it seems .. your legal system has a lot of difference compared to my own, in the UK. I was right ... I have very big gaps in my knowledge.]

[Kathianne]

I would like to see it re-addressed if possible. But right now it's obviously blocking them via court decisions, as you have correctly pointed out.

In another way I find it weird that that make so many mandated reporters for so so many good things and then tie their hands with other issues. I like the mandated reporter for many folks, as it helps a tremendous amount with child abuse, drugs and other illegal happenings. I know it's a child abuse thing, but those folks will also get involved when they suspect or know of other illegals things like drugs.

It's the law pertaining to this discussion though, and in that respect there are limitations. And obviously the priorities, as it should be, is the safety of the children in care, and of course teaching them like everyone else so long as they are in the classroom. I'm just of the opinion that this would could use a revisit and untie those to an extent. Not the expectation of becoming police and investigating and all that... but if it is in fact found out, for whatever reason, they should at least have a channel within the school to report and let them take over from there. As it stands, that can't happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing it so.

---

A WAY out there example, I guess about life and reality in general - and NOT pointed to teachers or you, Kath! Or anyone for that fact. We have a bad parking situation on my street. I'm good as I have a long driveway and a garage for one as well.

At any rate, the police NEVER watch this road, never enforce signs and never ticket and therefore folks then abuse it. We called a few times many moons back. And I hated doing so as I shouldn't have to. But the police never did proactively, and when we complain to them about it, they say it's up to us to call if we see an illegally parked car. I was like - good idea? Pit neighbor against neighbor instead of simply being proactive police? But that was their resolution, to expect folks to follow the laws and to expect other folks to help call and/or help keep things in order. I learned that sometimes it takes the eyes, and reporting from all of us to sometimes accomplish things, whether we like or disagree with that or not. Simply too many citizens in the USA and not enough eyes.

I hear what you are saying, just not sure anyone actually understands what teachers and police do day-to-day. If I remember correctly, you are basically on a cul-de-sac, no? Little or no traffic that isn't from the neighbors? I lived on the same in IL. Plenty of room for my kids' cars and mine, but not so much for some neighbors. Made it difficult for the kids riding their bikes and such. If someone had a party? Mess.

Police too have to prioritize, if no one complains about parking, then they figure it's fine. If they get enough complaints, it moves up to ticketing and perhaps limited street parking-though that isn't a police decision, but city engineering I believe.

Do police respond to calls from schools, robberies, possible rapes, arson, or parking? Do they go proactive on parking, speeding, wrong way street driving?

Teacher too are constantly triaging. Which issue today is most important? Behaviors, administrators, reading, testing, writing, the kid crying, returning parent calls? Which to let slide?

[jimnyc]

Respectfully, there are several in this thread saying that reporting to ICE is THE ONLY way one should go, though for teachers it flies in the face of SCOTUS and contracts and now even the Department of Education on the federal level. Thus 'feelings' over law.

Oh, I didn't even mean that pertaining to anything here, just an example, and I chose a horrible one!

Teachers must follow the law like everyone else. And if it went to the SC as it did, well then that just reinforces it solidly. Short of the SC changing things up, a teacher is already doing the right thing by NOT reporting. That's the reality.

While I personally would LOVE not much more than all illegals being reported no matter where - the law trumps feelings.

[Kathianne]

Brilliant ! Many thanks, Tyr. This is just the material I need to be aware of.

[I have a lot to chew over, it seems .. your legal system has a lot of difference compared to my own, in the UK. I was right ... I have very big gaps in my knowledge.]

Perhaps. Then again, I kept saying pages ago, who wanted to challenge the law? Got to get a case that SCOTUS will grant certiorari.

[jimnyc]

Brilliant ! Many thanks, Tyr. This is just the material I need to be aware of.

[I have a lot to chew over, it seems .. your legal system has a lot of difference compared to my own, in the UK. I was right ... I have very big gaps in my knowledge.]

Here's some more to ponder over. This shows most decisions and then the overruling decisions:

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_deci sions

[Kathianne]

Here's some more to ponder over. This shows most decisions and then the overruling decisions:

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_deci sions

Yep. For those who claim not to understand our justice system, at least on the federal level, overturned cases come from cases brought to SCOTUS to test the precedents of before. Sometimes the court will grant certiorari to revisit an earlier finding. Unfortunately, it usually takes decades to actually effect change, due to the fact that there really is bias and it's often a product of the times. Plessy never would have stood in a later time, but did with Jim Crow being predominant in much of the country. In the north, the labor movement growth also was influencing racial feelings towards blacks and immigrants. "Irish need not apply." Know Nothing resurgence, etc. Time and place. History in context, that is SCOTUS rulings.

[jimnyc]

I hear what you are saying, just not sure anyone actually understands what teachers and police do day-to-day. If I remember correctly, you are basically on a cul-de-sac, no? Little or no traffic that isn't from the neighbors? I lived on the same in IL. Plenty of room for my kids' cars and mine, but not so much for some neighbors. Made it difficult for the kids riding their bikes and such. If someone had a party? Mess.

Police too have to prioritize, if no one complains about parking, then they figure it's fine. If they get enough complaints, it moves up to ticketing and perhaps limited street parking-though that isn't a police decision, but city engineering I believe.

Do police respond to calls from schools, robberies, possible rapes, arson, or parking? Do they go proactive on parking, speeding, wrong way street driving?

Teacher too are constantly triaging. Which issue today is most important? Behaviors, administrators, reading, testing, writing, the kid crying, returning parent calls? Which to let slide?

Well, it's listed as a dead end road, but we get 3x more traffic than the road running parallel to use, where cars should go, but they cut through my road to avoid 2 lights. I fully understand the prioritization, I'm friends with quite a few officers here in town. So no, I certainly do not ever expect full involvement or even a daily pass by or anything like that. But they do ticket proactively on the other road, but not the road that all the law breakers cut through.... Luckily the kids around here all go "somewhere" after the schools let out at like 2:30 - 3pm, but they never come back out again! LOL And hell, in the end, I don't even mind making a 30 second call if I had to, but I never do anymore - so everything you say is correct. But in the end, what it does IMO, is show that the citizens help when it comes to upholding our laws in America.

And again, by no means a job of the teachers to police anything or investigate in the slightest bit, not one bit of investigation - I'm making that clear. But IMO, and "IF" a teacher or someone else associated school finds out something due to no investigating (various ways), that they be allowed to report it within the school... Whether that be someone that investigates, but even then I don't think so. Take the knowledge in hand, if factual, and report it to someone who does do that job, and then go home and don't think about it again, and go to school the next day and approach the children and teaching identically to always. I guess what I mean, if someone finds out factually - they shouldn't have to ignore it, even if they have no business in the investigation department whatsoever. It just feels odd that any citizen being refrained from reporting any illegal actions to any authorities. But that's more than the law as it stands. And as one that agrees with you that it would need fighting to change within the courts and attempt to overturn a law. I think this would be a good candidate. Admittedly not easy, as I don't think a teacher should have one single added responsibility to what they are already often overloaded with. But there are still easy enough ways to solve that issue. In other words- I also think no extra triage should be going to the teachers either.

[Kathianne]

Well, it's listed as a dead end road, but we get 3x more traffic than the road running parallel to use, where cars should go, but they cut through my road to avoid 2 lights. I fully understand the prioritization, I'm friends with quite a few officers here in town. So no, I certainly do not ever expect full involvement or even a daily pass by or anything like that. But they do ticket proactively on the other road, but not the road that all the law breakers cut through.... Luckily the kids around here all go "somewhere" after the schools let out at like 2:30 - 3pm, but they never come back out again! LOL And hell, in the end, I don't even mind making a 30 second call if I had to, but I never do anymore - so everything you say is correct. But in the end, what it does IMO, is show that the citizens help when it comes to upholding our laws in America.

And again, by no means a job of the teachers to police anything or investigate in the slightest bit, not one bit of investigation - I'm making that clear. But IMO, and "IF" a teacher or someone else associated school finds out something due to no investigating (various ways), that they be allowed to report it within the school... Whether that be someone that investigates, but even then I don't think so. Take the knowledge in hand, if factual, and report it to someone who does do that job, and then go home and don't think about it again, and go to school the next day and approach the children and teaching identically to always. I guess what I mean, if someone finds out factually - they shouldn't have to ignore it, even if they have no business in the investigation department whatsoever. It just feels odd that any citizen being refrained from reporting any illegal actions to any authorities. But that's more than the law as it stands. And as one that agrees with you that it would need fighting to change within the courts and attempt to overturn a law. I think this would be a good candidate. Admittedly not easy, as I don't think a teacher should have one single added responsibility to what they are already often overloaded with. But there are still easy enough ways to solve that issue. In other words- I also think no extra triage should be going to the teachers either.


Again, I get what you are saying. Here's the thing, the only way one would come upon that 'information' is someone like that teacher, who obviously harbors ill will towards the students or a kid who doesn't want to be at school or maybe the US or is just pissed at their parents and self-narcs. Pretty certain that is why SCOTUS ruled as they did in 1982, really am not seeing it being reversed in the climate we have today, but hey, I'm certainly not in lockstep with the majority or the right.

[jimnyc]

Again, I get what you are saying. Here's the thing, the only way one would come upon that 'information' is someone like that teacher, who obviously harbors ill will towards the students or a kid who doesn't want to be at school or maybe the US or is just pissed at their parents and self-narcs. Pretty certain that is why SCOTUS ruled as they did in 1982, really am not seeing it being reversed in the climate we have today, but hey, I'm certainly not in lockstep with the majority or the right.

I was thinking more like if they simply overheard a student outright admit it, for one example. And move on, and perhaps at the end of the day, they make the simplest of forms to help teachers report an incident. Then the teacher move on, I agree that's all they do and no investigating, but a simple incident report of the illegality they know of. Then from there, the school, or a resource officer/department can do something.

And in NO WAY should any teachers be at home detectives. I don't like that anymore than I like roadside lawyers that get pulled over!

[Drummond]

Marbury V Madison

We can disagree on how a win was a loss, but itÂ’s never been overturned.

That's more like it, Kath. Thank you for this.

I just looked up 'Marbury v Madison' on Wikipedia. I can only say I'm staggered at what I've learned.

As I just posted to Tyr, I was right about the great gaps in my knowledge & understanding of the American legal system. Hardly surprising, either ... your system has evolved a lot more differently to my own than I'd imagined.

Quoting from the Wikipedia entry:


Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

To me, that's utterly staggering. I'm attuned to the British system, and under our system, all this would be an utter outrage. In our system, our judiciary doesn't have these powers, and nobody would ever dream of supplying them !

I see the cause of the difference, and it's reasonably obvious, when you really think about it. The UK has no equivalent of your Constitution, and since that's so, no basis exists in British law for judges - at WHATEVER level - to have any justification for taking on the powers described.

Here, it's very different. Absolutely no judge can actually tinker with laws !! Yes, they can be interpreted, with the interpretation having legal force, but only in such a way that remains true to the law being considered. Law is law, and it's passed into 'being' from Parliament. Parliament would be wasting its time if any judge could say to them, 'Thanks very much for your law ... now, we'll use it or change its application, just as WE see fit !'

I think I see why there's such a difference. Your SCOTUS uses the Constitution as the basis for what it does ... is that it ? It wields authority on the back of interpretations of the Constitution, and conflict arises between the Constitution and other tiers of laws .. have I got this right ?

We lack such a Constitution, so there's no reason for any scope of 'vetting' by anyone in our judiciary. Any interpretations of precedence - which are rare - must be founded on the law as it is, not the law as a judge might like to 'overrulingly' assert it SHOULD be !!

I think I'm going to bow out of further discussion about US law. Your system is alien to my eyes ! I can only believe that, as a matter of sheer principle, that I can't (and don't want to) find anything at all wrong with how Tyr judges all this.

SURELY, it comes down to this: either decent principles are adopted and adhered to, with legal certainty following from that, with values perfectly preserved and loyally acted upon, by citizen and law-enforcer alike, or ..... what the hell's the point .. ???

[Kathianne]

That's more like it, Kath. Thank you for this.

I just looked up 'Marbury v Madison' on Wikipedia. I can only say I'm staggered at what I've learned.

As I just posted to Tyr, I was right about the great gaps in my knowledge & understanding of the American legal system. Hardly surprising, either ... your system has evolved a lot more differently to my own than I'd imagined.

Quoting from the Wikipedia entry:



To me, that's utterly staggering. I'm attuned to the British system, and under our system, all this would be an utter outrage. In our system, our judiciary doesn't have these powers, and nobody would ever dream of supplying them !

I see the cause of the difference, and it's reasonably obvious, when you really think about it. The UK has no equivalent of your Constitution, and since that's so, no basis exists in British law for judges - at WHATEVER level - to have any justification for taking on the powers described.

Here, it's very different. Absolutely no judge can actually tinker with laws !! Yes, they can be interpreted, with the interpretation having legal force, but only in such a way that remains true to the law being considered. Law is law, and it's passed into 'being' from Parliament. Parliament would be wasting its time if any judge could say to them, 'Thanks very much for your law ... now, we'll use it or change its application, just as WE see fit !'

I think I see why there's such a difference. Your SCOTUS uses the Constitution as the basis for what it does ... is that it ? It wields authority on the back of interpretations of the Constitution, and conflict arises between the Constitution and other tiers of laws .. have I got this right ?

We lack such a Constitution, so there's no reason for any scope of 'vetting' by anyone in our judiciary. Any interpretations of precedence - which are rare - must be founded on the law as it is, not the law as a judge might like to 'overrulingly' assert it SHOULD be !!

I think I'm going to bow out of further discussion about US law. Your system is alien to my eyes ! I can only believe that, as a matter of sheer principle, that I can't (and don't want to) find anything at all wrong with how Tyr judges all this.

SURELY, it comes down to this: either decent principles are adopted and adhered to, with legal certainty following from that, with values perfectly preserved and loyally acted upon, by citizen and law-enforcer alike, or ..... what the hell's the point .. ???


Yep, our framers decided that your unwritten constitution did not provide enough safeguards, thus the written version-which really was the drastic change.

It also is why that agreements with the majority or partial agreements/disagreements; total disagreement as for the minority, or substantial enough to vote against it; ALL become matters of records for possible future use. Thus a separate level of legal bar tests, to practice in SCOTUS. Preparing for a case means being able to not only cite the related cases, but also the footnotes and use of the same in other cases-state, federal.

It's why we have so many damn lawyers. LOL!

[Noir]

To me, that's utterly staggering. I'm attuned to the British system, and under our system, all this would be an utter outrage. In our system, our judiciary doesn't have these powers, and nobody would ever dream of supplying them !

I see the cause of the difference, and it's reasonably obvious, when you really think about it. The UK has no equivalent of your Constitution, and since that's so, no basis exists in British law for judges - at WHATEVER level - to have any justification for taking on the powers described.

Here, it's very different. Absolutely no judge can actually tinker with laws !! Yes, they can be interpreted, with the interpretation having legal force, but only in such a way that remains true to the law being considered. Law is law, and it's passed into 'being' from Parliament. Parliament would be wasting its time if any judge could say to them, 'Thanks very much for your law ... now, we'll use it or change its application, just as WE see it

You may want to read up on the powers of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, they do have parliamentary sovereignty, which allows them to overturn subordinate legislation - such as statutory instruments that overstep their scope set out by primary legislation. They can also challenge primary legislation (such as an act of Parliament) they the believe to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, while the executive could still press ahead, it would be a judicial review waiting to happen, and would not end well for the government.

It it is a shame that our judiciary is not as strong as the Americans, but they’re not as weak as your post implies.

[Drummond]

Yep, our framers decided that your unwritten constitution did not provide enough safeguards, thus the written version-which really was the drastic change.

It also is why that agreements with the majority or partial agreements/disagreements; total disagreement as for the minority, or substantial enough to vote against it; ALL become matters of records for possible future use. Thus a separate level of legal bar tests, to practice in SCOTUS. Preparing for a case means being able to not only cite the related cases, but also the footnotes and use of the same in other cases-state, federal.

It's why we have so many damn lawyers. LOL!

The thing is, though, that STTAB made a case for the 'infallibility' of SCOTUS ... that what they say, goes. If SCOTUS truly was 'infallible', you can see how such a system has fully working checks and balances in place. They'd interlock well.

Ah, but then, what about Tyr's post ? He's listed five examples of SCOTUS being wrong. So, what about that ?

[Kathianne]

The thing is, though, that STTAB made a case for the 'infallibility' of SCOTUS ... that what they say, goes. If SCOTUS truly was 'infallible', you can see how such a system has fully working checks and balances in place. They'd interlock well.

Ah, but then, what about Tyr's post ? He's listed five examples of SCOTUS being wrong. So, what about that ?

I've never thought of SCOTUS as infallible, lol! Too many wrong decisions, BUT they are the law of the land until they aren't.

Look at the amendment for prohibition. Finally passed after near a century of demand in 1919. Overturned thirteen years later in 1933. It was one of 27 ever passed, but the only one repealed. Our system is very complicated in a deliberative manner. Same with SCOTUS.

Even when repealed, it still remained part of the constitution. There are only 27 to this day. Literally hundreds are proposed with each legislative session. It's complex.

I missed where Stabb said 'infallible,' where was that? It is the final arbiter, though it can and has reversed itself as Jim and Tyr demonstrated.

[Drummond]

You may want to read up on the powers of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, they do have parliamentary sovereignty, which allows them to overturn subordinate legislation - such as statutory instruments that overstep their scope set out by primary legislation. They can also challenge primary legislation (such as an act of Parliament) they the believe to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, while the executive could still press ahead, it would be a judicial review waiting to happen, and would not end well for the government.

It it is a shame that our judiciary is not as strong as the Americans, but they’re not as weak as your post implies.

Indeed ? OK, then, Noir ... check this out. I'm posting a link from Parliament's own website ... so I think they know what they're talking about !!

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/


Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

People often refer to the UK having an 'unwritten constitution' but that's not strictly true. It may not exist in a single text, like in the USA or Germany, but large parts of it are written down, much of it in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law.

Therefore, the UK constitution is often described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified'. (Uncodified means that the UK does not have a single, written constitution.)

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:



The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Human Rights Act 1998.
The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.


These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

You mention the European Convention of Human Rights ... interference from Europe in our affairs. Yes. Point taken. I'd forgotten about that. Although ... doesn't the Human Rights Act mentioned mean that Parliament itself decided to legislate for that single exception ?

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/human-rights-act

There's also this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/profiles-supreme-court-judges-will-decide-whether-parliament/

... a list of judges, Supreme Court judges, who would decide whether Parliament should vote on Brexit !!!

I don't need to comment. It speaks for itself.

[Kathianne]

Indeed ? OK, then, Noir ... check this out. I'm posting a link from Parliament's own website ... so I think they know what they're talking about !!

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/



You mention the European Court of Human Rights ... interference from Europe in our affairs. Yes. Point taken. I'd forgotten about that.

There's also this:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/profiles-supreme-court-judges-will-decide-whether-parliament/

... a list of judges, Supreme Court judges, who would decide whether Parliament should vote on Brexit !!!

I don't need to comment. It speaks for itself.

Actually SCOTUS doesn't get involved in legislation until it becomes law. Even then, it takes a court case, that has worked it's way up to SCOTUS and has been granted cert or be one in which the court has original jurisdiction-as prescribed by the Constitution. It certainly doesn't get involved in treaties, again the Constitution gives that power to the President, with advice and consent of the Senate. Look at Wilson and League of Nations/Treaty of Versailles. No SCOTUS.

[jimnyc]

Drummond, kind sir, consider the complexity of the American judicial system. A lot more goes into it than a judge writing law from the bench. Much more so are the endless judges who interpret are endless laws differently than one another. It's not as easy to just say 'follow the law!'. Our laws change and additional laws on the books quite often.

We have our constitution of course, where it all begins IMO. We have our Supreme Court. The court will change but not often as they are lifetime appointments. 9 judges in total. ALL nominated by the current presiding president of the USA when one leaves/dies. Kinda the luck of the draw there.

Of course in our government we have our department of justice. We also have congress much involved of course. Then we have federal judges across the board and out our butts, tons of them. We have federal laws and state laws of course. And each place will then get federal appeals courts and judges.

Then we go to the states. And each state will have superior court judges all the way down to municipal court judges. I mean and endless amount of judges across our states to address what comes across our judicial system, from criminal cases to endless civil cases. Each needing different judges.

And consider a country of 350+ million people and so so many crimes committed daily and on the hour actually.

