Skip to main content
Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 21365 times)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #100
And you're unaware that the House January 6th Committee's hearings are being aired live
As we all know, that would've never happened 40 years ago — oh, wait. ;)

https://live.house.gov/
http://www.dekamer.be/media/index.html?language=nl&sid=55U2976
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/plenaire-zaal

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #101
oh, wait.  ;)
As I said (and you ignored?), the so-called Committee abrogates the rules of the House of Representatives — and was meant to: It's not a fact-finding (in furtherance of needful legislation) body: It's an infomercial generating consulti for the Democrat Party, a campaign expenditure that our "finance laws" will overlook, 'cause -ya know- it's Dems, eh? :)

Didya see what Pelosi was doing, instead of attending? :)

(I couldn't make heads nor tails of the links you posted... Give me the gist, please?:)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #102
As I said (and you ignored?), the so-called Committee abrogates the rules of the House of Representatives
If I ignored it, it's because you didn't say it. Which rules are abrogated by whom? I can trivially find some random hearing from 1995 or from 1946 because these things are almost always open to the public.[1] A quick search suggests the first televised broadcast of American congressional hearings was in 1951 and I know for a fact they've been a mainstay ever since. I assume you've heard of some highlights like McCarthy and Watergate.

I'm not commenting on whether it's desirable to treat politics as a soap opera, but it's a tradition dating back 50 years, arguably 70. What is it that the Democrats are doing other than not being Republicans?
Would you really quibble that a hearing from 1946 or from 1879 wasn't televised? But if so, that's what the next few sentences are for.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #103
Special committees are comprised of members selected by their party's leadership: House Speaker Pelosi rejected the Republican members proposed by Leader McCarthy....and went on to "construct" a purely partisan panel. For that -as far as I can tell- there's no precedent.
And what, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of said committee?[1]
It's political purpose is straightforward: Prevent Donald J. Trump from running in '24! :) How is that a legitimate aim of a House committee?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #104
So to summarize, you concede that being aired live is nothing unusual.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #105
Special committees are comprised of members selected by their party's leadership: House Speaker Pelosi rejected the Republican members proposed by Leader McCarthy.
This is not how it went. Pelosi rejected two appointments (of a total of five or six) by McCarthy for the reason that the appointed persons were among prime candidates to get subpoenaed. Upon that, McCarthy withdrew all of his appointments. So it was not that Pelosi rejected Republican members just because they were Republican. It was House minority (Republican) leader who refused to cooperate with the committee when some of his troll appointments were called out. 

...and went on to "construct" a purely partisan panel. For that -as far as I can tell- there's no precedent.
False. One of the spokespersons of the committee is Liz Cheney, a Republican. So the committee is not purely partisan.

From what I have read, the allegedly "unprecedented" bit is rather
1. that there is a congressional committee where the minority leader has not appointed any members AND
2. the same committee issues subpoenaes.

I have two counterarguments to this. First, assuming that this truly is unprecedented, it is just a technicality of no legal consequence. The committee may be set up and act in an unprecedented way, but nobody has said that there is any breach of law and prescribed procedure in this, so it is irrelevant that it is unprecedented.

Second, I do not believe for a second that it is actually unprecedented. Surely there were more extreme failures of bipartisanship at least during Lincoln's tenure - you know, when the civil war thing happened. So "unprecedented" is most likely just a lie to add fluff to a filibuster.

If unprecedented really worries you, then how's the following for unprecedented: A vice president disagrees with the president about the presidential election results. A president sends a mob on another branch of government to "cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women" (is it legal for a mob to be present and "cheer on" during any congressional procedure?) and says that hanging his vice president is a "right idea".

And what, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of said committee?
What, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of e.g. House Un-American Activities Committee? Examples of non-legislative, emergency-response, ad-hoc or just-so congressional committees abound, if one is willing to have a look. You are just not willing.

You have no point to make about anything. We know consistently everything about America better than you, even though we are far away from it and only mildly interested in the events for amusement purposes.

It's political purpose is straightforward: Prevent Donald J. Trump from running in '24! :) How is that a legitimate aim of a House committee?
To really prevent Trump from running, he would be put on trial and jailed. He is not on trial for his coup attempt (that's the name of his crime), so I'd conclude that there is no genuine willingness to stop Trump.

The committee exists likely for show because it is still felt too widely that justice has not been served (which it hasn't, as the criminal is not on trial). But justice will not be served because neither party in USA wants their president to have to suffer real consequences for overreaches of power. Both parties prefer the president reserve the ability to overreach without consequences. Otherwise who would want to be the president if the job involved any actual responsibility?

