The appeals court takes swipes at the Voting Rights Act and federal control over immigration. Also: Schumer shows how the Hill could respond to SCOTUS overreach.
The hell with navigability - abbot put up fucking Saw traps in the Rio Grande. People have already died, including one child. He should be under criminal indictment, for both this and trafficking humans with his shipping migrants out of his state.
If pieces of shit like him can continue to act with impunity, these problems will only get worse.
Exactly two months ago, I commented - I don't recall where - thus (edited for length):
"Has it occurred to anyone that there is a reason referring to undocumented immigrants as an 'invasion" has 'become common currency among the bigots? That there is more to it than red-meat fear-mongering?
"Could it be related to Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution which says 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion OR INVASION the public safety may require it?'
"Call me paranoid, but these days paranoia seems to be reasonable caution."
I was told that I was overwrought, that was extremely unlikely. Now, with a 5th Circuit judge invoking Section 10 and the right of a state to "wage war" when faced with "invasion," I'm feeling less paranoid than prescient.
I understand the messaging, but the actual content of the No Kings Act leaves a bit to be desired in my view. But keep up the reform proposals, including Whitehouse's statutory term limit bill.
Odd that you’re not including Trump the orange skinned one in your list of criminals as he is the biggest offender. Or is that to be assumed? Just curious…
Trump is the first to stand trial because he is actually a criminal, a con artist of the highest order. He uses all the tricks in the book to deceive and cheat the American people. He needs to be further prosecuted in my opinion for his billions in emoulments. He exhausted every legal channel to overturn a free and fair election and then rallied a riot to obstruct the certification, and almost got his VP hung by a lynch mob. That is a CRIME against the American people's interests. There is only bald-faced self interest involved in Trump's cases, while at least the other Presidents made decisions that actually tried to protect Americans or American interests. Not that those decisions were always the best or most honest ones, in fact, many decisions were despicable, but this overt immunity ruling is absolutely ridiculous, allowing no recourse to stop a "Mad King" and must be overturned.
History has made them accountable. It was Truman, a democrat who dropped the Abombs, and FDR who rounded up Japanese American citizens and put them in concentration camps. Like I said, some acts were despicable, but those decisions were based on protecting American citizens in wartime when already hundreds of thousands of Americans had already died fighting WWII. I personally think its the worse decision ever made. Wasn't it Truman who said the buck stops here? And other citizens were afraid of enemy infiltration. Fear itself drives many BAD decisions, which is why Trump has been so effective in his grifting, calling migrants coming to the border "an invasion" and proclaiming a "Wall" would fix the problem. George Washington never called for the mass incarceration or vengeance on the Tories. Abraham LIncoln never called for executions of Southern generals for their part in leading the rebellion of the southern states, an amendment to the Constitution prevented them from holding federal office, as it should have done to Trump. But no going back, just forward, and we have to find the legal way to overturn this immunity decision and limit the power of the court to overlook their lack of regard for precedent.
The No Kings Act is in response to a Supreme Court ruling that immunizes presidents in various respects from criminal punishment. The bill reaffirms a basic principle that presidents are liable for their crimes.
You referenced something about deportations. That adds to the non sequitur nature of the comment. It is not a crime to "deport" people per se. I'm also not going to try to debate "who's worse" or "the same" or whatever. But I'd toss out there that Nixon resigned.
My concern is Thomas issued an invitation to challenge federal oversight of our nation's river systems. It seems to me the Fifth is setting this up for SCOTUS to challenge 'navigability' under the RHA. Less the Fifth being batshit crazy, more destroying federal regulation.
And does anybody believe that the President of the USA has immunity? The same individual who was elected in our first election in 1789! Do the math, people, 1776 + 14 = 1790!! Nobody met the residency requirements back then, and apparently most people don’t give a shit. THE PRESIDENT STARTED OFF ABOVE THE LAW.
OK, so in Texas actually having boats navigate the waters of a river doesn't mean the water is "navigable?" Got it. (I see what they are doing with "direction" but still.....)
True. They've tried that before. At this moment we're just fighting to make sure the red states will be seceding from the Union rather than being in control of it. Alas it's better to face an insurrection than a regime.
The hell with navigability - abbot put up fucking Saw traps in the Rio Grande. People have already died, including one child. He should be under criminal indictment, for both this and trafficking humans with his shipping migrants out of his state.