So you have the laws made and set. The SC will either uphold or shoot down should someone challenge it to that level. But even then, judges will look at laws and interpret them differently. And absolutely they are often interpreted wrongly on a political ideology level. And it's often those very cases that will be overturned. Some will fight things in a local court, then they can appeal, then they can go to a higher court, and if they got the time and $$, perhaps even a challenge all the way to our SC level. But of course they don't even hear all cases. Quite often they will send cases right back down to lower courts.

I'm confused non-stop and of course I'm no lawyer. Then you have lawyers, and even they are by a billion different specialties, and are limited to what they know/handle.

Want to read about some crappy decisions over the years, lookup 9th circuit court of appeals, who I think is the worst court in the land. But I would imagine most liberals would say it's the best. But their overturn rate leads me to believe they suck.

[Kathianne]

Drummond, kind sir, consider the complexity of the American judicial system. A lot more goes into it than a judge writing law from the bench. Much more so are the endless judges who interpret are endless laws differently than one another. It's not as easy to just say 'follow the law!'. Our laws change and additional laws on the books quite often.

We have our constitution of course, where it all begins IMO. We have our Supreme Court. The court will change but not often as they are lifetime appointments. 9 judges in total. ALL nominated by the current presiding president of the USA when one leaves/dies. Kinda the luck of the draw there.

Of course in our government we have our department of justice. We also have congress much involved of course. Then we have federal judges across the board and out our butts, tons of them. We have federal laws and state laws of course. And each place will then get federal appeals courts and judges.

Then we go to the states. And each state will have superior court judges all the way down to municipal court judges. I mean and endless amount of judges across our states to address what comes across our judicial system, from criminal cases to endless civil cases. Each needing different judges.

And consider a country of 350+ million people and so so many crimes committed daily and on the hour actually.

So you have the laws made and set. The SC will either uphold or shoot down should someone challenge it to that level. But even then, judges will look at laws and interpret them differently. And absolutely they are often interpreted wrongly on a political ideology level. And it's often those very cases that will be overturned. Some will fight things in a local court, then they can appeal, then they can go to a higher court, and if they got the time and $$, perhaps even a challenge all the way to our SC level. But of course they don't even hear all cases. Quite often they will send cases right back down to lower courts.

I'm confused non-stop and of course I'm no lawyer. Then you have lawyers, and even they are by a billion different specialties, and are limited to what they know/handle.

Want to read about some crappy decisions over the years, lookup 9th circuit court of appeals, who I think is the worst court in the land. But I would imagine most liberals would say it's the best. But their overturn rate leads me to believe they suck.

Without picking on any one court, some federal courts tend to lean one way, others another. Then again, there are often unexpected rulings from Federal, state supreme, and yes, even SCOTUS. Someone always feels wronged, it's the nature of court cases and why most can be appealed-though NOT SCOTUS rulings. They can only be reversed by the court in another case related to the matter-where is where cert comes in.

You are right about 'it's not easy' to say, 'just follow the law,' as the laws at one level often conflict with another-which is why in a federated republic we have SCOTUS at the top; then federal courts; the state supreme; then district and on down to justices of the peace. ;)

[Drummond]

Actually SCOTUS doesn't get involved in legislation until it becomes law. Even then, it takes a court case, that has worked it's way up to SCOTUS and has been granted cert or be one in which the court has original jurisdiction-as prescribed by the Constitution. It certainly doesn't get involved in treaties, again the Constitution gives that power to the President, with advice and consent of Congress. Look at Wilson and League of Nations/Treaty of Versailles. No SCOTUS.

I think that all you're really describing is the mechanism by which SCOTUS begins its interference. It makes sense to suppose that you can't tinker with a law, until that law is laid down AS a law.

A fully committed Leftie subverter sits on a case, and uses it as a means to an end. At least ... that's how I read it ... for what my thoughts are worth in all this.

Something else that's forbidden in the British system, but apparently 'OK' in yours, is the freedom your judges have to exercise direct efforts of persuasion ... as your maverick Left-leaning judge did, to contrive the majority vote.

I regard this - forgive my 'arrogance' - as a weakness in the American system. It further facilitates the potential for subversion by someone loyal to an agenda.

[Drummond]

Without picking on any one court, some federal courts tend to lean one way, others another. Then again, there are often unexpected rulings from Federal, state supreme, and yes, even SCOTUS. Someone always feels wronged, it's the nature of court cases and why most can be appealed-though NOT SCOTUS rulings. They can only be reversed by the court in another case related to the matter-where is where cert comes in.

You are right about 'it's not easy' to say, 'just follow the law,' as the laws at one level often conflict with another-which is why in a federated republic we have SCOTUS at the top; then federal courts; the state supreme; then district and on down to justices of the peace. ;)

That's the thing. From my perspective, I'd question the legitimacy of 'leanings' ever being present in the first place. At the core of the nature of our judiciary versus yours, is the political neutrality ours exercises. It's an expected standard, and for my money, it keeps the purpose and intended effect of a law passed in Parliament, unsullied by further opportunistic interference.

Core values are maintained.

[Kathianne]

I think that all you're really describing is the mechanism by which SCOTUS begins its interference. It makes sense to suppose that you can't tinker with a law, until that law is laid down AS a law.

A fully committed Leftie subverter sits on a case, and uses it as a means to an end. At least ... that's how I read it ... for what my thoughts are worth in all this.

Something else that's forbidden in the British system, but apparently 'OK' in yours, is the freedom your judges have to exercise direct efforts of persuasion ... as your maverick Left-leaning judge did, to contrive the majority vote.

I regard this - forgive my 'arrogance' - as a weakness in the American system. It further facilitates the potential for subversion by someone loyal to an agenda.

What you see as 'weaknesses' I see as strengths. Few cases make it to SCOTUS, in one year at least 6k federal laws are written! Then there are many, many more that make their way through district, then State Supreme, then can appeal to SCOTUS!

SCOTUS?


https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspxThe Justices’ Caseload



Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court. This is a substantially larger volume of cases than was presented to the Court in the last century. In the 1950 Term, for example, the Court received only 1,195 new cases, and even as recently as the 1975 Term it received only 3,940. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review. The publication of each Term’s written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, can take up thousands of pages. During the drafting process, some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.

[Drummond]

Drummond, kind sir, consider the complexity of the American judicial system. A lot more goes into it than a judge writing law from the bench. Much more so are the endless judges who interpret are endless laws differently than one another. It's not as easy to just say 'follow the law!'. Our laws change and additional laws on the books quite often.

We have our constitution of course, where it all begins IMO. We have our Supreme Court. The court will change but not often as they are lifetime appointments. 9 judges in total. ALL nominated by the current presiding president of the USA when one leaves/dies. Kinda the luck of the draw there.

Of course in our government we have our department of justice. We also have congress much involved of course. Then we have federal judges across the board and out our butts, tons of them. We have federal laws and state laws of course. And each place will then get federal appeals courts and judges.

Then we go to the states. And each state will have superior court judges all the way down to municipal court judges. I mean and endless amount of judges across our states to address what comes across our judicial system, from criminal cases to endless civil cases. Each needing different judges.

And consider a country of 350+ million people and so so many crimes committed daily and on the hour actually.

So you have the laws made and set. The SC will either uphold or shoot down should someone challenge it to that level. But even then, judges will look at laws and interpret them differently. And absolutely they are often interpreted wrongly on a political ideology level. And it's often those very cases that will be overturned. Some will fight things in a local court, then they can appeal, then they can go to a higher court, and if they got the time and $$, perhaps even a challenge all the way to our SC level. But of course they don't even hear all cases. Quite often they will send cases right back down to lower courts.

I'm confused non-stop and of course I'm no lawyer. Then you have lawyers, and even they are by a billion different specialties, and are limited to what they know/handle.

Want to read about some crappy decisions over the years, lookup 9th circuit court of appeals, who I think is the worst court in the land. But I would imagine most liberals would say it's the best. But their overturn rate leads me to believe they suck.

Thanks for this insight !

I don't think I need to comment. Just that your system is fundamentally more different from mine than I'd imagined ... with political biases working away in yours, to an extent just not possible in mine.

[Drummond]

What you see as 'weaknesses' I see as strengths. Few cases make it to SCOTUS, in one year at least 6k federal laws are written! Then there are many, many more that make their way through district, then State Supreme, then can appeal to SCOTUS!

SCOTUS?

This is all very well. But even one 'bad' case is one too many. My thinking - and yes, I'm being judgmental about a system NOT my own, so take this for what it's worth - is that insisted-upon political neutrality practiced among the members of your judiciary in court cases, would be an excellent modification of it.

The British model has that.

[Kathianne]

This is all very well. But even one 'bad' case is one too many. My thinking - and yes, I'm being judgmental about a system NOT my own, so take this for what it's worth - is that insisted-upon political neutrality practiced among the members of your judiciary in court cases, would be an excellent modification of it.

The British model has that.

No thanks. Too many flaws within your whole system-we decided that many years ago.

Not sure our system will last much longer, too many are arguing that laws no longer need to be followed, no patience with the process. No longer believe in the process. As long as they can 'win' some would even choose violence. So, not sure where it will all go.

[jimnyc]

Our SC doesn't 'interfere' as much as one would think. Considering the thousands and thousands of cases they have heard, only a handful have ever been overturned. And most of their decisions, IMO, are made so to fall into line with our constitution, as it should be. But it's also quite often a 5-4 close vote. (a little breathing room now for the right).

Look at our 2nd amendment, then the endless cases that have been heard locally to the SC - and you'll see opinions in so many of those cases, and quite often opinions from the majority decision side and the minority side. Amazing how different the interpretations can be of the law or constitution.

[Drummond]

Just in passing (it's after 1am here, and I'm feeling weary, not to mention frazzled !) ...


I missed where Stabb said 'infallible,' where was that? It is the final arbiter, though it can and has reversed itself as Jim and Tyr demonstrated.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?66714-The-TREASONOUS-Behavior-by-DEMOCRATS-In-The-Nation-Is-Getting-WAY-OUT-OF-HAND&p=934482#post934482

This is STTAB's posting ... saying ...


By definition SCOTUS can NOT be wrong on matters of what is and what is unconstitutional. They are the final word ..

If they cannot be wrong, then, 'on matters of what is and what is [not] unconstitutional', where's the fallibility ? The word 'infallible' wasn't included, just the argument that claimed it. Though, as they have indeed reversed themselves ... they 'weren't wrong', until such time as they, er'm, ... 'weren't wrong' a second time :rolleyes::rolleyes: ...

[Kathianne]

Just in passing (it's after 1am here, and I'm feeling weary, not to mention frazzled !) ...



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?66714-The-TREASONOUS-Behavior-by-DEMOCRATS-In-The-Nation-Is-Getting-WAY-OUT-OF-HAND&p=934482#post934482

This is STTAB's posting ... saying ...



If they cannot be wrong, then, 'on matters of what is and what is [not] unconstitutional', where's the fallibility ? The word 'infallible' wasn't included, just the argument that claimed it. Though, as they have indeed reversed themselves ... they 'weren't wrong', until such time as they, er'm, ... 'weren't wrong' a second time :rolleyes::rolleyes: ...

I think he just miswrote. As I said, they are the final verdict, until they change that verdict. As Jim said, doesn't happen often. For the most part, people accept the ruling. When too many don't, such as Roe v Wade, they keep trying to get another case where there may be a different decision. So far the court hasn't granted cert to one of the challenges.

[Drummond]

Our SC doesn't 'interfere' as much as one would think. Considering the thousands and thousands of cases they have heard, only a handful have ever been overturned. And most of their decisions, IMO, are made so to fall into line with our constitution, as it should be. But it's also quite often a 5-4 close vote. (a little breathing room now for the right).

Look at our 2nd amendment, then the endless cases that have been heard locally to the SC - and you'll see opinions in so many of those cases, and quite often opinions from the majority decision side and the minority side. Amazing how different the interpretations can be of the law or constitution.

That could just mean that political interference is kept below others' radar ... since to perpetually interfere, and to be seen to be, might set off alarm bells ?

Judging by what I think your judiciary gets up to, the number of different interpretations surfacing of the law or constitution can't be much of a surprise ? Is everybody jockeying for political dominance from one side or another, every chance they get ?

If 'yes' ... well, I don't want to be accused of smugness. But, thank God for the different system we have over here !

[Drummond]

No thanks. Too many flaws within your whole system-we decided that many years ago.

Not sure our system will last much longer, too many are arguing that laws no longer need to be followed, no patience with the process. No longer believe in the process. As long as they can 'win' some would even choose violence. So, not sure where it will all go.

Well ... ahem ... you could choose ours ! Just saying that you decided against ours, long ago, doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your minds. :cool:

Unlike your own doubts as to how much longer your system will last, I've no reason to think that the demise of ours is at all likely. Ours has endured the test of time .. tried 'n' tested, over a very long time ! Yes, occasional and VERY rare tinkerings occur, these decided upon by our Parliament, though always with the caveat inbuilt allowing for the authority to reverse them if so desired.

[Kathianne]

Well ... ahem ... you could choose ours ! Just saying that you decided against ours, long ago, doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your minds. :cool:

Unlike your own doubts as to how much longer your system will last, I've no reason to think that the demise of ours is at all likely. Ours has endured the test of time .. tried 'n' tested, over a very long time ! Yes, occasional and VERY rare tinkerings occur, these decided upon by our Parliament, though always with the caveat inbuilt allowing for the authority to reverse them if so desired.

As you've repeatedly argued, no reason for your system to break down, the liberals and foreigners have already taken control.

[Noir]

Indeed ? OK, then, Noir ... check this out. I'm posting a link from Parliament's own website ... so I think they know what they're talking about !!

“Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation”

This was exactly what I said in my post? The UKSC has the parliamentary sovereignty to challenge some legislation, and I gave examples of how they influence primary legislation and even strike down subordinate legislation.


You mention the European Convention of Human Rights ... interference from Europe in our affairs.

This is nothing to do with European interference, this is British judges using their sovereign powers to advise that they believe it is foreseeable that they would rule against the government in a judicial review of legislation based on their interpretation and implementation of the ECHR.

[Kathianne]

Well ... ahem ... you could choose ours ! Just saying that you decided against ours, long ago, doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your minds. :cool:

Unlike your own doubts as to how much longer your system will last, I've no reason to think that the demise of ours is at all likely. Ours has endured the test of time .. tried 'n' tested, over a very long time ! Yes, occasional and VERY rare tinkerings occur, these decided upon by our Parliament, though always with the caveat inbuilt allowing for the authority to reverse them if so desired.


Again, complicated. Three co-branches. Checks and balances. Framers feared strong executive. Concerned about Judicial Review. Not crazy about the Senate, nor the influence of the mob on the House. Basically trusted none, but feared the alternatives. Made it purposefully complicated.

[jimnyc]

That could just mean that political interference is kept below others' radar ... since to perpetually interfere, and to be seen to be, might set off alarm bells ?

Judging by what I think your judiciary gets up to, the number of different interpretations surfacing of the law or constitution can't be much of a surprise ? Is everybody jockeying for political dominance from one side or another, every chance they get ?

If 'yes' ... well, I don't want to be accused of smugness. But, thank God for the different system we have over here !

Even with a judge here or there interpreting differently, we have the best justice system in the world, IMO. The appeal levels and the corrections make it so that, likely, in the end, the political bias will only be outed and corrected. As stated, and although extremely rare, even the SC can have a case overturned.

It's not as bad as you think. Most lawyers, judges & up know the law and the complexity of their own specialties. This isn't as much about biases which every person in the world has, but more about the checks in balances in place to ensure justice is met, innocent or guilty, right or wrong.

And I see the same here, glad I'm not over there. But the grass is always greener as they say.

Justice usually works the first time properly. And if not, the checks and balances are more than the world collectively probably.

[jimnyc]

Well ... ahem ... you could choose ours ! Just saying that you decided against ours, long ago, doesn't necessarily mean you can't change your minds. :cool:

Unlike your own doubts as to how much longer your system will last, I've no reason to think that the demise of ours is at all likely. Ours has endured the test of time .. tried 'n' tested, over a very long time ! Yes, occasional and VERY rare tinkerings occur, these decided upon by our Parliament, though always with the caveat inbuilt allowing for the authority to reverse them if so desired.

Not sure about others, but I think ours is as strong as ever and will last a long, long, long time. I see no reason whatsoever to think it won't last lifetimes. The very complexity, structure, size and locations more or less make it so that it cannot fail. It's been perfect from the outset, and NO ONE has a constitution as solid and as believed and followed as the USA has. Our justice system revolves and grows from it and the bill of rights. And then our system evolves into international law as well, while only holding force in America, or if civil we have international contracts and torts and everything imaginable.

[Kathianne]

Not sure about others, but I think ours is as strong as ever and will last a long, long, long time. I see no reason whatsoever to think it won't last lifetimes. The very complexity, structure, size and locations more or less make it so that it cannot fail. It's been perfect from the outset, and NO ONE has a constitution as solid and as believed and followed as the USA has. Our justice system revolves and grows from it and the bill of rights. And then our system evolves into international law as well, while only holding force in America, or if civil we have international contracts and torts and everything imaginable.

I agree with you about the system and design. Not so sure though it will hold, the problem is not the system but an informed and concerned citizenry.

As many here have stated, though imperfectly, for a generation or two at least, we are not educating the youth in their civic duty or how the system should work.

Last evening I spent most of my time on a highly regarded education site, arguing with some teachers on the appropriateness of hanging posters on 'LGBTQ Month.' Seems some believe that resources and time should be spent on that, I disagreed, though would support any struggling student and would try to get them help. Funny thing, I was slammed right and left, suddenly noticing I had like 180 likes-they just didn't say much on the topic, for fear of the response. We all know the responses didn't both me. LOL! There are far more who agreed with my positions than those 6 or 7 so vehemently opposed.

My point is along the lines of my conclusions of what is right or important isn't much different than most on the right. How I got there and how I choose to express those ideas is quite different than many who reach the same conclusions.

I don't think the left will ever convince me of their correct thinking by calling me names, belittling, or questioning my thinking. On the other hand, I'll nearly always respond and consider those who aren't condescending or self-righteous. Can any of us 'go there?' I certainly have more than once. Thing is though, no one listens when I do, I just piss others off.

Now back to the system, a very complex and well thought out, designed system. It cannot be understood without help, it's not what it seems. Drummond spent a lot of time yesterday, once he understood that he wasn't understanding all of it. Yet, he questioned the 'rightness' and still didn't understand the design. He was as caught up in what he saw as 'bias' of judges, something he, I believe, still sees as absent in the English judicial system. If I understand him correctly, somehow they have judges that have zero biases, something that is as rare as unicorns in an educated person.

Teaching the system is the first serious flaw. Then the fact that so many of our politicians have made it the norm to be 'above the law,' and in general reinforce the position that those with power truly don't give a fig about those they are supposed to labor for.

For the 'Common Good,' is now considered a joke and nothing but a joke. Common good means 'for all' and no one is for that. Each person for themselves and for their clan of like thinkers. Close only works in horseshoes.

For the system to work, there has to be compromise, something that is ridiculed by the vast majority today. We see that in discourse, family, marriages, and politics. Only fools compromise. It's all about winning. Kind of brings to mind, 'Win the battle and lose the war,' but I'm an idealist.

I'm not going to rant on, just kind of putting some of my thoughts out. I am pretty removed for today's politics, I have adopted a more observer role, with an occasional foray like the gay stuff with teachers. I think I just like to get contrary once in awhile. For the most part, staying out of the fray, a fray that beyond depresses me, I think has kept my blood pressure under 200.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Never imagined I'd spark off such a long discussion. But enjoyably, it's remained rather well behaved.

Yes our SCOTUS is "supposed to be" only one of a three "co equal" branches of government, but I think it's been given more power than it should have. I don't believe their decisions should be the end all, be all, unquestionably, when we all know that the judges that sit on SCOTUS are either conservative or liberal, and they will adjudicate based on their own personal political bias. At that point they're no longer simply interpreting law according to the constitution. They're legislating from the bench, and there's so many examples of it it's pathetic, like calling the obamacare penalty for not buying it a TAX. That was just bizarre, and a gross maligning of the constitution's Commerce Clause.

I think there should be an avenue for either the Executive or Legislative branch to quickly challenge a supreme court decision. The only problem is... to who?

[jimnyc]

I agree with you about the system and design. Not so sure though it will hold, the problem is not the system but an informed and concerned citizenry.