Justice would be served by the judicial system. If you had a functioning judicial system, Trump would be in the grinder already. Either you do not have a functioning judicial system (just like you do not have a functioning impeachment procedure) or there is a political purpose to keep the judicial system away from Trump. Justice will only be sham-served by a committee who cannot prosecute and sentence.

There should be no obstacle to a real trial. The more prominent perpetrators of the coup attempt are already in jail, so the instigator certainly qualifies for the same.



Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #108
Pelosi rejected two appointments (of a total of five or six) by McCarthy for the reason that the appointed persons were among prime candidates to get subpoenaed. Upon that, McCarthy withdrew all of his appointments. So it was not that Pelosi rejected Republican members just because they were Republican. It was House minority (Republican) leader who refused to cooperate with the committee when some of his troll appointments were called out.
Pelosi rejected the minority leader's appointments because they were likely to call her (as the person most responsible for the security of the House) as a witness. (For the same reason, Trump's impeachment trial called no witnesses...) But this is ancient history now.
—————————————————
Recent First Amendment cases are non-serious. (Although the participants may feel otherwise.) More consequential was the recent refusal to grant cert:
Quote
April 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday refused to let West Virginia enforce a state law banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools, one of many Republican-backed measures across the country targeting LGBTQ rights.

The havoc wreaked by the recent Supreme Court's Bostock decision in the Title VII case, re-interpreting transgender and homosexual to mean sex will continue apace. (Gender identity and sexual orientation do not alter sex! Yet it becomes ever more clear that the activists will insist -pace Gorsuch- that they do...[1])
Title IX seems doomed.
Yes, I know that that's not quite what he said and likely not what he meant. But such misunderstandings are both to be expected and to be used by the agenda-driven LGBD activists.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #109
Regarding the current transgender attitudes, I'd agree with Paglia, who [said] that she is "highly skeptical about the current transgender wave" which she thinks has been produced by "far more complicated psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse allows". She [has written] that "In a democracy, everyone, no matter how nonconformist or eccentric, should be free from harassment and abuse. But at the same time, no one deserves special rights, protections, or privileges on the basis of their eccentricity."

Far better had Gorsuch insisted that it was the job of Congress to do the right thing, for the right reasons, rather than force a new interpretation on an old law. By trying to be "fair and tolerant" (as is his wont) he's offered encouragement to forces inimical to our civil society.
Please note: The majority of actors in The Movement seem utterly opposed to civility!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #110
Pretty fascinating long story with this Clarence Thomas guy by now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuRx1wARUk

I mention just one good point that was raised in connection with Anita Hill allegations. The testimonies were directly clashing, so one of them perjured. The committee never tried to figure out which one.

 

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #111
US Supreme Court has been engaging in activism - that is in pro-active and pre-emptive meddling in lower court decisions - for at least half a century by now, as explained in some legal scholar's new book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I4tyJGfveM

Moreover, this is what the Supreme Court judges normally do day in day out. They have no other official business besides their important landmark decisions which are rare, few and far between. Worse still, the activist meddling business, different from landmark decisions, goes without explaining and signing the decisions.

The Bulwark interview is good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU8C7WOFPEM

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #112
Prelude... (Lecture given by Neomi Rao)

Since the term has expired and nothing caught anyone's attention (here), I'll make a prediction: The Missouri v. Biden case will be fast-tracked to SCOTUS.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #113
With two states (by different means) removing Trump from their ballots and the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to adjudicate the Trump appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's "decision", what do you expect to happen? :)

(I still think the Missouri v. Biden case is more important... Biden -after all- is only the President. The what is now known as the fourth branch of government -easily described as extra-constitutional- the bureaucracy needs to be reigned in. I seem to recall jax extolling the "virtues" of bureaucratic rule... :)

Why, I ask, is it such a risk to let the people vote? Well, you know it as well as I do: The folks currently in power have, as their primary concern, staying in power!)

But -since you prefer an outcome that hurts America (you're on record!)- your response will be -if at all honest- easily understood... :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #114
With two states (by different means) removing Trump from their ballots and the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to adjudicate the Trump appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's "decision", what do you expect to happen? :)
I honestly expect the injustice to continue. I expect the Supreme Court to reason as follows, literally: "The constitution says to take the insurrectionist off the ballot, but MAGA QAnon crowd (including OakdaleFTL, oh the terror!) might get upset, therefore let's give Trump a free pass and let's hope the voters will make the right choice." Except the American voters have demonstrated themselves making ever stupider choices, such as unconditional immersion in factless partisan sociopathy, believing it to be free speech protected by the first and second amendments of the constitution.