If pieces of shit like him can continue to act with impunity, these problems will only get worse.
Exactly two months ago, I commented - I don't recall where - thus (edited for length):
"Has it occurred to anyone that there is a reason referring to undocumented immigrants as an 'invasion" has 'become common currency among the bigots? That there is more to it than red-meat fear-mongering?
"Could it be related to Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution which says 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion OR INVASION the public safety may require it?'
"Call me paranoid, but these days paranoia seems to be reasonable caution."
I was told that I was overwrought, that was extremely unlikely. Now, with a 5th Circuit judge invoking Section 10 and the right of a state to "wage war" when faced with "invasion," I'm feeling less paranoid than prescient.
Whew!! I need a drink. Tequila, preferably.
I understand the messaging, but the actual content of the No Kings Act leaves a bit to be desired in my view. But keep up the reform proposals, including Whitehouse's statutory term limit bill.
I'm not sure what you are responding to here.
Odd that you’re not including Trump the orange skinned one in your list of criminals as he is the biggest offender. Or is that to be assumed? Just curious…
Sorry, missed that.
Trump is the first to stand trial because he is actually a criminal, a con artist of the highest order. He uses all the tricks in the book to deceive and cheat the American people. He needs to be further prosecuted in my opinion for his billions in emoulments. He exhausted every legal channel to overturn a free and fair election and then rallied a riot to obstruct the certification, and almost got his VP hung by a lynch mob. That is a CRIME against the American people's interests. There is only bald-faced self interest involved in Trump's cases, while at least the other Presidents made decisions that actually tried to protect Americans or American interests. Not that those decisions were always the best or most honest ones, in fact, many decisions were despicable, but this overt immunity ruling is absolutely ridiculous, allowing no recourse to stop a "Mad King" and must be overturned.
History has made them accountable. It was Truman, a democrat who dropped the Abombs, and FDR who rounded up Japanese American citizens and put them in concentration camps. Like I said, some acts were despicable, but those decisions were based on protecting American citizens in wartime when already hundreds of thousands of Americans had already died fighting WWII. I personally think its the worse decision ever made. Wasn't it Truman who said the buck stops here? And other citizens were afraid of enemy infiltration. Fear itself drives many BAD decisions, which is why Trump has been so effective in his grifting, calling migrants coming to the border "an invasion" and proclaiming a "Wall" would fix the problem. George Washington never called for the mass incarceration or vengeance on the Tories. Abraham LIncoln never called for executions of Southern generals for their part in leading the rebellion of the southern states, an amendment to the Constitution prevented them from holding federal office, as it should have done to Trump. But no going back, just forward, and we have to find the legal way to overturn this immunity decision and limit the power of the court to overlook their lack of regard for precedent.
The No Kings Act is in response to a Supreme Court ruling that immunizes presidents in various respects from criminal punishment. The bill reaffirms a basic principle that presidents are liable for their crimes.
You referenced something about deportations. That adds to the non sequitur nature of the comment. It is not a crime to "deport" people per se. I'm also not going to try to debate "who's worse" or "the same" or whatever. But I'd toss out there that Nixon resigned.
Excellent summary of all the cases and how screwed up it all is.
My concern is Thomas issued an invitation to challenge federal oversight of our nation's river systems. It seems to me the Fifth is setting this up for SCOTUS to challenge 'navigability' under the RHA. Less the Fifth being batshit crazy, more destroying federal regulation.
I mean, it's this. In short, it's both. https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-conservatives-made-clear-they
FYI: I added a paragraph up top connecting these stories explicitly. Thanks!
The fifth is overseen by Mr. Bulshito, perhaps a fraternal twin of Mr. Ginni.
And does anybody believe that the President of the USA has immunity? The same individual who was elected in our first election in 1789! Do the math, people, 1776 + 14 = 1790!! Nobody met the residency requirements back then, and apparently most people don’t give a shit. THE PRESIDENT STARTED OFF ABOVE THE LAW.
OK, so in Texas actually having boats navigate the waters of a river doesn't mean the water is "navigable?" Got it. (I see what they are doing with "direction" but still.....)
True. They've tried that before. At this moment we're just fighting to make sure the red states will be seceding from the Union rather than being in control of it. Alas it's better to face an insurrection than a regime.