I guess my point there was that our justice system won't some day collapse and be over with. What we may see, is many changes/updates to the system should it ever be necessary, and of course constitutional and in the best interest of America.

I think the system is great, but the flexibility allows for corruption and/or biases. I think some areas need to be sewed up there as well, and ensured that such things are 'remedy available' (just made that up). That's kinda why folks can now appeal and appeal, to eliminate incorrect decisions, if they or their counsel believe so.

[jimnyc]

For the 'Common Good,' is now considered a joke and nothing but a joke. Common good means 'for all' and no one is for that. Each person for themselves and for their clan of like thinkers. Close only works in horseshoes.

Not to me! I still see it as necessary for our country to be fully healthy and fully functional and criminal free.

I've come to the conclusion - teachers aren't the police. I said that all along, and I know the SC decision is the law of the land. So difficult to fight that, but only can say one would like to see it changed perhaps.

But US citizens, as a citizen alone, outside the scope of employment, folks shouldn't be penalized for reporting any illegal behavior in our country. Then the problem comes - teachers would NOT be being punished via the law for reporting crime, but rather punished via the school system for doing so. And that happens already, in many areas of employment, where employees are also accountable for their actions on their free time. I sure as hell don't believe that reporting a crime is a bad action... but undoubtedly some would argue that it's then still a teacher doing the reporting. --- And then I guess I go full circle, they are not cops or investigators, but whether reporting here or there, a simple incident report of what someone knows should be allowed and not punishable. I'd love to see this change some day. But fully understand where we are right now.

[Kathianne]

I guess my point there was that our justice system won't some day collapse and be over with. What we may see, is many changes/updates to the system should it ever be necessary, and of course constitutional and in the best interest of America.

I think the system is great, but the flexibility allows for corruption and/or biases. I think some areas need to be sewed up there as well, and ensured that such things are 'remedy available' (just made that up). That's kinda why folks can now appeal and appeal, to eliminate incorrect decisions, if they or their counsel believe so.


I don't think it will be one branch that 'collapses.' The problems are systemic and will result in the 'system' being left, just not working as envisioned, but rather at the behest of whomever seizes the reins at the opportune moment in time. That side will celebrate, though I don't think it will come at once or even be noticed until it's too late. Indeed, we may be in the midst of the process already. 20/20 and all that.

[jimnyc]

I don't think it will be one branch that 'collapses.' The problems are systemic and will result in the 'system' being left, just not working as envisioned, but rather at the behest of whomever seizes the reins at the opportune moment in time. That side will celebrate, though I don't think it will come at once or even be noticed until it's too late. Indeed, we may be in the midst of the process already. 20/20 and all that.

That shouldn't be allowed to happen, not if attorneys know the law, and of course judges follow that law - and judges that don't, either ultimately get removed from the bench, or voted out. Not counting the SC of course. It would take the biases and an awfully shitload amount of them NOT being somehow recognized, overturned in appeal and bypassing all those checks and balances. I see exactly what you're saying and mean (probably not nearly as well), and I know that of course folks always want things in their favor. And of course what that can lead to. --- but we can't "widen home plate" and not have accountability over the justice system. So lawyers can be disbarred and sanctioned and/or held in contempt. Judges can be overturned on appeal and/or removed from the bench for egregious behavior. Up and up and up. It would take a catastrophic failure for all of it to collapse.

Now, if one side politically should nominate folks that are conservative, or liberal, then I can see the persuasion on the bench. And that's where of course judges 'interpret' the law differently than their counterparts. Then you have them appealed. UNLESS, of course you are in the SC and arguing a very conservative case, you may have a better chance now, as IMO the conservative judges tend to base things off the constitution more. And sometimes in the past it was more liberal for folks out there. But even when things were "leaning" one way or another, the overwhelming majority of cases are still judged properly. Only a handful always get looked at - by us citizens in a political manner as well, and we see/think they are judging based on biases, depending on who is in there at the time. Ok, I know I'm rambling as I lost train of thought a few times! LOL Time for a coffee.

[Kathianne]

That shouldn't be allowed to happen, not if attorneys know the law, and of course judges follow that law - and judges that don't, either ultimately get removed from the bench, or voted out. Not counting the SC of course. It would take the biases and an awfully shitload amount of them NOT being somehow recognized, overturned in appeal and bypassing all those checks and balances. I see exactly what you're saying and mean (probably not nearly as well), and I know that of course folks always want things in their favor. And of course what that can lead to. --- but we can't "widen home plate" and not have accountability over the justice system. So lawyers can be disbarred and sanctioned and/or held in contempt. Judges can be overturned on appeal and/or removed from the bench for egregious behavior. Up and up and up. It would take a catastrophic failure for all of it to collapse.

Now, if one side politically should nominate folks that are conservative, or liberal, then I can see the persuasion on the bench. And that's where of course judges 'interpret' the law differently than their counterparts. Then you have them appealed. UNLESS, of course you are in the SC and arguing a very conservative case, you may have a better chance now, as IMO the conservative judges tend to base things off the constitution more. And sometimes in the past it was more liberal for folks out there. But even when things were "leaning" one way or another, the overwhelming majority of cases are still judged properly. Only a handful always get looked at - by us citizens in a political manner as well, and we see/think they are judging based on biases, depending on who is in there at the time. Ok, I know I'm rambling as I lost train of thought a few times! LOL Time for a coffee.

I'm not looking at just the judiciary, that would be a logical problem. It's all 3 branches: that partisanship, corruption, lack of responsibility in the legislature. It's the partisanship and focusing on the partisan electorate in the executive. (See DOJ, FBI, NSA, etc., don't think it's only the democrats either, it never is just one.) Personally I think the judiciary is the most close to following the rules-for the simple reason that the Constitution IS written and the far off rulings are examined in a public forum. There aren't all the committees of the legislature, nor secrets of the executive that make it so difficult for the average person to follow or be persuaded. When the court legislates it is covered and those that agree cheer and the opposition can clearly react-enough so that our 'representatives' often have to make corrections, however temporary they envision.

[jimnyc]

When the court legislates it is covered and those that agree cheer and the opposition can clearly react-enough so that our 'representatives' often have to make corrections, however temporary they envision.

All you say is true and I agree. But I think the above is what I mean - it would likely be temporary - whether that be victories in congress quite often, and what I was referring to about courts. How many times have we seen folks on either side, get elated over a court decision - because they agree with it - only to see it later reversed or overturned. And 99/100 times it's due to the constitution or laws or incorrect rulings and such. With the abundance of checks and balances we have, I'd like to think that most things that may be wrong can eventually be righted. Sometimes it takes a long long time though, and without an injunction, that could be problematic at times. Started, stopped, started, stopped./

[Kathianne]

All you say is true and I agree. But I think the above is what I mean - it would likely be temporary - whether that be victories in congress quite often, and what I was referring to about courts. How many times have we seen folks on either side, get elated over a court decision - because they agree with it - only to see it later reversed or overturned. And 99/100 times it's due to the constitution or laws or incorrect rulings and such. With the abundance of checks and balances we have, I'd like to think that most things that may be wrong can eventually be righted. Sometimes it takes a long long time though, and without an injunction, that could be problematic at times. Started, stopped, started, stopped./

Here's where we seem to disagree, I see it happening in a planned way. Most are celebrating their 'victories' while ignoring that those involved are taking turns. It would not be possible with 'high character' in the citizenry or in office holders. It wouldn't happen if people understood which branch is responsible for which actions, and even those that 'do know' don't seem to care-when it's their side usurping or giving away responsibilities of another branch. They scream like little girls when it's the hated enemy. While it's the office holders that benefit; it's the citizens sports-like mentality or apathy that is allowing it all to happen.

[Abbey Marie]

@Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8)

I was wondering how you feel about teachers reporting suspected child abuse, given that both that and being in the country illegally, are crimes. And if teachers are required by law to report abuse (I don’t know the law on that), wouldn’t that make teachers “cops” also?

I agree with you that our teachers already do much more than teach, and it’s taking away from teaching.

[Kathianne]

@Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8)

I was wondering how you feel about teachers reporting suspected child abuse, given that both that and being in the country illegally, are crimes. And if teachers are required by law to report abuse (I don’t know the law on that), wouldn’t that make teachers “cops” also?

I agree with you that our teachers already do much more than teach, and it’s taking away from teaching.

Teacher are mandated reporters of any 'suspected' child abuse. I have no problem with that. FYI, social workers are subject to the same restraints as teachers regarding children and ICE.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Teacher are mandated reporters of any 'suspected' child abuse. I have no problem with that. FYI, social workers are subject to the same restraints as teachers regarding children and ICE.
I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister, many of my friends here in town had her as their teacher), and both her kids are college professors, one at SWTC in Fennimore where I got my degree in Electrical Engineering, and one at UW Platteville... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.

[Kathianne]

I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister), and both her kids are college professors... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.
It seems we are destined to disagree on this topic. I’ve posted plenty and am not going to repeat. If there’s something new, have at it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It seems we are destined to disagree on this topic. I’ve posted plenty and am not going to repeat. If there’s something new, have at it.
I hear ya... no need to repeat yourself. We've all hashed this over pretty good.

[Drummond]

I think that's a clear case of cherry picking, and correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the influence of the powerful teacher's union on the courts.(?) I think it's pretty evident what side of illegal immigration the leftist teacher's union comes down on.

My mom was a teacher, not for that many years, and then substituted some, my aunt was a teacher, (Mom's sister, many of my friends here in town had her as their teacher), and both her kids are college professors, one at SWTC in Fennimore where I got my degree in Electrical Engineering, and one at UW Platteville... so I really don't want to bad mouth teachers.

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.

[jimnyc]

I hear ya... no need to repeat yourself. We've all hashed this over pretty good.

Hey, 9 pages, stayed on topic, no fighting only a little sarcasm here and there.... oddly good thread!

[jimnyc]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.

I think the why is the same as why it's consistent as well - Educate children & safeguard them, and take the side of caution, is what they did. In many eyes, simple protection of the children in front of them takes precedent and all that matters. So of course they protect against suspected child abuse & don't engage as to country status but rather teach the children in front of you, and safeguard. So I see the why's and all of that, and it almost makes sense in theory.... but personally I disagree with any citizen being somehow harmed for reporting a known crime. I personally would love to see a better balance between doing the best by the children and upholding legal standards within our communities. I see WHY teachers shouldn't be burdened with police type of monitoring and investigating, but I was speaking more of simply coming across the info somehow, not that a teacher be expected to investigate anything.

I also hope that such a standard for the education system never carries over to other places and types of employment, or worse, simply punish a regular citizen, non teacher, of reporting a crime. I highly highly doubt that though, as normally, citizens are encouraged to report things.

[Kathianne]

I answered Abbey as succinctly as I was able. The best answer I can give, not that it matters, is that Plyler is about kids, regardless of how they got here and what their parents are guilty of. You don't have to agree, as I said from the onset of the thread, get with like minded folks and try to get a case to SCOTUS.

Mandated reporting on suspected child abuse is also in the best interest of the child, regardless of the child's origins. Again, since children are involved, social workers, like teachers, would be covered by Plyler. How likely that the parents in such circumstances would not be brought to the attention of law enforcement? Pretty unlikely, they probably would. But it would be within the protocols of Plyler, i.e., known as following the law. Police would be brought in if the initial report led to an investigation beyond the scope of child protection agency. I.e., the police would be brought in. That is the EXECUTIVE branch of local government-enforcing the laws. There is a system, as I said, seems most have lost faith in it. Certainly evident in this thread.

[jimnyc]

There is a system, as I said, seems most have lost faith in it. Certainly evident in this thread.

As for myself, I think the only faith lost in the system is 100% pertaining to illegals, which I also understand the connected law. It's nothing of lost faith to me but rather a simple disagreeing with a high court decision. Certainly isn't the first one! Lots of them I disagree with! :)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable argument to me.

Because of where I come from, it obviously follows that I'm not qualified to be overly-judgmental in a purely 'domestic' matter such as this. I've no idea, for example, what influence the teachers' union would wield, IF they do, & to what extent.

But this much makes sense: illegal immigration is illegal, by sheer definition. Surely child abuse is also illegal ? So, how can it be that teachers could be in a position to be 'fine' about being proactive on one issue, and not at all on the other ?

Some measure of bias -- whatever its form, or wherever it comes from -- MUST be involved. Something needs to explain that lack of consistency.

So, who can help me understand why it exists ? Who decided what illegal situation mandates action, where one does, and the other doesn't ? Political focus ? Political suppression ? Serving what agenda ?

There have to be answers to this.
Oh believe me, the teacher's union is as powerful influencing the democrats in congress as the NRA is influencing the republicans, very powerful.

No doubt the NRA's influence is why we still have our 2nd Amendment, because the democrats would take out guns away in a heart beat if they could, and no doubt the teacher's union has influenced the decision to allow teachers to look the other way when there's illegal alien children in school. It is my opinion, and I know there's disagreement here, so, "IMO," illegal alien children shouldn't even BE in our schools. To me, they're as guilty of breaking our laws as their parents, or whoever "rented" them to illegally enter this nation. They ALL are guilty in my opinion and they should ALL be DEPORTED. That is MY OPINION. It is not the law, CURRENTLY, and I disagree vehemently with the law. What REALLY irks me is, we TAXPAYERS PAY to teach these illegals, and I don't think that's right.

And then there's the BIG reason WHY the democrats WANT those illegals here, and getting their INDOCTRINATION in SCHOOL... because they see them ALL as NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS, and that is the 900 LB GORILLA IN THE ROOM.


And I guess that's all I have to say about the matter.

[Drummond]

[COLOR=#454545][FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]This was exactly what I said in my post? The UKSC has the parliamentary sovereignty to challenge some legislation, and I gave examples of how they influence primary legislation and even strike down subordinate legislation.

Apparently, I need to re-post my link, with the section of pertinent text ?

OK, then. Here it is ...

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/


Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.

They include:



The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Human Rights Act 1998.
The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.


These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

Summarising what should be obvious, Noir ... Parliament chose to devolve sovereign powers. It did so in a controlled and selective way, in order to achieve a planned-for effect. You can see from the list just what was aimed for, and achieved.

The UK Supreme Court may be capable - in specific instances - of mounting legal challenges. BUT, the big difference here is that Parliament ultimately remains sovereign. What is done, can also be undone. The Supreme Court only has powers for as long as Parliament continues to confer them. Should a Supreme Court decision somehow result in a change of a law's application, then Parliament can act to change the law so that it operates as intended. Consequently, the balance of power always ultimately remains on the side of Parliament ... the Supreme Court can't take for itself a measure of absolute power immune from challenge.

Guaranteed legal permanence comes from Parliament (to the extent it chooses to apply it).


This is nothing to do with European interference, this is British judges using their sovereign powers to advise that they believe it is foreseeable that they would rule against the government in a judicial review of legislation based on their interpretation and implementation of the ECHR.

How come the ECHR even exercises ANY powers AT ALL in any UK-related issues ? The very fact that it can, or does, constitutes European interference !!

What you're describing, if I read your post correctly, is a process whereby the ECHR has a means of interfering, one where they, and our own courts, act synergistically to subvert our Government's legislation !! How on earth is this not interference ??

[Kathianne]

As for myself, I think the only faith lost in the system is 100% pertaining to illegals, which I also understand the connected law. It's nothing of lost faith to me but rather a simple disagreeing with a high court decision. Certainly isn't the first one! Lots of them I disagree with! :)


You've been circumspect in name calling and insinuations. Not so of others, but that again is their rights. They want what they want, any way they can get it. No care of broken laws-they disagree of anything they don't agree with. LOL! Fine to ignore. In fact, if one doesn't ignore, they are freakin' unAmerican, by definition, 'liberal' or 'far-right' depending on the ox.

[Kathianne]

Guys, the reasoning going on here is interesting. From judicial, to Parliament, to teachers' unions, to gorillas. How much influence does the teachers' unions have on the SCOTUS? I understand about legislature, but c'mon, in this case it was the court, in freakin' 1982.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Guys, the reasoning going on here is interesting. From judicial, to Parliament, to teachers' unions, to gorillas. How much influence does the teachers' unions have on the SCOTUS? I understand about legislature, but c'mon, in this case it was the court, in freakin' 1982.
Well, I've remained "circumspect" as well, and the gorilla reference is an old adage, as I'm sure you already know.

I don't think there's any denying what I said. Unions are powerful and wield considerable influence, and democrats are pro illegal alien. I can't see how anyone can argue that isn't true.

[Kathianne]

Well, I've remained "circumspect" as well, and the gorilla reference is an old adage, as I'm sure you already know.

I don't think there's any denying what I said. Unions are powerful, and democrats are pro illegal alien. I can't see how anyone can argue that isn't true.

OK, let's give you that as a 'fact.' What does it have to do with teachers, illegals, child abuse? Legislation I can see. SCOTUS case? not so much.

[Kathianne]

And I say TREASONOUS, but if this ISN'T treasonous, then PLEASE, TELL ME WHAT IS... and what in the HELL is going on in TEXAS? I thought Texas was CONSERVATIVE! But the anti American CRAP just keeps coming from TEXAS...

===========

UNREAL: Texas School Board Votes To FIRE Teacher For Reporting ILLEGAL ALIEN Students


The war on illegal immigration heated up today after a controversial decision by the Fort Worth Independent School Board, who unanimously decided to fire a teacher for attempting to report students that were not in the country legally.

One could see how the teacher, Georgia Clark, could have thought she was well within her rights after comments by U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Clark stating that schools can make the decision to report, or not report students and their families.

Breibart reported on the story:

At a hearing of the House Education and the Workforce committee, former illegal immigrant Rep. Adriano Espaillat pressed DeVos to explain her views on immigration enforcement.

“Inside the school,” the New York Democrat asked, “if a principal or a teacher finds out that a certain child is undocumented, or his or her family members are undocumented, do you feel that the principal or teacher is responsible to call [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and to have that family reported?”

“Sir, I think that’s a school decision,” DeVos responded. “That’s a local community decision. And again, I refer to the fact that we have laws and we also are compassionate, and I urge this body to do its job and address or clarify where there is confusion around this.”

Still, the Fort Worth teacher was not given any mercy.

As reported by NBC:

A Texas school board unanimously voted to fire a teacher who tried to report undocumented students in her school district to President Donald Trump through a series of public tweets — that she thought were private messages to the president.

The Fort Worth Independent School District voted 8-0 to terminate the employment of Georgia Clark at a special meeting Tuesday.

The unanimous vote of 8-0 is not surprising when you consider that the majority of the school’s population is made up by the Hispanic community.

When “nearly 90 per cent of the students are Hispanic” at your school, that means that there is probably a similar racial makeup of the parent/teacher community that would be voting against you.

Also, NBC Dallas Fort-Worth reported that this isn’t the first time that Clark had been investigated for racially-motivated comments, such as asking a student to prove that they were legal before they could use the restroom.

If that weren’t enough, Clark accidentally made her comments publicly on Twitter in an attempt to communicate directly with President Trump, according to NBC:

Clark, an English teacher at Amon Carter-Riverside High School, tweeted that the school she worked at had been “taken over” by “illegal students from Mexico” and that Trump was elected “on the promise that a wall would be built to protect our borders.” She also referred to “illegals” in her tweets.

The tweets started gaining attention on social media last week, and Clark’s account was deleted May 29. She was placed on administrative leave after the school district became aware of them.

According to district documents, Clark told an investigator she thought the tweets were direct messages to Trump and didn’t know they were public.

Although things look pretty dire for the newly fired teacher, isn’t there a light at the end of the tunnel? I mean, she works for the teacher’s union, for crying out loud!

As reported by Time:

Clark has 15 days to choose to seek an appeal with the state, according to the outlet.

Clark’s attorney, Brandon Y. Brim, told TIME in an email that she “intends to request a hearing for the purpose of contesting the proposed action against her contract.”

https://ilovemyfreedom.org/unreal-texas-school-board-votes-to-fire-teacher-for-reporting-undocumented-students/?utm_source=realjack&utm_medium=twitter

Let's think of what a teacher should do and be, just for a moment. Did this teacher?

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62186988_466509240582314_481521561082265600_n.jpg? _nc_cat=111&_nc_eui2=AeHf-jJWwSaBxO4gbzmUvDhVS0qr3SNlTCIiPVo2nTfsNL_QdjAfWcZ edhmYta3v-FsVixwCh_IkKC-ysIF3n7qeAKAqW_waUWMwlcVxrVTZKQ&_nc_oc=AQmStj8tXOFXjLMZ88zFZGEBAs0OuHnujShtPDvuZDS bHGo9HaK5bA6FDTO8bFDJnxk&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=41abc147ac9d574e26c1df24e22ee09a&oe=5D8A9DE7

[High_Plains_Drifter]

OK, let's give you that as a 'fact.' What does it have to do with teachers, illegals, child abuse? Legislation I can see. SCOTUS case? not so much.
I don't think there's any denying our supreme court has partisans on it, both sides, and their judgments go along party lines. We know who they are and how they're going to vote. That's why there's such a massive circus every time a new judge is appointed. The leftist judges are going to decide in favor of any case pro illegal alien, the conservatives, not so much.

Case in point, SCOTUS just upholding President Trump's EO on appropriating funds to build the wall after an activist leftist judge put a stop to it. Why? Because the supreme court is now leaning right. However, it may be that even the conservative judges on the S.C. could disagree with me when it comes to this topic. I KNOW I'm HARD right. So... I live with it. I have my opinion but, it just isn't shared with enough people in power. I lose. All taxpayers lose. We're financing the education of people that are here illegally.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Let's think of what a teacher should do and be, just for a moment. Did this teacher?

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62186988_466509240582314_481521561082265600_n.jpg? _nc_cat=111&_nc_eui2=AeHf-jJWwSaBxO4gbzmUvDhVS0qr3SNlTCIiPVo2nTfsNL_QdjAfWcZ edhmYta3v-FsVixwCh_IkKC-ysIF3n7qeAKAqW_waUWMwlcVxrVTZKQ&_nc_oc=AQmStj8tXOFXjLMZ88zFZGEBAs0OuHnujShtPDvuZDS bHGo9HaK5bA6FDTO8bFDJnxk&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=41abc147ac9d574e26c1df24e22ee09a&oe=5D8A9DE7
My compassion runs out when it comes to who should be in this nation and who shouldn't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Actually, my compassion is for the America people and this nation, not the people that have illegally invaded it. Compassion to me is sending all those who came here illegally to be deported. The cost to this nation's taxpayers is staggering paying for those people to be here, and it ain't right.

[Kathianne]

My compassion runs out when it comes to who should be in this nation and who shouldn't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Actually, my compassion is for the America people and this nation, not the people that have illegally invaded it. Compassion to me is sending all those who came here illegally to be deported. The cost to this nation's taxpayers is staggering paying for those people to be here, and it ain't right.

Though your jobs have been US Air Force; prison guard; mechanic, right? You have not been a teacher or involved with kids beyond your own, family, and neighbors.

The lady you wrote about, claimed to be a teacher. Yep, right their with those that abuse kids and want easy access.

[Kathianne]

I don't think there's any denying our supreme court has partisans on it, both sides, and their judgments go along party lines. We know who they are and how they're going to vote. That's why there's such a massive circus every time a new judge is appointed. The leftist judges are going to decide in favor of any case pro illegal alien, the conservatives, not so much.

Case in point, SCOTUS just upholding President Trump's EO on appropriating funds to build the wall after an activist leftist judge put a stop to it. Why? Because the supreme court is now leaning right. However, it may be that even the conservative judges on the S.C. could disagree with me when it comes to this topic. I KNOW I'm HARD right. So... I live with it. I have my opinion but, it just isn't shared with enough people in power. I lose. All taxpayers lose. We're financing the education of people that are here illegally.


No one is claiming any different, there's 9 or 10 pages now, with many of my posts agreeing that there IS bias. However, lobbying? Not once have I heard that of any SCOTUS court, certainly not back in 1982!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Though your jobs have been US Air Force; prison guard; mechanic, right? You have not been a teacher or involved with kids beyond your own, family, and neighbors.

The lady you wrote about, claimed to be a teacher. Yep, right their with those that abuse kids and want easy access.
No... my jobs have been Auto Mechanic, IBM Customer Engineer, USAF Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, Electro-mechanical Maintenance III(in a prison, not prison guard), Master Harley Davidson Technician, and Welder.

If kids are resilient enough to be "rented" so that illegal aliens can take advantage of the flaws in our immigration laws, then sent back and RECYCLED for others to do the same thing again, then they can surely be deported the same as adults.

[Kathianne]

No... my jobs have been Auto Mechanic, IBM Customer Engineer, USAF Integrated Avionics Instrumentation/Flight Controls Systems Specialist, Electro-mechanical Maintenance III(in a prison, not prison guard), Master Harley Davidson Technician, and Welder.

If kids are resilient enough to be "rented" so that illegal aliens can take advantage of the loop holes in our immigration laws, then sent back and RECYCLED for others to do the same thing again, then they can surely be deported the same as adults.

Great list of jobs. My point being in none of those were you responsible for kids beyond your own loved ones. That's fine. That's most people. Now, do you want to have people who don't like kids or don't like 'some' kids being teachers? I'm pretty certain that is what STABB was getting at yesterday.

Then again, there IS that pesky SCOTUS case, should that just be ignored?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Great list of jobs. My point being in none of those were you responsible for kids beyond your own loved ones. That's fine. That's most people. Now, do you want to have people who don't like kids or don't like 'some' kids being teachers? I'm pretty certain that is what STABB was getting at yesterday.

Then again, there IS that pesky SCOTUS case, should that just be ignored?
I think there's a fundamental difference between someone who "doesn't like kids" and someone that just wants to see the illegal invasion of our country stopped. I like kids just fine. I have a grandson that I just adore. I think someone can like kids and still don't want to see our classrooms full of illegal alien children, that came here illegally, costing us legal American taxpayers billions of dollars to turn into new democrat voters. Evidently I'm a good example of that.

But no, I'm not advocating that anyone ignore a law. If the law says teachers can ignore illegal alien children in the classroom, then that's the way it is. I disagree with it, but I guess I just have to suck it up and deal with it and hope that someday the law changes.

[Drummond]

My compassion runs out when it comes to who should be in this nation and who shouldn't. I guess it's as simple as that.

Actually, my compassion is for the America people and this nation, not the people that have illegally invaded it. Compassion to me is sending all those who came here illegally to be deported. The cost to this nation's taxpayers is staggering paying for those people to be here, and it ain't right.

I can't begin to disagree with any of this.

There's the aspect to this that children of illegal immigrants receiving US schooling, wouldn't be present at all, if their parents hadn't illegally invaded. But, since they ARE present, it must follow that each and every such child is taking up a space, and using resources, that fully legal, American-citizen children would otherwise have for THEM.

As innocent as any child is of deliberate intent, the fact remains that resources are channelled for the use of the 'illegal' child where they could be more legitimately given for the educational betterment of the fully American child. Resources are never infinite. What's available is shared out between 'legitimately present' and 'illegitimately present' alike.

Who pays for those resources ? Do 'illegals' chip in with their share, or do their children just take what others have paid for ?

But then, we already have the answer to that ....

It's very difficult to see how that could add up to be a just state of affairs, or, why it should continue indefinitely. Or any longer than it MUST.

This all poses a question in my mind. Which is: what duty does a teacher have, to best serve the interests of the school that employs that teacher ... and are those interests best served by the giving over of resources to children who that school was never put into existence to teach ?

[Kathianne]

I can't begin to disagree with any of this.

There's the aspect to this that children of illegal immigrants receiving US schooling, wouldn't be present at all, if their parents hadn't illegally invaded. But, since they ARE present, it must follow that each and every such child is taking up a space, and using resources, that fully legal, American-citizen children would otherwise have for THEM.

As innocent as any child is of deliberate intent, the fact remains that resources are channelled for the use of the 'illegal' child where they could be more legitimately given for the educational betterment of the fully American child. Resources are never infinite. What's available is shared out between 'legitimately present' and 'illegitimately present' alike.

Who pays for those resources ? Do 'illegals' chip in with their share, or do their children just take what others have paid for ?

But then, we already have the answer to that ....

It's very difficult to see how that could add up to be a just state of affairs, or, why it should continue indefinitely. Or any longer than it MUST.

This all poses a question in my mind. Which is: what duty does a teacher have, to best serve the interests of the school that employs that teacher ... and are those interests best served by the giving over of resources to children who that school was never put into existence to teach ?


What is the answer to that bolded?

In actuality many if not most illegals do pay taxes, under false SSI numbers-thus for no benefit to them. They also pay for local taxes if they rent and for all they buy-state, local, and federal. They pay the taxes on fuel, etc.

Often employers KNOW they are illegal and take out 'more' of their pay for taxes, without actually paying them-another reason that the borders need to be controlled as it's often close to indentured slavery.

In any case it isn't the fault of the kids and wherever they end up; still here in the US, back in their own country, or perhaps back in the superior British system or somewhere else; having them literate is better than illiterate for them and whichever country's criminal system.

[Kathianne]

An interesting article on THIS Supreme Ct., I thought Drummond might find it enlightening how the 'differences' or biases and the ability of that court to accept or not the cases they will hear. Can also get an idea of how over time, the court shifts:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/09/abortion-workers-rights-supreme-court-justices-anger-shows/1271685001/

[Drummond]

What is the answer to that bolded?

In actuality many if not most illegals do pay taxes, under false SSI numbers-thus for no benefit to them. They also pay for local taxes if they rent and for all they buy-state, local, and federal. They pay the taxes on fuel, etc.

Often employers KNOW they are illegal and take out 'more' of their pay for taxes, without actually paying them-another reason that the borders need to be controlled as it's often close to indentured slavery.

In any case it isn't the fault of the kids and wherever they end up; still here in the US, back in their own country, or perhaps back in the superior British system or somewhere else; having them literate is better than illiterate for them and whichever country's criminal system.

Your answer is a surprise -- I'd have thought it'd be impossible for illegal aliens to have any means of paying anything at all into State coffers. The very mention of false Social Security (that IS what SSI means ?) numbers, suggests that some kind of 'industry' exists to cater for the integration of illegals !!

Well, OK. If they can or do in fact pay taxes, that definitely weakens my argument. Thanks for the correction.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your answer is a surprise -- I'd have thought it'd be impossible for illegal aliens to have any means of paying anything at all into State coffers. The very mention of false Social Security (that IS what SSI means ?) numbers, suggests that some kind of 'industry' exists to cater for the integration of illegals !!

Well, OK. If they can or do in fact pay taxes, that definitely weakens my argument. Thanks for the correction.

No my friend , your point has not been weakened. Math does not lie, the numbers do not lie..
Yes some of them pay taxes, yet what they steal in aid far, far outweighs what they pay in...-Tyr



https://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt76ekIjd4gIVhchkCh2BEwT oEAAYAiAAEgJl0fD_BwE


New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually
September 27, 2017

IRLI Staff

Brunt of Costs Fall on State and Local Taxpayers



(Washington, D.C.) - Illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year - an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates - according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation's 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.



Costs Soar



The report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation’s illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud. The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes.



Taxes Paid Inadequate



The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.



All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.



On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.



At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).



The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).



“Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high,” said FAIR executive director Dan Stein. “President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs,” said Stein. “Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control,” he said.



ABOUT FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With more than 1.3 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced

[Drummond]

An interesting article on THIS Supreme Ct., I thought @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) might find it enlightening how the 'differences' or biases and the ability of that court to accept or not the cases they will hear. Can also get an idea of how over time, the court shifts:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/09/abortion-workers-rights-supreme-court-justices-anger-shows/1271685001/

'Interesting' isn't my word for it. To me, words like 'shocking' and 'outragous' come to mind (.. and I'm feeling especially diplomatic today !).

Here's a thought. Have your judges, at any time in the recent past, put aside political posturing just to give PURE JUSTICE a chance ??

Kathianne, as I think I've said, your system is an alien one to my eyes. Judging by my standards, I regard the account I've read from your USA Today article to be evidence that your system is riddled with corruption. Judges are apparently far more interested, whether Left or Right wing, in pushing political agendas than they are in finding justice in cases based on FACT and a weighing of a fair adjudication of individual cases based on the law of the land !!

Ah, but ... they can apparently tinker with those laws, too ....

Wow.

A sweeping judgment of all this would have me conclude that actual JUSTICE is something of a lottery in the US. You might get it. Or, a politically-obsessed judge might inject his (or her) biases into the mix to skew things.

We just don't do things that way over here !!!

Here, judges work with the laws they have ... here, they're NOT above those laws. Our judges interpret those laws. In VERY rare instances where they can judge that a law is inadequate to the proper justice of a case, they can use a very little extent of wriggle-room to allow legal precedent. HOWEVER, in such cases, our Parliament can then take a look at what they've done ... and act as a counterweight to it, be it a tightening up of provisions of a law, or, the passing of a better law.

There is another aspect of legal application involved in our UK system .. one where Parliament's own usage of its own laws can be brought into question. Then, our judiciary can have a decisive role.

This link leads to a highly complicated PDF draft ... but there's a section that might be of interest, which I'll quote here:

https://consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J1446_Constitution_Society_Judicial_Review_WEB-22.pdf


The courts’ ability to subject decisions of the executive to an independent review of lawfulness defines our constitutional climate. There is debate over the meaning of the rule of law; but it may be thought to have a core meaning for the judiciary in the context of judicial review. There is debate too over whether it is the will of Parliament (as traditionally understood) or the constitutional principle of the rule of law (as more recently and controversially suggested by some) which provides the theoretical justification for the courts’ judicial review jurisdiction. It may be thought sensible to take this debate into account whichever justification for judicial review may be favoured: if Parliament were to legislate in a way which the courts considered to be contrary to the rule of law, the courts would need to confront whether they consider their primary obligation to be to the will of Parliament, or to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. If the courts were to conclude the latter, they may feel justified in not applying Parliament’s will.

Our focus isn't whether one brand of politics over another should determine a 'just law', or a 'just application' of it ... these matters, to us, belong within the purview of Parliament. Ours is far more concerned with the qualitative aspect of laws as they are, & / or how they can be, or are, applied.

If you look further at the PDF and would like to question what is meant by 'judicial review' in our system ... this will help ...

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/


Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were ‘right’, as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the ‘correct’ decision.

This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way.

This is all a world away from skewing laws, via judgments, on the basis of a preferred political agenda !! Of course it is. We've no equivalent for what is happening in your part of the world. Partisanship is not involved. There is no 'ruling along ideological lines' here !!

[Drummond]

No my friend , your point has not been weakened. Math does not lie, the numbers do not lie..
Yes some of them pay taxes, yet what they steal in aid far, far outweighs what they pay in...-Tyr





New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually
September 27, 2017

IRLI Staff

Brunt of Costs Fall on State and Local Taxpayers



(Washington, D.C.) - Illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year - an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates - according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation's 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.



Costs Soar



The report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation’s illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud. The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes.



Taxes Paid Inadequate



The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.



All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.



On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.



At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).



The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion).



“Clearly, the cost of doing nothing to stop illegal immigration is far too high,” said FAIR executive director Dan Stein. “President Trump has laid out a comprehensive strategy to regain control of illegal immigration and bring down these costs,” said Stein. “Building the wall, enhancing interior enforcement and mandating national E-Verify will go a long way in bringing these ridiculously high costs under control,” he said.



ABOUT FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With more than 1.3 million members and supporters nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced

So it's a matter of balance, then, the balance being that illegals are getting away with not paying their fair share, because they take far more than they pay. OK. Thanks for this !

[FFS]

So what are conservatives crying about today?

[Abbey Marie]

So what are conservatives crying about today?

The Dems attempts to ruin all that is good and holy.

[Drummond]

So what are conservatives crying about today?

You've just joined ?

OK.

This is a discussion forum, 'FFS'.

Do I correctly take it that your views stand in opposition to Conservatives, and their values ?

I'm inviting you to defend your own views, on this or any other pertinent thread (pertinent to the subject-matter in hand). Or, to pick subjects yourself and create threads to accommodate them. Test your views, in debate. Let's see how well they stand up to scrutiny.

Indeed, let's see IF they do, AT ALL.:rolleyes:

Care to take up this challenge ? Others have run from it. I invite you NOT to.

Give it your very best shot.

[Elessar]

So what are conservatives crying about today?

Ahhh...a liberal noobie!

Nice introduction by you noobie!:laugh:

[Drummond]

Ahhh...a liberal noobie!

Nice introduction by you noobie!:laugh:

I'm not hopeful that we'll get anything positive out of this character.

Though, as ever, I'd be content to be proved wrong.

Let's see. Here's hoping for an outcome that's NOT predictable .....

[Noir]

*Off topic

It looks to me like the new member FFS, with 1 post, has already been Neg Repped? It’s a small thing, and may not been the most auspicious of first posts, but all the same it seems a tad unnecessary.

[jimnyc]

*Off topic

It looks to me like the new member FFS, with 1 post, has already been Neg Repped? It’s a small thing, and may not been the most auspicious of first posts, but all the same it seems a tad unnecessary.

Ummm yeah - and yet silence from you about someone with one post coming in and mocking on post number one. But YOU of course try to defend him as someone negged him for it.

Maybe he's a liberal, whiny, weakling, atheist, muslim?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

*Off topic

It looks to me like the new member FFS, with 1 post, has already been Neg Repped? It’s a small thing, and may not been the most auspicious of first posts, but all the same it seems a tad unnecessary.
Your unrelenting defense of everything LEFT does not go unnoticed, or your passive aggressive attacks against anything and everything conservative, or American for that matter.

[Noir]

Ummm yeah - and yet silence from you about someone with one post coming in and mocking on post number one. But YOU of course try to defend him as someone negged him for it.

Maybe he's a liberal, whiny, weakling, atheist, muslim?

I mean I said it wasn’t auspicious, which isn’t exactly a compliment, nor silence, but no worries - it is what it is.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I mean I said it wasn’t auspicious, which isn’t exactly a compliment, nor silence, but no worries - it is what it is.
----------- http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/word/bla-bla-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

[jimnyc]

I mean I said it wasn’t auspicious, which isn’t exactly a compliment, nor silence, but no worries - it is what it is.

Someone acts like an ass - in their very 1st post no less - and you wonder why they got a neg rep for such a post. That blows my mind. Should they have gotten a positive rep since it was only the very 1st insulting post? I can't understand for the life of me how you don't understand this. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Als0 - "unnecessary" - was that 1st post necessary, Noir? And why not question it the same?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Someone acts like an ass - in their very 1st post no less - and you wonder why they got a neg rep for such a post. That blows my mind. Should they have gotten a positive rep since it was only the very 1st insulting post? I can't understand for the life of me how you don't understand this. :rolleyes:
The post was a wise ass crack about conservatives, so true to form leftist noir just defends it. Just like democrats automatically vote for the person with the D next to their name. They probably can't even tell you why. They just know from their indoctrination to vote for D's. They don't think about it, they just do it.

Noir is just typical. For all his bloviating trying to impress people as though he's some kind of intellectual, he's not doing a very good job, because his contributions here are just more garden variety leftist psycho babble and drivel.

[Noir]

Someone acts like an ass - in their very 1st post no less - and you wonder why they got a neg rep for such a post. That blows my mind. Should they have gotten a positive rep since it was only the very 1st insulting post? I can't understand for the life of me how you don't understand this. :rolleyes:

It was more of an appeal to passing curtsy than anything else, afforded without expectation of reciprocation, but you never know - anyways back to the thread.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It was more of an appeal to passing curtsy than anything else, afforded without expectation of reciprocation, but you never know - anyways back to the thread.
Pfft ----------------------- http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/laughter.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

[jimnyc]

It was more of an appeal to passing curtsy than anything else, afforded without expectation of reciprocation, but you never know - anyways back to the thread.

Ever seen someone come and introduce themselves here and get neg rep for simply introducing themselves? Doesn't happen. Usually positive rep comes in such a situation.

No different than "introducing" yourself by way of being an ass and mocking people. In the same respect, they then get a neg rep from someone.

I don't see difficulty in understanding this.

What I DO know, is that if it were a conservative being a dick, you wouldn't say a peep.

That, in case you didn't know already, is called a hypocrite, and most liberals meet that definition.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Ever seen someone come and introduce themselves here and get neg rep for simply introducing themselves? Doesn't happen. Usually positive rep comes in such a situation.

No different than "introducing" yourself by way of being an ass and mocking people. In the same respect, they then get a neg rep from someone.

I don't see difficulty in understanding this.

What I DO know, is that if it were a conservative being a dick, you wouldn't say a peep.

That, in case you didn't know already, is called a hypocrite, and most liberals meet that definition.
Yep... as noir has made clear here, that if you be a big meany and call him a name, he'll ignore you, as he does me.

But more than once he's shown us that he himself is not above being a wise ass.

Not surprising though, seems being a two faced hypocrite just comes with the territory of being a leftist. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.

[Gunny]

It seems for some unfathomable reason, she thought her tweets were 'private.' Just her and the president.

She will get her hearing, but from the face of it, she broke her contract. Just like here, 'free speech' is not without caveats, decided by the person(s) in charge. There is an 'agreement' when one signs up. A contract, if you will. This was not her 'first offense,' of being in breach, nor the first discipline.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/06/04/fort-worth-teacher-georgia-clark-asked-trump-tweets-round-up-illegal-students/?utm_term=.b73e0be7e56eFt Worth was a nice place. When it was a cow town. Then the rich cattle owners and carpetbaggers had to build a place to live to get their monied asses away from the smell of cow shit and they built Dallas. /NYC/LA/Chicago/any other leftwingnut cesspool you wish to name. Now Ft Worth is nothing but the Poor White Trash capital of Dallas, where all those "cultured" and allegedly educated carpetbaggers keep their blacks, hispanics and any other not good enough folk.

The city/county governments around such cesspools are all teeming with idiot lefties and their policies.

[STTAB]

Brilliant ! Many thanks, Tyr. This is just the material I need to be aware of.

[I have a lot to chew over, it seems .. your legal system has a lot of difference compared to my own, in the UK. I was right ... I have very big gaps in my knowledge.]

But the thing is, my point stands, SCOTUS is the final word. Sure a final court may take a case and rethink a previous decision but that's rare. Tyr managed to find 5 examples in 250 + plus years of jurisprudence, there are a few more but it's rare because in our system a premium is put on precedent, AND even at that ONLY the SCOTUS itself can overturn a SCOTUS ruling. There is no appeal though, once you've lost in their court, you've lost.

Which in my view means they have no actual checks or balances, which makes one wonder how that is Constitutional, but I digress

[STTAB]

Yep... as noir has made clear here, that if you be a big meany and call him a name, he'll ignore you, as he does me.

But more than once he's shown us that he himself is not above being a wise ass.

Not surprising though, seems being a two faced hypocrite just comes with the territory of being a leftist. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO.

Oh please, there are at least 4 "conservatives" on this board who do the exact same thing, call names and then whine when they are called names in return.

[Gunny]

But the thing is, my point stands, SCOTUS is the final word. Sure a final court may take a case and rethink a previous decision but that's rare. Tyr managed to find 5 examples in 250 + plus years of jurisprudence, there are a few more but it's rare because in our system a premium is put on precedent, AND even at that ONLY the SCOTUS itself can overturn a SCOTUS ruling. There is no appeal though, once you've lost in their court, you've lost.

Which in my view means they have no actual checks or balances, which makes one wonder how that is Constitutional, but I digress

Heard that.

[Kathianne]

But the thing is, my point stands, SCOTUS is the final word. Sure a final court may take a case and rethink a previous decision but that's rare. Tyr managed to find 5 examples in 250 + plus years of jurisprudence, there are a few more but it's rare because in our system a premium is put on precedent, AND even at that ONLY the SCOTUS itself can overturn a SCOTUS ruling. There is no appeal though, once you've lost in their court, you've lost.

Which in my view means they have no actual checks or balances, which makes one wonder how that is Constitutional, but I digress

Which was set with the Marbury V Madison, which has never been overturned. Marshall knew what he was doing.

[STTAB]

Which was set with the Marbury V Madison, which has never been overturned. Marshall knew what he was doing.

I don't believe Marbury VS Madison exempts SCOTUS from checks and balances. For example, a President COULD just tell them to fuck off, what would they do? There sure is no legal way for them to enforce such a ruling (though of course Congress could and probably would impeach making this unlikely)

But in the grand scheme of things, I trust SCOTUS far more than I trust the buffoons in Congress who have far more power .

[Gunny]

Which was set with the Marbury V Madison, which has never been overturned. Marshall knew what he was doing.I'm not sure where I'm jumping into the conversation here, but I HATE juris prudence, a hanger-on leftover from English law. I understand it and get the intent; however, the fact that it is considered almost inviolate out of professional courtesy I think is a crock of crap.

I agree with STAAB about no recourse beyond the Supreme Court. You're just screwed. In practice. In theory, Congress can just rewrite the law. Doubt we'll see THAT (the latter) again.

Obamacare is my biggest bitch in the last 20 years of SCOTUS getting it wrong and we're stuck with it. John Roberts' decision to recognize "universal healthcare" as Constitutional Right, which it is not, is for lack of a better word "unconstitutional". There should be recourse that addresses THAT initial fact before all others rather than the Republican't's giving it further legitimacy by "fixing it".

[Kathianne]

I don't believe Marbury VS Madison exempts SCOTUS from checks and balances. For example, a President COULD just tell them to fuck off, what would they do? There sure is no legal way for them to enforce such a ruling (though of course Congress could and probably would impeach making this unlikely)

But in the grand scheme of things, I trust SCOTUS far more than I trust the buffoons in Congress who have far more power .

That was my point to some of Drummond's questions/observations.

What M v M did was actually to achieve some balance for the judiciary. It gave it teeth. Judicial Review had been discussed, especially in the Federalist Papers, but not written into the Constitution. Marbury changed that.

[STTAB]

Strange how off topic this thread got, but I'd like to try to get it back on topic, by also mentioning this.

We have GOT to stop throwing words like treasonous around so casually. There is nothing treasonous about firing a teacher for a reason you disagree with. Just as there is nothing treasonous about well anything Trump has done.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and at some point it has to stop. Treason is a legal term with a legal meaning.

[Drummond]

Strange how off topic this thread got, but I'd like to try to get it back on topic, by also mentioning this.

We have GOT to stop throwing words like treasonous around so casually. There is nothing treasonous about firing a teacher for a reason you disagree with. Just as there is nothing treasonous about well anything Trump has done.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and at some point it has to stop. Treason is a legal term with a legal meaning.

Purely as an aside, because I'm now moving past this issue: on the subject of SCOTUS, I can only say that the very notion of seeing judges (Supreme Court or not) take on 'cataclysmic ' legal powers, where THEY decide what is or is not legitimate law, and then having the power to not even be challenged or overruled on it ... it boggles my mind, as a Brit. I noted from a previous post that it was said that Congress could do it. I felt like cheering at that ....

The UK simply does not give any judges that form of power, and in very exceptional circumstances where some level of legal challenge can be mounted, our Parliament can, if it chooses, counter what they would do. For us ... well .. we see our judges' jobs to consist of holding citizens accountable to the law. Tolerating any situation where those charged with that duty could themselves rise above our laws, would make their entire position preposterously untenable.

That's how I see it myself. I can't comprehend any acceptance of that. I don't believe anyone in my society would see it differently.

ANYWAY ... I'll shut up, now, on that subject.

TREASON: a definition. 'Britannica.com' offers this one ...


Treason, the crime of betraying a nation or a sovereign by acts considered dangerous to security.
I think it's a good definition.

What comprises 'security' ?

Well, how about .. a society than can handle its economy securely, where resources can be planned for, afforded, according to legitimate funding ? Does it break that security when an outside, illegitimate, drain on it is 'sanctioned' ?

There's been argument saying that even illegals pay in, and a counter-argument saying that they pay nowhere near as much as they 'should be'. Well .. 'should be' is a moot point, if they're not legitimate citizens in the first place.

Regardless, their presence threatens a balance of security. Financially speaking.

How about, in more recognisable terms ? An 'illegal', by definition, isn't subject to checks on his / her background ... meaning that anything may be true of that background. What if the illegal is importing disease ? What if the illegal is importing a hatred of America, and with the expertise necessary to turn that hatred into acts of great harm, e.g through the obvious example of terrorism ?

From that, consider this: TO WHAT EXTENT DO THEIR CHILDREN CARRY THE SAME CAPABILITY FOR HARM ?

Maybe the child cannot make a bomb (... although, how to be 100% sure ?). But maybe the child carries his/her parents' beliefs. Maybe that child can radicalise.

Maybe that child is a carrier of disease.

Absolutely none of that would be a problem, if one simple policy of deportation of illegals and their children was enacted as a clear, universally applied action. Security issues would be a thing of the past in that sense, in that scenario.

So ... to what extent does willfully ignoring that potential for harm constitute treason ? Since a security issue is apparent, it seems to me that arguing 'treasonous behaviour' on behalf of those who'd want the problem to persist, is no less than reasonable.

[STTAB]

Purely as an aside, because I'm now moving past this issue: on the subject of SCOTUS, I can only say that the very notion of seeing judges (Supreme Court or not) take on 'cataclysmic ' legal powers, where THEY decide what is or is not legitimate law, and then having the power to not even be challenged or overruled on it ... it boggles my mind, as a Brit. I noted from a previous post that it was said that Congress could do it. I felt like cheering at that ....

The UK simply does not give any judges that form of power, and in very exceptional circumstances where some level of legal challenge can be mounted, our Parliament can, if it chooses, counter what they would do. For us ... well .. we see our judges' jobs to consist of holding citizens accountable to the law. Tolerating any situation where those charged with that duty could themselves rise above our laws, would make their entire position preposterously untenable.

That's how I see it myself. I can't comprehend any acceptance of that. I don't believe anyone in my society would see it differently.

ANYWAY ... I'll shut up, now, on that subject.

TREASON: a definition. 'Britannica.com' offers this one ...


I think it's a good definition.

What comprises 'security' ?

Well, how about .. a society than can handle its economy securely, where resources can be planned for, afforded, according to legitimate funding ? Does it break that security when an outside, illegitimate, drain on it is 'sanctioned' ?

There's been argument saying that even illegals pay in, and a counter-argument saying that they pay nowhere near as much as they 'should be'. Well .. 'should be' is a moot point, if they're not legitimate citizens in the first place.

Regardless, their presence threatens a balance of security. Financially speaking.

How about, in more recognisable terms ? An 'illegal', by definition, isn't subject to checks on his / her background ... meaning that anything may be true of that background. What if the illegal is importing disease ? What if the illegal is importing a hatred of America, and with the expertise necessary to turn that hatred into acts of great harm, e.g through the obvious example of terrorism ?

From that, consider this: TO WHAT EXTENT DO THEIR CHILDREN CARRY THE SAME CAPABILITY FOR HARM ?

Maybe the child cannot make a bomb (... although, how to be 100% sure ?). But maybe the child carries his/her parents' beliefs. Maybe that child can radicalise.

Maybe that child is a carrier of disease.

Absolutely none of that would be a problem, if one simple policy of deportation of illegals and their children was enacted as a clear, universally applied action. Security issues would be a thing of the past in that sense, in that scenario.

So ... to what extent does willfully ignoring that potential for harm constitute treason ? Since a security issue is apparent, it seems to me that arguing 'treasonous behaviour' on behalf of those who'd want the problem to persist, is no less than reasonable.

It i incredulous to me that someone could possibly try to defend calling this school board traitors for firing a teacher.. It stretches the imagination to think of what sort of mental gymnastics one would have to go to to make that case..........

In fact you actively take part in what I suggest is more "treasonous" to our ideals than anything this school board did. They fired a woman, you suggest they have committed a death penalty offense?

[Kathianne]

Purely as an aside, because I'm now moving past this issue: on the subject of SCOTUS, I can only say that the very notion of seeing judges (Supreme Court or not) take on 'cataclysmic ' legal powers, where THEY decide what is or is not legitimate law, and then having the power to not even be challenged or overruled on it ... it boggles my mind, as a Brit. I noted from a previous post that it was said that Congress could do it. I felt like cheering at that ....

The UK simply does not give any judges that form of power, and in very exceptional circumstances where some level of legal challenge can be mounted, our Parliament can, if it chooses, counter what they would do. For us ... well .. we see our judges' jobs to consist of holding citizens accountable to the law. Tolerating any situation where those charged with that duty could themselves rise above our laws, would make their entire position preposterously untenable.

That's how I see it myself. I can't comprehend any acceptance of that. I don't believe anyone in my society would see it differently.

ANYWAY ... I'll shut up, now, on that subject.

TREASON: a definition. 'Britannica.com' offers this one ...


I think it's a good definition.

What comprises 'security' ?

Well, how about .. a society than can handle its economy securely, where resources can be planned for, afforded, according to legitimate funding ? Does it break that security when an outside, illegitimate, drain on it is 'sanctioned' ?

There's been argument saying that even illegals pay in, and a counter-argument saying that they pay nowhere near as much as they 'should be'. Well .. 'should be' is a moot point, if they're not legitimate citizens in the first place.

Regardless, their presence threatens a balance of security. Financially speaking.

How about, in more recognisable terms ? An 'illegal', by definition, isn't subject to checks on his / her background ... meaning that anything may be true of that background. What if the illegal is importing disease ? What if the illegal is importing a hatred of America, and with the expertise necessary to turn that hatred into acts of great harm, e.g through the obvious example of terrorism ?

From that, consider this: TO WHAT EXTENT DO THEIR CHILDREN CARRY THE SAME CAPABILITY FOR HARM ?

Maybe the child cannot make a bomb (... although, how to be 100% sure ?). But maybe the child carries his/her parents' beliefs. Maybe that child can radicalise.

Maybe that child is a carrier of disease.

Absolutely none of that would be a problem, if one simple policy of deportation of illegals and their children was enacted as a clear, universally applied action. Security issues would be a thing of the past in that sense, in that scenario.

So ... to what extent does willfully ignoring that potential for harm constitute treason ? Since a security issue is apparent, it seems to me that arguing 'treasonous behaviour' on behalf of those who'd want the problem to persist, is no less than reasonable.


Glad you like your own definition, however in the US 'treason' is defined as a crime specifically in the US Constitution. It is the only crime they chose to define; seems the Brits threw around the term a bit to loosely for our taste:

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html


Treason (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Drummond]

It i incredulous to me that someone could possibly try to defend calling this school board traitors for firing a teacher.. It stretches the imagination to think of what sort of mental gymnastics one would have to go to to make that case..........

In fact you actively take part in what I suggest is more "treasonous" to our ideals than anything this school board did. They fired a woman, you suggest they have committed a death penalty offense?

I think that the logic of the case I put holds up. Illegals cross into US territory, set up home there, send their kids to school there. Since they ARE illegals, no process of official checking into their backgrounds would've taken place. Anything could've been true of any of them.

They could believe anything. They could have any imaginable intention in their minds for being where they are. Do they enter your territory as friends, or enemies. How is that question determined ?

What do their kids believe ? Tell me that you KNOW that they're all America's friends !

If Osama bin Laden had ever entered the US in disguise, he'd be an illegal alien. Chew on that one ...

As for ...


... you actively take part in what I suggest is more "treasonous" to our ideals than anything this school board did.

.... well, thanks for the insult ! Very nice of you.

So tell me, what harm do I pose, what harm have I ever intended, towards the US ?

I have, of late, questioned your legal system. Is questioning a form of 'harm' ? Are you saying that the act of questioning is something you can neither withstand nor accommodate ?

My approach to this is what it's always been, in debates generally. Swap ideas, perspectives, test them through debate. How, in your worldview, does this equate to 'treason' ... ?

[Drummond]

Glad you like your own definition, however in the US 'treason' is defined as a crime specifically; seems the Brits threw around the term a bit to loosely for our taste:

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

So noted. Thank you.

Consider the wording of the thread title ... it included the words 'treasonous behavior'. A 'behaviour' is not a crime, as such. The crime itself is.

Was the originator of this thread a Brit who was throwing a term around loosely, or, was the thread meant to consider a behaviour, and the danger of where it might lead ?

Is that, or isn't that, a reasonable question to pose ?

[Kathianne]

So noted. Thank you.

Consider the wording of the thread title ... it included the words 'treasonous behavior'. A 'behaviour' is not a crime, as such. The crime itself is.

Was the originator of this thread a Brit who was throwing a term around loosely, or, was the thread meant to consider a behaviour, and the danger of where it might lead ?

Is that, or isn't that, a reasonable question to pose ?

No, not a Brit. Someone though who let's themselves be influenced by their temper and use of words.

BTW, I was not referring to you per se with the Brit comment, those writing the constitution had a few problems with the charge of treason-when the British officers were doing the charging. Likely had influenced their choice to define it in specifics.

[Drummond]

No, not a Brit. Someone though who let's themselves be influenced by their temper and use of words.

Well ... I think that the proposition put by the thread title was a totally reasonable one, and completely worthy of discussion. Its originator, if angry at the time, would surely have had good reason for that anger, in my opinion.

Not that anger is the point ... if the point was reasonable as a stand-alone judgment, then, it was. If not ... then exhaustive debate to test it was itself reasonable.

Sometimes, a person can experience righteous anger, and the very fact of it can be highly meritorious. I say that this applies here !


BTW, I was not referring to you per se with the Brit comment

Good to know ! Thank you.


... those writing the constitution had a few problems with the charge of treason-when the British officers were doing the charging. Likely had influenced their choice to define it in specifics.

Again, thank you for that insight .. which makes good sense.

[Kathianne]

For the record, sometimes the title isn't wholly correct in its premise. 'Treason' is thrown around way too often, seldom in correct usage-at least how it pertains to the US Constitution. Those that don't like that definition, work on repeal.

[jimnyc]

In the end - if it were me, giving advice to the teachers of the world - for those that may feel their hands are tied but still want to report any crimes, can simply route things differently in the future knowing the laws, rules & regulations for now. Any report I had mentioned earlier, which isn't something that is an option really in current times, that person can pass it off to someone else for any such reports and move on to teaching and the rest of their jobs. This way the teachers will remain clear & if someone has a conscience about such things, they can re-route it through a friend or similar, and certainly not put their jobs on the line.

If me, but obviously not me, I would make my list and quit and then ultimately do what I gotta do. No different than any other job in the world, if you don't like the terms, the pay, the commute... quit and find another job. This is NOT what all would or should do, just my viewpoint on it. And 99 out of 100 folks likely can't afford to do such with their employment. Just what I personally would do.

Similar to what I said back then with the bakery stuff.... go another route. Of course they made it clear that you cannot do this or that - but as I said, if you aren't open, not much one can do. Or out of a certain type of supplies? And not every time does someone bake something that comes out perfect, sometimes it just sucks.

[Gunny]

Strange how off topic this thread got, but I'd like to try to get it back on topic, by also mentioning this.

We have GOT to stop throwing words like treasonous around so casually. There is nothing treasonous about firing a teacher for a reason you disagree with. Just as there is nothing treasonous about well anything Trump has done.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and at some point it has to stop. Treason is a legal term with a legal meaning.I'll spell your shit right one day STTAB. So just to toss one out there (it ain't like we're going to use up all of Jimbob's bandwidth), In your opinion, would you say that the House of Representatives with a Democratic Party majority dropping almost all if not all political agendas to focus solely on lynching the current President is treasonous? Bearing in mind this is personal to them, not professional.

I can easily see the conduct of House and Senate Dems over the past 3 years as treasonous I'm not one to toss the word around lightly. What I have seen though is the Federal government accomplish little to nothing but chasing Trump's ass like it was the end of the rainbow. Our government didn't accomplish shit to begin with.

I consider purposefully stalling the People's business, regardless the cost to the Nation and its citizens, for partisan, political bullshit pretty damned close. It's like not feeding the starving children because you don't like who made the bread IMO.

[Kathianne]

In the end - if it were me, giving advice to the teachers of the world - for those that may feel their hands are tied but still want to report any crimes, can simply route things differently in the future knowing the laws, rules & regulations for now. Any report I had mentioned earlier, which isn't something that is an option really in current times, that person can pass it off to someone else for any such reports and move on to teaching and the rest of their jobs. This way the teachers will remain clear & if someone has a conscience about such things, they can re-route it through a friend or similar, and certainly not put their jobs on the line.

If me, but obviously not me, I would make my list and quit and then ultimately do what I gotta do. No different than any other job in the world, if you don't like the terms, the pay, the commute... quit and find another job. This is NOT what all would or should do, just my viewpoint on it. And 99 out of 100 folks likely can't afford to do such with their employment. Just what I personally would do.

Similar to what I said back then with the bakery stuff.... go another route. Of course they made it clear that you cannot do this or that - but as I said, if you aren't open, not much one can do. Or out of a certain type of supplies? And not every time does someone bake something that comes out perfect, sometimes it just sucks.


I get what you are saying. I agree with the SCOTUS 1982 decision. Kids need to be educated, regardless of the choices adults make. If a kid is sick, they need to get treatment. If a kid is being abused, they need help. I wouldn't 'narc' on a kid, to get the parents.

[Kathianne]

I'll spell your shit right one day @STTAB (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3853). So just to toss one out there (it ain't like we're going to use up all of Jimbob's bandwidth), In your opinion, would you say that the House of Representatives with a Democratic Party majority dropping almost all if not all political agendas to focus solely on lynching the current President is treasonous? Bearing in mind this is personal to them, not professional.

I can easily see the conduct of House and Senate Dems over the past 3 years as treasonous I'm not one to toss the word around lightly. What I have seen though is the Federal government accomplish little to nothing but chasing Trump's ass like it was the end of the rainbow. Our government didn't accomplish shit to begin with.

I consider purposefully stalling the People's business, regardless the cost to the Nation and its citizens, for partisan, political bullshit pretty damned close. It's like not feeding the starving children because you don't like who made the bread IMO.


Art.III Sec. III


Treason (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason (https://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#TREASON) unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have.

[Gunny]

Art.III Sec. III



Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have. The Dems being a declared enemy of the US depends on who you listen to. I firmly believe the left has declared war against the US Constitution and/or any law they just don't like. Is there a formal declaration of war by either side? No. Is the left giving aid and comfort to a force intent on invading the US? Yes.

Has the left's personal problem with an individual based on who he is not what he has done and is doing aiding and abetting the enemy? That too depends on who you ask. As far as I am concerned if you have brought the health and well-being of a Nation and its citizens to a standstill due to petty, Unamerican and unconstitutional beliefs, you're the enemy.

[Drummond]

Art.III Sec. III



Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have.

H'mm.

I do see your point. In technical terms, it's hard not to see the justice of your case.

I'm wondering if there are shades of grey in all this, though.

Bear in mind that the thread title did say 'treasonous behavior'. Not quite treason as such, but behaviour of that general type, in which harm is intended.

For my money, the direction of the thread was originally thought of as an examination of a form of behaviour that could lead to outcomes that were meant to be harmful to the nation.

It also occurs to me that Dem behaviour has been so focused on direct attacks on your President, that isn't the intention to harm the standing of your Commander-in-Chief ? With what hoped-for outcome in mind ?

Are attacks on your President, not least what the Presidency symbolises, attacks meant to subvert, undermine, equivalent to actual attacks on your country ?

I'm seriously asking the question. This might be another area where I'm not qualified to judge. I suspect I'm right, though.

[Kathianne]

The Dems being a declared enemy of the US depends on who you listen to. I firmly believe the left has declared war against the US Constitution and/or any law they just don't like. Is there a formal declaration of war by either side? No. Is the left giving aid and comfort to a force intent on invading the US? Yes.

Has the left's personal problem with an individual based on who he is not what he has done and is doing aiding and abetting the enemy? That too depends on who you ask. As far as I am concerned if you have brought the health and well-being of a Nation and its citizens to a standstill due to petty, Unamerican and unconstitutional beliefs, you're the enemy.

So the Democratic Party should be illegal? That would be the first step, no?

Seriously, the left feels the same about the right, so?

[Kathianne]

H'mm.

I do see your point. In technical terms, it's hard not to see the justice of your case.

I'm wondering if there are shades of grey in all this, though.

Bear in mind that the thread title did say 'treasonous behavior'. Not quite treason as such, but behaviour of that general type, in which harm is intended.

For my money, the direction of the thread was originally thought of as an examination of a form of behaviour that could lead to outcomes that were meant to be harmful to the nation.

It also occurs to me that Dem behaviour has been so focused on direct attacks on your President, that isn't the intention to harm the standing of your Commander-in-Chief ? With what hoped-for outcome in mind ?

Are attacks on your President, not least what the Presidency symbolises, attacks meant to subvert, undermine, equivalent to actual attacks on your country ?

I'm seriously asking the question. This might be another area where I'm not qualified to judge. I suspect I'm right, though.


I'm seriously answering, pretty much the same as I just did to Gunny, both sides feel the same about their 'enemy.' It used to be called opposition or friendly opposition, those days are long gone. Signed sealed and delivered, though not begun, over the last two presidential terms.

[Drummond]

So the Democratic Party should be illegal? That would be the first step, no?

It's definitely an interesting idea ..... :rolleyes:


Seriously, the left feels the same about the right, so?

Maybe one side's right, the other is wrong ? :rolleyes:

I have to declare considerable bias ... in my (extreme ?) worldview, all forms of Left wing politics are a blight on humanity itself. I'd be delighted to see it swept away from every part of this world of ours.

... anyway, back to the plot .....

[Gunny]

So the Democratic Party should be illegal? That would be the first step, no?

Seriously, the left feels the same about the right, so?Couple of answers :)

One, I honestly do not know what to do about the Democratic Party. My intellect and common sense tells me THEY should be policing their own trash. Not us and not the law.

Two, while I am well-aware the left thinks the right is just as wrong as the right thinks the left is, you can't sit on the fence and be all understanding about the other side when it's out to destroy you. When it's time to take a stand, you do so or die. I understand the left perfectly well, not just here and now but what it has done historically to every other past, failed civilization and I think they are wrong and doomed for a repeat.

I know you want to hang on to negotiating to the bitter end, but for me, talking time's over until or unless someone strikes the left with a lightning bolt of sense. Otherwise, just the lightning bolt will solve the problem. :)

[Drummond]

I'm seriously answering, pretty much the same as I just did to Gunny, both sides feel the same about their 'enemy.' It used to be called opposition or friendly opposition, those days are long gone. Signed sealed and delivered, though not begun, over the last two presidential terms.

Maybe there was a time when it all qualified as friendly opposition. Granted, not any more. Consider why that is, especially in recent times.

Consider the sheer vitriol President Trump has taken from his political opposition. I'm not at all sure I've seen its like any time in my lifetime.

Consider the smear campaign run against Trump just before he was elected President. All this went way beyond mere political posturing ... his opposition wanted to FIX the election ... by fair means, OR foul.

Now ... were those the actions of an enemy ? That's to say, one so committed to wiping out an enemy that the very process of fair democratic adjudication of electoral candidates was sidelined, in the hope that the smears would be the deciding factor ?

Does such a subversive enemy act 'treasonously' by going so far as to corrupt fair democratic process ?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong .. but haven't there been public outbreaks of violence ... coming out of the very fact that Trump was democratically elected ?

Are the forces involved an enemy of America, and what helps define America, or not ?

Behaviour, leading up to, and in some instances involving, crimes ... directed how ? Towards whom ?

I think that the thread title has definite validity.

[Kathianne]

Couple of answers :)

One, I honestly do not know what to do about the Democratic Party. My intellect and common sense tells me THEY should be policing their own trash. Not us and not the law.

Two, while I am well-aware the left thinks the right is just as wrong as the right thinks the left is, you can't sit on the fence and be all understanding about the other side when it's out to destroy you. When it's time to take a stand, you do so or die. I understand the left perfectly well, not just here and now but what it has done historically to every other past, failed civilization and I think they are wrong and doomed for a repeat.

I know you want to hang on to negotiating to the bitter end, but for me, talking time's over until or unless someone strikes the left with a lightning bolt of sense. Otherwise, just the lightning bolt will solve the problem. :)

I'm for a return to civility, not appeasement. There's much to be said for compromise, something that's become a derogatory term in the past few decades. I'm not keen on civil war, though quite a few here are.

I'm not saying that I think both sides are contributing substance equally, I don't. However I do know that neither side is listening at all to anything but their own echo. That's not a good reason for war, IMO.

[Kathianne]

Maybe there was a time when it all qualified as friendly opposition. Granted, not any more. Consider why that is, especially in recent times.

Consider the sheer vitriol President Trump has taken from his political opposition. I'm not at all sure I've seen its like any time in my lifetime.

Consider the smear campaign run against Trump just before he was elected President. All this went way beyond mere political posturing ... his opposition wanted to FIX the election ... by fair means, OR foul.

Now ... were those the actions of an enemy ? That's to say, one so committed to wiping out an enemy that the very process of fair democratic adjudication of electoral candidates was sidelined, in the hope that the smears would be the deciding factor ?

Does such a subversive enemy act 'treasonously' by going so far as to corrupt fair democratic process ?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong .. but haven't there been public outbreaks of violence ... coming out of the very fact that Trump was democratically elected ?

Are the forces involved an enemy of America, and what helps define America, or not ?

Behaviour, leading up to, and in some instances involving, crimes ... directed how ? Towards whom ?

I think that the thread title has definite validity.

That is your right. Personally I see little difference between the majority of venom thrown at Trump, than what was delivered to Obama-MEDIA excluded. Control the media, especially the humongously growing impact of social media and there is a problem. Interestingly enough though, the right tends to control many of the most influential, moneyed blogs. While the platforms of Twitter, FB, YT, IG are not to be ignored, truth is that the right has some influence on all those, the biggest problem is the right will be kicked off for what is allowed to the left. Easy to fix, don't be like them. I've never been banned from any of them.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Oh please, there are at least 4 "conservatives" on this board who do the exact same thing, call names and then whine when they are called names in return.
Well if you're referring to me as one of them, I'll go toe to toe with you any day of the week, but do it in the cage.

[Gunny]

I'm for a return to civility, not appeasement. There's much to be said for compromise, something that's become a derogatory term in the past few decades. I'm not keen on civil war, though quite a few here are.

I'm not saying that I think both sides are contributing substance equally, I don't. However I do know that neither side is listening at all to anything but their own echo. That's not a good reason for war, IMO.
I have no problem with civility. Compromise has become a dirty word because compromising with the left just means giving it what it wants or they act exactly as they are acting. It has been that way in this country from the beginning. It's how the progressive left, regardless title/party name, destroys everything it touches. When you're done compromising with the left you have nothing left (you can decide on the pun or no :))

I am 100% against a war IF one can be avoided WITHOUT giving away everything one believes in. The words in the constitution mean things. One side -- at least what I support -- understands them. The left views them as obstacles to their carnal pleasures. There is a point where you have to call BS and draw a line in the sand or forget whatever little freedom you have left because the left wants that too.

The right listens to its own echo because its collective head is empty as well as its scrotum. The right has had every opportunity in booth 2000 and 2016 to flatten the left and squandered away both opportunities trying to compromise with people that won't compromise. THAT is "the war" we're in and we're losing for the aforementioned reason. Republican't's get into power and immediately start squabbling with each other instead of undoing the damage from the left.

So I don't know what war it is you speak of. When anyone on the right finally gets a clue and decides they have lost or are losing everything they believe in, like this Nation and it's Constitution, the left will have already legislated them into insignificance and will use the government as a weapon against them. They will be vilified and outlawed and the full force of the US Government (ie US military) brought against them and they will lose.

I don't want a war. I also don't like watching my grandchildren grow up in this prison of a society we live in because of the left. The freedoms we had as kids is gone. I'd like for my kids and grandkids to at least get a hint of it,

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have no problem with civility. Compromise has become a dirty word because compromising with the left just means giving it what it wants or they act exactly as they are acting. It has been that way in this country from the beginning. It's how the progressive left, regardless title/party name, destroys everything it touches. When you're done compromising with the left you have nothing left (you can decide on the pun or no :))

I am 100% against a war IF one can be avoided WITHOUT giving away everything one believes in. The words in the constitution mean things. One side -- at least what I support -- understands them. The left views them as obstacles to their carnal pleasures. There is a point where you have to call BS and draw a line in the sand or forget whatever little freedom you have left because the left wants that too.

The right listens to its own echo because its collective head is empty as well as its scrotum. The right has had every opportunity in booth 2000 and 2016 to flatten the left and squandered away both opportunities trying to compromise with people that won't compromise. THAT is "the war" we're in and we're losing for the aforementioned reason. Republican't's get into power and immediately start squabbling with each other instead of undoing the damage from the left.

So I don't know what war it is you speak of. When anyone on the right finally gets a clue and decides they have lost or are losing everything they believe in, like this Nation and it's Constitution, the left will have already legislated them into insignificance and will use the government as a weapon against them. They will be vilified and outlawed and the full force of the US Government (ie US military) brought against them and they will lose.

I don't want a war. I also don't like watching my grandchildren grow up in this prison of a society we live in because of the left. The freedoms we had as kids is gone. I'd like for my kids and grandkids to at least get a hint of it,
Damn it... A FUCKING MEN brother... :clap:

[Kathianne]

I have no problem with civility. Compromise has become a dirty word because compromising with the left just means giving it what it wants or they act exactly as they are acting. It has been that way in this country from the beginning. It's how the progressive left, regardless title/party name, destroys everything it touches. When you're done compromising with the left you have nothing left (you can decide on the pun or no :))

I am 100% against a war IF one can be avoided WITHOUT giving away everything one believes in. The words in the constitution mean things. One side -- at least what I support -- understands them. The left views them as obstacles to their carnal pleasures. There is a point where you have to call BS and draw a line in the sand or forget whatever little freedom you have left because the left wants that too.

The right listens to its own echo because its collective head is empty as well as its scrotum. The right has had every opportunity in booth 2000 and 2016 to flatten the left and squandered away both opportunities trying to compromise with people that won't compromise. THAT is "the war" we're in and we're losing for the aforementioned reason. Republican't's get into power and immediately start squabbling with each other instead of undoing the damage from the left.

So I don't know what war it is you speak of. When anyone on the right finally gets a clue and decides they have lost or are losing everything they believe in, like this Nation and it's Constitution, the left will have already legislated them into insignificance and will use the government as a weapon against them. They will be vilified and outlawed and the full force of the US Government (ie US military) brought against them and they will lose.

I don't want a war. I also don't like watching my grandchildren grow up in this prison of a society we live in because of the left. The freedoms we had as kids is gone. I'd like for my kids and grandkids to at least get a hint of it,

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them. How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.

[Elessar]

Art.III Sec. III



Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have.


The Dems being a declared enemy of the US depends on who you listen to. I firmly believe the left has declared war against the US Constitution and/or any law they just don't like. Is there a formal declaration of war by either side? No. Is the left giving aid and comfort to a force intent on invading the US? Yes.

Has the left's personal problem with an individual based on who he is not what he has done and is doing aiding and abetting the enemy? That too depends on who you ask. As far as I am concerned if you have brought the health and well-being of a Nation and its citizens to a standstill due to petty, Unamerican and unconstitutional beliefs, you're the enemy.

There is a better term that can apply. It is called Sedition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them.
Example?

I think there was disagreement with the law, but not arguing the law shouldn't be followed.



How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.
Again, example where someone said the law shouldn't be followed?

[Gunny]

Seems to me that the 'right' has spent this past weekend and a day now, arguing WHY the laws are not to be followed, because they don't agree with them. How is this different than OWS or its ilk? In each case, it's not civil disobedience being bandied about, but actually saying the laws are worthless and wrong and choosing not to obey them is the only choice.It's a very complicated issue when the very law that gives you your Rights and freedom is being used to destroy itself. The best answer I can come up with is the one I came up with in the First Gulf War to "What makes us the good guys if we're acting like them?"

The only difference I can tell you is this: If I can't fight by your rules and your rules exploit mine (Vietnam is a prime example), then I am not going to win. To win, I will use any and every means to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, regardless who thinks what is civilized. What makes me right and "better" than the enemy is I know when to stop and can do so without losing who I am and what I am fighting for. Otherwise, there is no difference.

If one does not believe enough in his/her ideals to fight and/or die for them, then one does not believe enough in one's ideals.

Anyone who doesn't already feel like a sheep on the US Government's short leash needs to run down to the Dollar General and purchase some clarity of vision. In my opinion :)

Another thought: If all these people are so dissatisfied here and other places exist that suit their political beliefs why don't they just move? Solve everyone's problem.

[jimnyc]

I'm for a return to civility, not appeasement. There's much to be said for compromise, something that's become a derogatory term in the past few decades. I'm not keen on civil war, though quite a few here are.

I'm not saying that I think both sides are contributing substance equally, I don't. However I do know that neither side is listening at all to anything but their own echo. That's not a good reason for war, IMO.

Both sides are undoubtedly guilty of lack of compromise and other things for years and years. But I believe, in this instance, that there have been many efforts to compromise, from Trump on down. The left, before Trump took office, stated that they would obstruct him at every turn - and they have done just that, and more. For example, with the illegals, many efforts were made to compromise from all kinds of funding down to a wall, to fencing, more agents and pretty much ever last detail. The democrats mostly refuse to budge & have also spoken against it no less, and even many claim that there is no "crisis" at the border no matter how many people report back on just that.

Ad it's been on more than just the border though, they have followed through on their word and want to obstruct on almost everything. It's a shame, as I think it was and still is a great time to work together, to do those compromises and take advantage of everything.

Neither side is perfect nor innocent though, that I admit. But one has spoken their intent and has followed through and it's easy to see why so many things haven't went all the way through because of them. The sheer amount of democrats alone out there having plenty of time to spend bashing the president, involved in investigations or pushing for them - but little to no time to accomplish anything in congress because they are awol from their duties.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's a very complicated issue when the very law that gives you your Rights and freedom is being used to destroy itself. The best answer I can come up with is the one I came up with in the First Gulf War to "What makes us the good guys if we're acting like them?"

The only difference I can tell you is this: If I can't fight by your rules and your rules exploit mine (Vietnam is a prime example), then I am not going to win. To win, I will use any and every means to destroy the enemy's ability to fight, regardless who thinks what is civilized. What makes me right and "better" than the enemy is I know when to stop and can do so without losing who I am and what I am fighting for. Otherwise, there is no difference.

If one does not believe enough in his/her ideals to fight and/or die for them, then one does not believe enough in one's ideals.

Anyone who doesn't already feel like a sheep on the US Government's short leash needs to run down to the Dollar General and purchase some clarity of vision. In my opinion :)

Another thought: If all these people are so dissatisfied here and other places exist that suit their political beliefs why don't they just move? Solve everyone's problem.
Well, we see what leftists ideals are, and they're cities where people SHIT in the streets and shoot up drugs with needles provided them by the city democrat governing body.

We see that every big city in America run by democrats is pretty much a toilet of degenerate behavior and indoctrination, and they want to run the rest of the country in the same fashion. They want to do away with our electoral college so that middle America no longer has a say in who runs this nation. They've even floated the idea that we should allow TERRORISTS FROM PRISON vote. What are we all to do then? When rural America no longer has a say in our president? When people are shittin' in the streets in small town America, our guns have been taken away, and we have no recourse left what so ever... what then?

I'll tell what then... civil war... because middle rural America isn't ready for that kind of radical degenerate democrat garbage.

What we have today is democrats fighting to radically change America into one giant SHIT HOLE, and patriotic Americans that are fighting to SAVE IT FROM THEM.

[jimnyc]

There is a better term that can apply. It is called Sedition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

You're correct, it does fit better, and actually DOES apply in this case, IMO (regarding democrats):

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

[Drummond]

That is your right. Personally I see little difference between the majority of venom thrown at Trump, than what was delivered to Obama-MEDIA excluded. Control the media, especially the humongously growing impact of social media and there is a problem. Interestingly enough though, the right tends to control many of the most influential, moneyed blogs. While the platforms of Twitter, FB, YT, IG are not to be ignored, truth is that the right has some influence on all those, the biggest problem is the right will be kicked off for what is allowed to the left. Easy to fix, don't be like them. I've never been banned from any of them.

OK. Taken on its own merits, your argument appears sound.

Still ... there's a wider issue. Who's right, who's wrong ? Who is fighting FOR America, her values, her identity ... and, who is working to subvert, tear it all apart ?

On the matter of democratic process, I'm reminded of my own country, and Brexit. In the Referendum of 23rd June 2016, the vote returned the decision that we leave the EU.

Three years later, the Left is calling for a 2nd Referendum (.. they say, to break Parliament's deadlock, and for an 'updated' vote).

Now -- arguably, a 2nd Referendum is the way to go, democratically.

But the reality is different. The only possible authority a 2nd Referendum would have is to crush the authority of the first one. Because, if not, the original decision must stand ... and not be threatened with being overridden.

The Left SAY they hold true to democratic principles and practices, but only as a means to an end, only as a means to achieve THEIR preferred victory. They've zero respect for it, otherwise. Democracy, to crush democracy ... ostensibly a nonsense, yet ... if achieved, also a reality.

I submit to you that our Left's methodology, and your Left's methodology, are the same. When the Left can 'play the system' and win, that's OK. Where all the vitriol and violence against Trump is concerned, they'll subvert democratic process to win out. And, if Trump electorally wins, do they accept it ? Do they cease their vitriol, do they respect the electorate's decision ? No, they do NOT.

The 'quality' of venom you refer to is different from one side to the other. One respects values. The other wants to tear them down. The Left's proven philosophy is 'the end justifies the means'. The Right's countering philosophy is to hold dear to tried and tested values.

Your argument of equivalence, therefore, doesn't reflect the reality involved ... and that's my point.

[Kathianne]

I'm not going to defend the 'left.' It would be impossible since I disagree with nearly every position they take on any issue. Hopeless to have me defend them. OTOH, I'm really not defending the right either, though I agree with most of their stated goals. I no longer can agree that they are 'more correct or more principled,' they are not. Just my opinion, based on lots of observations and interactions. Quotes aren't direct and more of a compilation of what I've been reading and hearing:


IF there's a way to circumvent that law, good. If not, well something needs to be done.

The Constitution is the most important, until it's not working for us.
"They are trying to destroy Trump." "No willing to work with him, just obstruct."

"F'ing mud illegal birth Obama bin Laden! F'him. He's a traitor that should not be sharing air."

Conservatives are more logical, not all 'feelings...' like the liberals.'

"The left does X, well we're going to F them up after all these years-wait! Y and Z are going to annihilate those f'ers, it's past time."

"We are better, we follow the law." "Actually not, we're f'ing pansy losers..."

Yeah, not going to defend either.

[Kathianne]

OK. Taken on its own merits, your argument appears sound.

Still ... there's a wider issue. Who's right, who's wrong ? Who is fighting FOR America, her values, her identity ... and, who is working to subvert, tear it all apart ?

On the matter of democratic process, I'm reminded of my own country, and Brexit. In the Referendum of 23rd June 2016, the vote returned the decision that we leave the EU.

Three years later, the Left is calling for a 2nd Referendum (.. they say, to break Parliament's deadlock, and for an 'updated' vote).

Now -- arguably, a 2nd Referendum is the way to go, democratically.

But the reality is different. The only possible authority a 2nd Referendum would have is to crush the authority of the first one. Because, if not, the original decision must stand ... and not be threatened with being overridden.

The Left SAY they hold true to democratic principles and practices, but only as a means to an end, only as a means to achieve THEIR preferred victory. They've zero respect for it, otherwise. Democracy, to crush democracy ... ostensibly a nonsense, yet ... if achieved, also a reality.

I submit to you that our Left's methodology, and your Left's methodology, are the same. When the Left can 'play the system' and win, that's OK. Where all the vitriol and violence against Trump is concerned, they'll subvert democratic process to win out. And, if Trump electorally wins, do they accept it ? Do they cease their vitriol, do they respect the electorate's decision ? No, they do NOT.

The 'quality' of venom you refer to is different from one side to the other. One respects values. The other wants to tear them down. The Left's proven philosophy is 'the end justifies the means'. The Right's countering philosophy is to hold dear to tried and tested values.

Your argument of equivalence, therefore, doesn't reflect the reality involved ... and that's my point.

I agree that one side's stated values are certainly closer to my own thinking, a lot closer. However, stating one's values and principles, then saying that 'in this case' it's alright to abandon/twist whatever to make it come out alright, well that not quite within my thinking of values/standards/principles. But, it does seem to be the working definition of what was once my party.

[Drummond]

Well, we see what leftists ideals are, and they're cities where people SHIT in the streets and shoot up drugs with needles provided them by the city democrat governing body.

We see that every big city in America run by democrats is pretty much a toilet of degenerate behavior and indoctrination, and they want to run the rest of the country in the same fashion. They want to do away with our electoral college so that middle America no longer has a say in who runs this nation. They've even floated the idea that we should allow TERRORISTS FROM PRISON vote. What are we all to do then? When rural America no longer has a say in our president? When people are shittin' in the streets in small town America, our guns have been taken away, and we have no recourse left what so ever... what then?

I'll tell what then... civil war... because middle rural America isn't ready for that kind of radical degenerate democrat garbage.

What we have today is democrats fighting to radically change America into one giant SHIT HOLE, and patriotic Americans that are fighting to SAVE IT FROM THEM.

Terrorists in prison being given the right to vote. Recognisably a Left ploy.

The same basic struggle has been going on in the UK for several years. Not in favour of terrorists, so much as all of our prisoners.

Our Conservatives are totally against it ... David Cameron gave a speech once where he basically said 'Over my dead body'.

Labour, our mainstream Socialists, say the opposite. Here, it's an EU wish that the UK conforms to their wish ... Labour agree, the Conservatives have been defying them. So, this is another case of YOUR Left, and OUR Left, being in lockstep.

See ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11825485/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-prisoners-have-the-right-to-vote.html


Jeremy Corbyn will consider campaigning to give prisoners the right to vote if he becomes Labour leader.

The Labour leadership candidate said he would follow demands by the European Court of Human Rights to allow convicted criminals the right to vote in British elections.

The court has ruled four times that Britain should lift its ban on prisoner votes but Parliament has refused to give way over the issue.

The 66-year-old left-wing politician supports the principle of overturning the historic ban on jailed convicts voting because he thinks it will help rehabilitate them.

MPs voted in 2011 to keep the ban on prisoner voting, despite the tough stance adopted by the European judges since 2005.

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "On the issue of prisoner voting, we are guided by the European Court of Human Rights."

His comments come as he also unveiled plans to consider introducing women-only train carriages in a bid to cut the number of sexual assaults on public transport.

Like that proposal, Mr Corbyn's comments about prisoner votes are likely to come under fierce criticism.

Politicians argued during a debate in 2011 that prisoners had forfeited their voting rights by breaking the law and going to jail.

Two years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to "clip the wings" of the European Court of Human Rights and said prisoners "damn well shouldn't" be given the vote.

The last of the four rulings by European judges was made in February this year. They argued that the rights of UK prisoners were breached when they were prevented from voting in elections, and called for a change in the law.

The case was brought by inmates who were in prison during various elections between 2009 and 2011.

Both the previous Labour government and Coalition Government failed to legislate -- although various proposals have been debated in an attempt to end the long-running row with the Strasbourg court.

The most recent case concerned 1,015 prisoners, a grouping of long-standing prisoner voting cases, and the court ruled there had been a violation of Article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights -- right to a free election.

The February case was brought by convicted killer John Hirst, who has since been released after serving 25 years in jail.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The Government has always been clear that it believes prisoner voting is an issue that should ultimately be decided in the UK."

Ironically, this is one notable example of where Parliamentary authority overrules that of a form of Supreme Court. Because, of course, in our system, Parliamentary judicial authority is greater than any emanating from a group of judges. They have been exercising their authority to defy those European judges, and .. winning. Because our Parliament failed to legislate to accommodate those judges, their authority has been proven toothless.

In this case ... isn't it just as well ... ??

[jimnyc]

It's difficult to respond to something if it hasn't been quoted, as no idea who really stated such things if not exact, and perhaps not in context. On sure sounded like mine, and Trump and obstruction from the left, but not really sure. Not really sure why it would be listed if so either. While I stated both sides are guilty, I went on to point out what the lefts own stated goals and agenda were, and that they were succeeding. That's just pointing out facts, nothing lacking in principle and I tried to stick with the facts. Then again, not really sure without actual quotes. Color me confused with that one.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'm not going to defend the 'left.' It would be impossible since I disagree with nearly every position they take on any issue. Hopeless to have me defend them. OTOH, I'm really not defending the right either, though I agree with most of their stated goals. I no longer can agree that they are 'more correct or more principled,' they are not. Just my opinion, based on lots of observations and interactions. Quotes aren't direct and more of a compilation of what I've been reading and hearing:


IF there's a way to circumvent that law, good. If not, well something needs to be done.

The Constitution is the most important, until it's not working for us.
"They are trying to destroy Trump." "No willing to work with him, just obstruct."

"F'ing mud illegal birth Obama bin Laden! F'him. He's a traitor that should not be sharing air."

Conservatives are more logical, not all 'feelings...' like the liberals.'

"The left does X, well we're going to F them up after all these years-wait! Y and Z are going to annihilate those f'ers, it's past time."

"We are better, we follow the law." "Actually not, we're f'ing pansy losers..."

Yeah, not going to defend either.
Not sure if any of those are mine. Not sure who's any of them are actually. Would help to have links.

But I'll defend any statement I make if it can be quoted.

I know we disagree on what party is more unhinged, Kathy, and I'm actually dismayed that you would think that the way the left acts is no different than the right. When was the last time you saw conservatives have a huge protest? What would you say the comparison is to how many times the left has protested compared to the right? When was the last time you saw a story about an unhinged conservative triggered and PUNCHING a leftist... because they wore a HAT they didn't like? I could go on and on and on, and I think you know that. But yet you DO defend the left as somehow being as rational and reserved as conservatives in America, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Kathianne]

It's difficult to respond to something if it hasn't been quoted, as no idea who really stated such things if not exact, and perhaps not in context. On sure sounded like mine, and Trump and obstruction from the left, but not really sure. Not really sure why it would be listed if so either. While I stated both sides are guilty, I went on to point out what the lefts own stated goals and agenda were, and that they were succeeding. That's just pointing out facts, nothing lacking in principle and I tried to stick with the facts. Then again, not really sure without actual quotes. Color me confused with that one.

Not sure if you are responding to something I posted or someone else.

As for myself, I wasn't thinking or trying to state one person's responses, much less opinions. Rather, I think many would be a bit chagrined to see what they wrote about their values, opinions on the left, etc., back in early 2000s compared to now. It certainly hasn't been only the left that has changed and become more implacable and even violent in their rhetoric. Civility would be grand, but has gone the way of the dodo bird.

I still enjoy giving explanations of how our system is supposed to work, though I fear that system too will soon be part of dodo land. :(

[Gunny]

I'm not going to defend the 'left.' It would be impossible since I disagree with nearly every position they take on any issue. Hopeless to have me defend them. OTOH, I'm really not defending the right either, though I agree with most of their stated goals. I no longer can agree that they are 'more correct or more principled,' they are not. Just my opinion, based on lots of observations and interactions. Quotes aren't direct and more of a compilation of what I've been reading and hearing:


IF there's a way to circumvent that law, good. If not, well something needs to be done.

The Constitution is the most important, until it's not working for us.
"They are trying to destroy Trump." "No willing to work with him, just obstruct."

"F'ing mud illegal birth Obama bin Laden! F'him. He's a traitor that should not be sharing air."

Conservatives are more logical, not all 'feelings...' like the liberals.'

"The left does X, well we're going to F them up after all these years-wait! Y and Z are going to annihilate those f'ers, it's past time."

"We are better, we follow the law." "Actually not, we're f'ing pansy losers..."

Yeah, not going to defend either.
I'm not sure where this came from so I'll just pick something :)

The circumventing the law to protect the law/using the law to destroy the law argument doesn't have a winner. There is no "right' answer. To adhere strictly to the law even when it is being used to destroy the law is suicide. At some point you just have to do the right thing to preserve not only yourself and family, but community and society as well.

Or, you can be "enslaved", by any other name, by a society you REALLY don't believe in and in no way represents what it is supposed to be.

I agree that it has been getting harder to tell any difference in behavior. But I betcha we don't see it at the same place on the scale ;)

[Kathianne]

Not sure if any of those are mine. Not sure who's any of them are actually. Would help to have links.

But I'll defend any statement I make if it can be quoted.

I know we disagree on what party is more unhinged, Kathy, and I'm actually dismayed that you would think that the way the left acts is no different than the right. When was the last time you saw conservative have a huge protest? What would you say the comparison is to how many times the left has protested compared to the right? When was the last time you saw a story about an unhinged conservative triggered and PUNCHING a leftist... because they wore a HAT they didn't like? I could go on and on and on, and I think you know that. But yet you DO defend the left as somehow being as rational and reserved as conservatives in America, when nothing could be further from the truth.


You tell me when I said the left was better than the right or less violent or more righteous? You totally haven't a clue to what I think, you don't get it when I state it fairly succinctly. You hear what you want to hear and block out what you don't.

Gunny gets what I'm saying, he thinks I'm wrong. Which is his right. I don't have to be telling him he's great, he knows it. LOL!

More unhinged? That might be one way to look at it, as I think both have come undone, though it's a matter of degrees. Truth is, once the unraveling begins, pretty much like toothpaste and the tube.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure where this came from so I'll just pick something :)

The circumventing the law to protect the law/using the law to destroy the law argument doesn't have a winner. There is no "right' answer. To adhere strictly to the law even when it is being used to destroy the law is suicide. At some point you just have to do the right thing to preserve not only yourself and family, but community and society as well.

Or, you can be "enslaved", by any other name, by a society you REALLY don't believe in and in no way represents what it is supposed to be.

I agree that it has been getting harder to tell any difference in behavior. But I betcha we don't see it at the same place on the scale ;) I think that will change when the right gets better at not melting down on social media and getting organized. Check out Trump's rallies.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

You tell me when I said the left was better than the right or less violent or more righteous? You totally haven't a clue to what I think, you don't get it when I state it fairly succinctly. You hear what you want to hear and block out what you don't.

Gunny gets what I'm saying, he thinks I'm wrong. Which is his right. I don't have to be telling him he's great, he knows it. LOL!

More unhinged? That might be one way to look at it, as I think both have come undone, though it's a matter of degrees. Truth is, once the unraveling begins, pretty much like toothpaste and the tube.
Not in so many words have you said the left is less violent than the right, but you do defend them and make nuance comments that lend to the thought.

I hear what you say, nothing more. I block out nothing. I'm doing my best to be concise.

And I disagree "both" sides have come undone. When you have one party that of late has been doing their level best to FRAME the president of the United States with a fake dossier, and they don't care who knows it, and they just keep PUSHING it right in the face of America, after two years of investigations and they're not happy with the outcome, they now want a do over, and the leader of the democrat party wants to see the president IN PRISON... I'm sorry Kath, but I don't see BOTH parties unhinged, I only see ONE. They lost in 2016 and they've been throwing an EPIC SHIT FIT since.

[Kathianne]

Not in so many words have you said the left is less violent than the right, but you do defend them and make nuance comments that lend to the thought.

I hear what you say, nothing more. I block out nothing. I'm doing my best to be concise.

And I disagree "both" sides have come undone. When you have one party that of late has been doing their level best to FRAME the president of the United States with a fake dossier, and they don't care who knows it, and they just keep PUSHING it right in the face of America, after two years of investigations and they're not happy with the outcome, they now want a do over, and the leader of the democrat party wants to see the president IN PRISON... I'm sorry Kath, but I don't see BOTH parties unhinged, I only see ONE. They lost in 2016 and they've been throwing an EPIC SHIT FIT since.

As is your right.

I see that the right had thrown a comparable epic sf in 2008-16 and some still haven't recovered. They continue it by being appalled at the left's refusal to accept Trump, though they were vehement on social media, tv, and even here in this little corner, that Obama was NOT their president. It wasn't all or even most, but there were more than a couple.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

As is your right.

I see that the right had thrown a comparable epic sf in 2008-16 and some still haven't recovered. They continue it by being appalled at the left's refusal to accept Trump, though they were vehement on social media, tv, and even here in this little corner, that Obama was NOT their president. It wasn't all or even most, but there were more than a couple.
True, but they didn't pull anything like what's happened to Trump. No two year investigation for NOTHING, based on LIES, and then when they didn't like the outcome of that just go ON and ON and ON with MORE investigations. I don't think there's any comparison. No president in history has ever had to endure the kind of TRASHING President Trump has. I truly feel sorry for the guy, and think he's got to have a back bone of STEEL to just keep fighting on the way he does. That's what the democrats don't understand. The more they attack the guy, and the truth being known to the vast majority that it's for NOTHING, the more support he gets. If they had the sense God gave a turnip, they'd give it up and get on with the business of taking care of America. Right now we have a party that's trying to take care of America, and the other party is OBSESSED with IMPEACHING the president... and... WHY... FOR WHAT? They're unhinged, Kath.

But, we can agree to disagree. Got no problem with that.

[Gunny]

I think that will change when the right gets better at not melting down on social media and getting organized. Check out Trump's rallies.Do note what I stated previously about fighting at the enemy's level but knowing when to stop.

I guess the entire message gets lost in translation. In being true to one's beliefs and one's self, one must be just that. Regardless what is thrown at them.

[Kathianne]

Do note what I stated previously about fighting at the enemy's level but knowing when to stop.

I guess the entire message gets lost in translation. In being true to one's beliefs and one's self, one must be just that. Regardless what is thrown at them.

I see the system pretty much on the path of self-destruction. Not sure if you are saying the same thing or not? I don't think there's any saving it, as neither side wants the other to exist.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I see the system pretty much on the path of self-destruction. Not sure if you are saying the same thing or not? I don't think there's any saving it, as neither side wants the other to exist.
I have to agree with that. We are on a train to crash town. Don't see it getting any better any time soon either... only worse.

Rome.

[Gunny]

I see the system pretty much on the path of self-destruction. Not sure if you are saying the same thing or not? I don't think there's any saving it, as neither side wants the other to exist.
I see the left eating the right like it's been doing. It's like a terminal disease. The right would have to get organized and get behind one person to stop the left and the right is too busy being individuals to realize putting aside differences to defeat a common enemy would make more sense than this constant, internal bickering,

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Neither political party is full of perfect angels. But I truly feel sorry for anybody that can not see which party rates far, far lower on the scale! When that comparison is so obvious. And I will add this note in regards to those that said obama was not their President, the bastard damn sure was not mine!!!
And he was not mine because he was and still is a gddadm ffking traitor! Future will eventually reveal I am dead on the mark on that judgement.
And I will bet my life on that judgement being correct.
To me it it is like this, we see the fire, we say it will burn you if you put your hand in it or if you let it get out of control..
Others for some unfathomable reason say, no you are wrong, besides you guys are redneck, bible thumping, gun toting nuts, (Christian)religious assholes.. Yet even were those lies true( the are not) that has got nothing to do with the damn fire!
Democrats are anti-christian, anti-Constitution, anti-gun, and damn sure anti-liberty.
I think it sad that some for some reason break their necks trying to paint the Republican party as being on the same scale as are the Dems.
It is like they look at an ocean and say it is a desert too.
Yes this nation is in trouble, when the dem party allies with enemies of this nation--which they damn sure do!!!!--Tyr

[Kathianne]

I see the left eating the right like it's been doing. It's like a terminal disease. The right would have to get organized and get behind one person to stop the left and the right is too busy being individuals to realize putting aside differences to defeat a common enemy would make more sense than this constant, internal bickering,

The problem is the 'one person.' At least that's why I no longer identify with either party.

[Gunny]

The problem is the 'one person.' At least that's why I no longer identify with either party.I get that. It's hard to identify with a party with no identity.

I see it as a vicious cycle. I also see it as I dislike Democrats more than you do. I vote for whoever isn't Democrat and has a chance to beat the Democrat. I think the last person I voted "for" was Ronald Reagan. As a consequence, we keep getting "not the Dem" as candidates. And if you dare stop and call BS and take a stand on principle you take the chance of handing the office back over to a Dem. That is not criticism of your position; rather, a point of view.

As long as we continue the facade of "your vote counts" I'm going to vote against the Dems. Or they're going to turn over a new leaf :)

[Kathianne]

I get that. It's hard to identify with a party with no identity.

I see it as a vicious cycle. I also see it as I dislike Democrats more than you do. I vote for whoever isn't Democrat and has a chance to beat the Democrat. I think the last person I voted "for" was Ronald Reagan. As a consequence, we keep getting "not the Dem" as candidates. And if you dare stop and call BS and take a stand on principle you take the chance of handing the office back over to a Dem. That is not criticism of your position; rather, a point of view.

As long as we continue the facade of "your vote counts" I'm going to vote against the Dems. Or they're going to turn over a new leaf :)

You know I didn't come by this lightly, it was forced upon me, I answered. While I am a pragmatist in the main, I have some core beliefs that I won't abandon. Those I thought were pretty much the norm for most conservatives. Then came the last national election and I realized I was wrong. Folks really were looking for the one they found. The one whom they believed would kick sand back on those that had done so to them. I guess that worked.

Unfortunately for myself, too many lines were crossed, I wasn't as much of a pragmatist or as flexible as I thought. Pretty damn intransigent when it came right down to it. Then again, often had been questioned why someone raising 3 kids, on teacher's salary wasn't a 'democrat,' as that would be in MY BEST INTERESTS-yes, some professed to determine what was best for me! LOL! Pretty much the same, though reasoning was different.

[Gunny]

You know I didn't come by this lightly, it was forced upon me, I answered. While I am a pragmatist in the main, I have some core beliefs that I won't abandon. Those I thought were pretty much the norm for most conservatives. Then came the last national election and I realized I was wrong. Folks really were looking for the one they found. The one whom they believed would kick sand back on those that had done so to them. I guess that worked.

Unfortunately for myself, too many lines were crossed, I wasn't as much of a pragmatist or as flexible as I thought. Pretty damn intransigent when it came right down to it. Then again, often had been questioned why someone raising 3 kids, on teacher's salary wasn't a 'democrat,' as that would be in MY BEST INTERESTS-yes, some professed to determine what was best for me! LOL! Pretty much the same, though reasoning was different.But there are/is no "core conservative". I've tried to tell you that a couple of times over the years. Just as the term "conservative" applies only to a point in time.

Most of today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals. I was raised in a solely, staunch Dem family and at one time was THE enemy of "the establishment". THEN you have a kid a look around and get a real job and responsibilities in the meantime the next generation is busy breaking down the wall of whatever conforms you were satisfied with back when you just thought you were a hippy and suddenly you're the conservative. And we're all stuck with the beliefs of our times.

When I was a kid in the 60s-70s, the Dems were more what you and I would call conservative than most anything claiming to be one today. I can just see my grandparents on either side looking at this crap going on now :laugh: My grandfather the Sergeant Major especially :)

I keep my beliefs. If I have to question one I better have a damned good answer. I do however separate my idealism from my reality. When someone comes up with a better plan than voting anti-Dem down the page without looking I'm all ears. A plan that would work, that is :)

[Elessar]

Neither political party is full of perfect angels. But I truly feel sorry for anybody that can not see which party rates far, far lower on the scale! When that comparison is so obvious. And I will add this note in regards to those that said obama was not their President, the bastard damn sure was not mine!!!


<Snipped for brevity>.

Saying a President is NOT your president is playing into the liberal's hands.

Illegally here or not, I will never deny the honor of the top seat.

"Not My President" is a common liberal whine-fest. You are better than that.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

<Snipped for brevity>.

Saying a President is NOT your president is playing into the liberal's hands.

Illegally here or not, I will never deny the honor of the top seat.

"Not My President" is a common liberal whine-fest. You are better than that.
Well... not to be contrary, but more factual, it is my firm belief that obama was not BORN IN HAWAII, and it has never been proven he was, so I will say he was never my president. I'll believe until the day I die that he was born in Kenya just as his grandmother said he was, as she witnessed. That entire born in Hawaii bit was a shame, and I also believe that someday, as usually always happens, when the dust settles, could be after we're all dead and gone, but someone is going to go through all the birth records in Hawaii and find there IS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE for that sons a bitch there. I haven't seen one, no one has. Not a hard copy, can be held in hand, examined and authenticated and shown to the public. NO ONE has seen one, so, with all due respect bro, no, he was never my president, he was never president period. He was unconstitutionally elected as the great experiment. The black guy that was going to prove that America was no longer RACIST. Well, I guess it did prove that, but he was a disgrace when it came to representing America. He filled his administration with muslims and radical America hating trash and did everything he could to ruin this nation. Look at what he did to Trump, and it's still being uncovered as we speak, not to mention weaponizing the IRS against republicans, and you know I could go on and on. It's a miracle we survived that filthy bastard.

[Kathianne]

But there are/is no "core conservative". I've tried to tell you that a couple of times over the years. Just as the term "conservative" applies only to a point in time.

Most of today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals. I was raised in a solely, staunch Dem family and at one time was THE enemy of "the establishment". THEN you have a kid a look around and get a real job and responsibilities in the meantime the next generation is busy breaking down the wall of whatever conforms you were satisfied with back when you just thought you were a hippy and suddenly you're the conservative. And we're all stuck with the beliefs of our times.

When I was a kid in the 60s-70s, the Dems were more what you and I would call conservative than most anything claiming to be one today. I can just see my grandparents on either side looking at this crap going on now :laugh: My grandfather the Sergeant Major especially :)

I keep my beliefs. If I have to question one I better have a damned good answer. I do however separate my idealism from my reality. When someone comes up with a better plan than voting anti-Dem down the page without looking I'm all ears. A plan that would work, that is :)

Do you really think I miss patterns? I always understood what you were saying. It's fine not to have a 'core.' I guess. I do though. I know what I can go along with and what I can't. I have things I can compromise with and those that I can't. Some issues are too important for messing with, most are not.

I'm not all that idealistic, though on certain things, guilty. I always am stuck with myself.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It's fine not to have a 'core.' I guess. I do though.
So do I, and I'm glad you do too, and mine are ingrained, core beliefs I'll never lose or deny.

The strongest one is patriotism, and I hate it when I hear someone say that's extreme or a bad thing. To me they're traitors.

[Drummond]

Well... not to be contrary, but more factual, it is my firm belief that obama was not BORN IN HAWAII, and it has never been proven he was, so I will say he was never my president. I'll believe until the day I die that he was born in Kenya just as his grandmother said he was, as she witnessed. That entire born in Hawaii bit was a shame, and I also believe that someday, as usually always happens, when the dust settles, could be after we're all dead and gone, but someone is going to go through all the birth records in Hawaii and find there IS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE for that sons a bitch there. I haven't seen one, no one has. Not a hard copy, can be held in hand, examined and authenticated and shown to the public. NO ONE has seen one, so, with all due respect bro, no, he was never my president, he was never president period. He was unconstitutionally elected as the great experiment. The black guy that was going to prove that America was no longer RACIST. Well, I guess it did prove that, but he was a disgrace when it came to representing America. He filled his administration with muslims and radical America hating trash and did everything he could to ruin this nation. Look at what he did to Trump, and it's still being uncovered as we speak, not to mention weaponizing the IRS against republicans, and you know I could go on and on. It's a miracle we survived that filthy bastard.

See:

http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/2017/05/01/breaking-hawaii-official-drops-bombshell-about-obamas-birth-certificate/

A hard-copy birth certificate is, as a matter both of law and of fact, a paper copy of the original birth registration. The real 'original' is the registration itself.

The only legitimate hard copies that can exist are those issued as a product of that registration.

The issue is not whether something exists on paper. The real issue is whether there's something to produce one, FROM.

Judging by my link above, there isn't a record showing proof of a birth actually occurring in Hawaii ....

Over here in the UK ... a birth happens, and that birth is registered (the legal mandate is to register within 6 weeks of that birth). Registration should happen at the nearest register office to the birth's locality. However, in exceptional circumstances, a birth registration by declaration is arranged, where the birth details are subsequently passed on to the register office where the birth SHOULD have been registered, in the first place.

The General Register Office, after a time, gets its copy of that registration, stored in its national archive.

Birth certificates FROM THAT REGISTRATION are issued, legitimately, from two specific sources ... the registration office, or, the central archive office. They are always produced as copies of the registration. Any certificate 'using' any 'other source' is bogus. What matters is whether the certificate was originally issued by a proper issuing office, FROM THE BIRTH REGISTRATION ... and they bear the words, 'Certified copy of an entry of birth'.

So far as I know, these basic standards are held to worldwide. The US registrations might be held on a State basis, but certain basics are still held to. Nonexistence of a hardcopy birth certificate is significant IF it's because there's no bona fide registration in the first place.

No matter where Obama's birth registration happened, IF he'd been born as a matter of physical fact in Hawaii, they should have a record of it.

[jimnyc]

Not to be applied to anyone here. While a few don't care for Trump, I don't think they want to see liberals winning either. I hope I'm right about that!

But then you have some like that though, a lot actually, and sadly. Wanting someone out you don't care for, or hoping that person doesn't get agendas across that one may disagree with - but then some out there just want him outright to fail, regardless of agenda - and that's the TDS shining brightly, as brightly as a liberals dim bulb.

With that said, I also do think that some of this applies to plain 'ol righties/republicans who fight against the right, even when it's a right agenda... likely someone also not caring for who's in charge.

And I don't care for "with us or against us" - unless it's a legit issue, of which we have seen plenty in the past 2 years. :(

---

Ignore The Never Trump Losers Who Are OK With Liberals Winning

There’s a debate going on inside conservatism between the insufferable sissies who insist that we Normals are morally obligated to submit to being crushed by the leftists who hate us and want us enslaved or dead, and actual conservatives. Maybe I’m simplifying this intellectual dispute a bit – wait, no I’m not. You either want to defeat the liberal elite that despises us or you don’t. It’s those of us who seek to win versus the Never Trump losers, and there’s no middle ground.

Win or lose. Pick one.

The Never Trumpers are willing, even eager, to lose, regardless of the consequences for you and me. They would thrive in defeat. After all, there’s always a place for a slobberingly loyal conservativish opposition, right over there at the liberal elite’s kiddie table.

I say we should fight to win and preserve our liberty.

David French is the poster-scold for the Surrender Caucus, a fussy man who is always at the ready with some hitherto unknown conservative norm, rule or principle that boils down to you not being allowed to effectively resist the massive attack on your liberty and prosperity by our garbage elite. These conservative norms, rules and principles are pretty remarkable in that they only apply to limit our options and actions – they never apply to protect us from our enemies.

I have my own conservative principle regarding conservative principles, and it goes like this: Any conservative principle that makes me poorer or less free is a pretty crappy conservative principle and I’m not going to do it.

Basically, it’s a choice between “Please clap” and “I’ll sock you in the face.”

“Civility and decency” is the common refrain within the French Fredocon Legion. Understand that the civility and decency requirement applies only to us, and it operates only to restrict our ability to accurately describe and aggressively fight our enemies. It does not apply to our betters’ conduct toward us. Look at their last three years of attacks on Donald Trump and we who support him – super civil and super decent, right? My Twitter feed is an endless series of vicious tweets from libs and True Conservatives™ telling me what an awful, awful person I am for thinking that we should jam that same civility and decency right back down their collective throat.

French himself recently dubbed us the “gutter right” in a tweet, wherein he also described himself as a “real man.” Peak cringe aside, I’m pretty sure “gutter” is not a term of civility or decency, but then the rules never apply to protect us, only to restrain us. Remember, you are morally obligated to lose for some reason. Anyway, this utter nonsense is why we should ignore the Priss Platoon’s rules and do whatever we have to do to protect our liberty and property.

Similarly, we are also morally obligated to submit to the loss of our rights. When Steven Crowder was demonetized by YouTube because he uttered words the elite disapproves of, I immediately began my countdown to the Lido Deck League validating it. I didn’t have to wait long.

They have plenty of cheesy rationales for justifying the censorship of actual conservatives they disapprove of:

“Oh, he says mean things!”

“Oh, it’s a private business!”

“Oh, well I never!”

The excuses they give why it’s cool to gag us don’t matter. The end result for actual conservatives is always the same. It’s always okay to censor the people the Collaboration Cons disapprove of. Here’s their thought process template:


1 - Actual conservative gets silenced.
2 - [Some bogus excuse]
3 - Silencing the actual conservative is just fine.

If this is how you roll with conservative principles, count me out.

Now, to his credit, French has personally litigated for conservatives in free speech and religious liberty cases, yet while this legal fight is necessary it is not sufficient. Defending some bullied cake baker is fine, but all the Frenchies are asking the elite for on behalf of Normals is the little tiny dispensation of not being hassled in a small corner of their lives. Pleading for a pass on pro-gay marriage confections is nice, I guess, but that’s marginal skirmishing that doesn’t challenge the metastasizing liberal paradigm. The rest of us aren’t satisfied with the garbage liberal elite grudgingly letting us control our own cake decorating options. We want to burn the whole garbage liberal elite down.

Not the Never Trumpers. They are no threat to the elite because, at their hollow core, they support the existing power structure. That’s why they are so blind to the manifest corruption of the institutions that they are a part of and are therefore invested in. That’s why these saps were so easily suckered by the RUSSIA TREASON COLLUSION!!!! scam. And that’s why Trump and those of us who support him terrify them – because, unlike the Conservative, Inc., cabal, we have nothing to lose if the whole teetering edifice of our crummy ruling class collapses under the sheer weight of its lies and incompetence.

Rest - https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/10/ignore-the-never-trump-losers-who-are-ok-with-liberals-winning-n2547810

[Kathianne]

Not to be applied to anyone here. While a few don't care for Trump, I don't think they want to see liberals winning either. I hope I'm right about that!

But then you have some like that though, a lot actually, and sadly. Wanting someone out you don't care for, or hoping that person doesn't get agendas across that one may disagree with - but then some out there just want him outright to fail, regardless of agenda - and that's the TDS shining brightly, as brightly as a liberals dim bulb.

With that said, I also do think that some of this applies to plain 'ol righties/republicans who fight against the right, even when it's a right agenda... likely someone also not caring for who's in charge.

And I don't care for "with us or against us" - unless it's a legit issue, of which we have seen plenty in the past 2 years. :(

---

Ignore The Never Trump Losers Who Are OK With Liberals Winning

There’s a debate going on inside conservatism between the insufferable sissies who insist that we Normals are morally obligated to submit to being crushed by the leftists who hate us and want us enslaved or dead, and actual conservatives. Maybe I’m simplifying this intellectual dispute a bit – wait, no I’m not. You either want to defeat the liberal elite that despises us or you don’t. It’s those of us who seek to win versus the Never Trump losers, and there’s no middle ground.

Win or lose. Pick one.

The Never Trumpers are willing, even eager, to lose, regardless of the consequences for you and me. They would thrive in defeat. After all, there’s always a place for a slobberingly loyal conservativish opposition, right over there at the liberal elite’s kiddie table.

I say we should fight to win and preserve our liberty.

David French is the poster-scold for the Surrender Caucus, a fussy man who is always at the ready with some hitherto unknown conservative norm, rule or principle that boils down to you not being allowed to effectively resist the massive attack on your liberty and prosperity by our garbage elite. These conservative norms, rules and principles are pretty remarkable in that they only apply to limit our options and actions – they never apply to protect us from our enemies.

I have my own conservative principle regarding conservative principles, and it goes like this: Any conservative principle that makes me poorer or less free is a pretty crappy conservative principle and I’m not going to do it.

Basically, it’s a choice between “Please clap” and “I’ll sock you in the face.”

“Civility and decency” is the common refrain within the French Fredocon Legion. Understand that the civility and decency requirement applies only to us, and it operates only to restrict our ability to accurately describe and aggressively fight our enemies. It does not apply to our betters’ conduct toward us. Look at their last three years of attacks on Donald Trump and we who support him – super civil and super decent, right? My Twitter feed is an endless series of vicious tweets from libs and True Conservatives™ telling me what an awful, awful person I am for thinking that we should jam that same civility and decency right back down their collective throat.

French himself recently dubbed us the “gutter right” in a tweet, wherein he also described himself as a “real man.” Peak cringe aside, I’m pretty sure “gutter” is not a term of civility or decency, but then the rules never apply to protect us, only to restrain us. Remember, you are morally obligated to lose for some reason. Anyway, this utter nonsense is why we should ignore the Priss Platoon’s rules and do whatever we have to do to protect our liberty and property.

Similarly, we are also morally obligated to submit to the loss of our rights. When Steven Crowder was demonetized by YouTube because he uttered words the elite disapproves of, I immediately began my countdown to the Lido Deck League validating it. I didn’t have to wait long.

They have plenty of cheesy rationales for justifying the censorship of actual conservatives they disapprove of:

“Oh, he says mean things!”

“Oh, it’s a private business!”

“Oh, well I never!”

The excuses they give why it’s cool to gag us don’t matter. The end result for actual conservatives is always the same. It’s always okay to censor the people the Collaboration Cons disapprove of. Here’s their thought process template:



If this is how you roll with conservative principles, count me out.

Now, to his credit, French has personally litigated for conservatives in free speech and religious liberty cases, yet while this legal fight is necessary it is not sufficient. Defending some bullied cake baker is fine, but all the Frenchies are asking the elite for on behalf of Normals is the little tiny dispensation of not being hassled in a small corner of their lives. Pleading for a pass on pro-gay marriage confections is nice, I guess, but that’s marginal skirmishing that doesn’t challenge the metastasizing liberal paradigm. The rest of us aren’t satisfied with the garbage liberal elite grudgingly letting us control our own cake decorating options. We want to burn the whole garbage liberal elite down.

Not the Never Trumpers. They are no threat to the elite because, at their hollow core, they support the existing power structure. That’s why they are so blind to the manifest corruption of the institutions that they are a part of and are therefore invested in. That’s why these saps were so easily suckered by the RUSSIA TREASON COLLUSION!!!! scam. And that’s why Trump and those of us who support him terrify them – because, unlike the Conservative, Inc., cabal, we have nothing to lose if the whole teetering edifice of our crummy ruling class collapses under the sheer weight of its lies and incompetence.

Rest - https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/06/10/ignore-the-never-trump-losers-who-are-ok-with-liberals-winning-n2547810

I think there are many, but still a small minority of those who hold conservative values on government and foreign affairs, but are not with those that have chosen a different way to voice their opinions. Maybe it's projection on my part, though I know quite a few that agree with me-so I'm not alone.

What the arguments are against French are really just a litany of why 'the Republicans' aren't going to 'hold solid,' for at least a period of time. Anyone who's studied politics for the past 45-50 years, including liberals, would have projected that the US would be much more liberal than it is. Why did the movement that was 'inevitable' in the 60s, 70s, suddenly braking in the late 70s/80s? Carter. Reagan. And the legislatures/courts of those years.

Pause was given and thought emerged. Conservatives found some areas they could tone down the more strident and the citizenry chose to walk back from the brink of what appeared to be inevitable socialist growth.

It'd had always been a pendulum, but the left gave up a lot of ground. During the 90's it seemed the left was making gains, by appealing more to the center, while the farther right was gaining sway within the Republican Party. The Democrats under Clinton appeared more moderate than many of the Conservatives and more willing to compromise.

Then 9/11, the whole country, almost, wanted to have a 'strong America' and social causes by the emerging far left, were being somewhat muted, though not on campuses as a nod to the 60s.

After a decade of 'war on terror,' and regular terror attacks in Europe, the left-far more angry and even younger than in the 90s, started to be heard. Populism was back, full strength on the left.

The Right reacted. Here we are.

David French owes no explanations. I read the following a few days ago, Erickson was anti-Trump, then he wasn't. He still will touch back on the populism now from the right:

https://theresurgent.com/2019/06/05/i-think-you-guys-did-something-bad-and-you-know-it/

Those who really have an interest in conservatism as a set of goals, rather than as just a weapon against the left, might want to read about someone who has given a lot to their country and to conservative causes.

[STTAB]

I'll spell your shit right one day @STTAB (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3853). So just to toss one out there (it ain't like we're going to use up all of Jimbob's bandwidth), In your opinion, would you say that the House of Representatives with a Democratic Party majority dropping almost all if not all political agendas to focus solely on lynching the current President is treasonous? Bearing in mind this is personal to them, not professional.

I can easily see the conduct of House and Senate Dems over the past 3 years as treasonous I'm not one to toss the word around lightly. What I have seen though is the Federal government accomplish little to nothing but chasing Trump's ass like it was the end of the rainbow. Our government didn't accomplish shit to begin with.

I consider purposefully stalling the People's business, regardless the cost to the Nation and its citizens, for partisan, political bullshit pretty damned close. It's like not feeding the starving children because you don't like who made the bread IMO.

Absolutely. I don't think there is ANY doubt that the Dems in Congress are purposely trying to subvert the will of the American people And I also believe that people like Adam Shit for Brains were 100% in on weaponizing the Justice Dept and intelligence assets against a political foe, and if they weren't in on it while it was being done, they certainly are fighting tooth and nail to keep it hidden now.

THOSE Democrats are traitors. School board members firing teachers are not.

[STTAB]

Art.III Sec. III



Contrary to public sentiments here, I don't think 'Democrats' have been declared enemies of the United States? Levying war? Really? Not agreeing with the President and using any tricks to mess with him? I would say it's detrimental, as have been nearly all the partisan BS in Congress for most of our lifetimes. Treason? I'm not seeing it, never have.

I'm gonna disagree with you Kath, I think members of our government openly attempting to overthrow a duly elected President most certainly gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Hell countries like Iran are openly being told "don't negotiate with Trump, we're working to impeach his ass"

It's a fine line to be sure, but I think the Dems have most certainly stepped over that line.

[Kathianne]

I'm gonna disagree with you Kath, I think members of our government openly attempting to overthrow a duly elected President most certainly gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Hell countries like Iran are openly being told "don't negotiate with Trump, we're working to impeach his ass"

It's a fine line to be sure, but I think the Dems have most certainly stepped over that line.

You disagree with the existence of the article?