You have an active former insurrection leader pussy-grabbing convicted rapist tax evader business fraudster self-proclaimed dictator wannabe currently under indictment for 91 crimes holding half of America's political spectrum hostage and everybody — the "moderates", the other party, and all branches of government — pretends they cannot do anything. If this pretension is true, then you have no laws, no legal system, no justice worth the name! For the sake of merciful generosity, I would like to assume the pretension is a manifestation of paralysing cowardice. I would like to assume that the legal and judicial systems have the tools to take care of the direct threat to the country, yet they are scared to do their sworn duty. They pretend they are doing their best and it has no effect.

How is the proudly unhinged serial public menace still on the loose after all his court pleas have been found frivolous and his testimonies self-incriminating and many of his closest minion accomplices already behind bars for following his orders? Because there is no law and order in USA when it comes to the biggest crooks, that's why.

After the coup attempt and unanimous partisan acquittal of the impeachment(s), why is the Republican Party still a thing? Because there is no political system worth the name in USA, that's why.

And you are willingly complicit, cheerleading Trump's crimes on this forum. Let your hypocrisy continue this year.

And happy anniversary! (of the insurrection)

Some commentators say that the most prudent thing to do would be to disqualify (and convict) Trump because of the insurrection and then also pardon him to pacify redneck voters (such as MAGA/QAnon/yourself, KKK and Christian Nationalists). In my view the problem with this is that the disqualification would have to be real, i.e. Trump should stay in home detention rest of life to avoid his election theft and interference. The more likely outcome is that, if these commentators got their way, the pardon would have the effect of letting Trump go on and continue as if the disqualification and conviction did not happen, i.e. it would be a judicial procedure of no consequence whatsoever, exactly like all judicial action around him has been thus far.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #115
I was unhappy to see you use the word "unhinged" — at the previous paragraph of your post I was quite willing to simply reply "You are too unhinged to try to reason with." But, of course, you went on! :)

You never seem to be concerned with about silly things like due process, trial by jury, and constitutional strictures... (I'm unfamiliar with the legal system in your country. Perhaps such concepts are unknown there?) If you don't like a man, to you he's guilty of anything you can come up with — or so it seems to me.

It's somewhat telling, that you keep mentioning QAnon — a brief phenomenon of a geek chat forum that most people never even heard of... Perhaps your familiarity of Soviet propaganda (as a recipient?) makes you prone to taking silly conspiracy theories seriously?

But -since you've managed to outline your feelings about the U.S. so extensively- I nominate you to take the position of our former friend R. J. Howie... And I'll give you credit for better grammar and spelling!
You portray a braying ass exceedingly well...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #116
You never seem to be concerned with about silly things like due process, trial by jury, and constitutional strictures... (I'm unfamiliar with the legal system in your country. Perhaps such concepts are unknown there?) If you don't like a man, to you he's guilty of anything you can come up with — or so it seems to me.
Ever heard that delayed justice is no justice? And also injustice is not justice at all. For example, Michael Cohen went to prison for what Trump did, but Trump has escaped unscathed from what was apparently prison-worthy because the one who did his bidding went to prison. Examples of the same pattern abound in the insurrection, Trump's theft of elections, and business fraud. Many convictions in all of those cases, except for Trump. Instead he is being rewarded with de facto presidential immunity that he has no right to according to law.

Conclusion: You are the one utterly unconcerned about due process and constitutional strictures.

As to "trial by jury", I already had to point out to you that it is not an overarching standard even in USA, much less elsewhere. Notably, there is no trial by jury in Trump's New York case — and this is legal!

You are a fabulous combination of a legal cretin (defaulting to a legalistic viewpoint) and legal moron (oblivious of legal practice and content of law) at the same time. You adore Trump so much that, as he says, he could shoot a guy in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and you would still worship him, think of him as the paragon of virtue, embodiment of the holy principles of the constitution (or rather your misconstrual of them). Thus far he has "merely" been impeached twice as the president, led a coup attempt, convicted as a rapist, universally known as a proud pussy-grabber and serial adulterer, and been involved in about 500 (!) court cases related business fraud, tax evasion, financial embezzlement and bankruptcies throughout his career.

I may not like him, but the more interesting question is: By what reasoning can a (failed) principled and legalistic guy such as yourself get around to liking Trump? For me, liking is a minor point. The bigger point is that, if law and order matters, then Trump should have been stopped at the latest when he was pimping together with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 90's. Clearly, for you, liking (more properly adulation and unconditional worship) matters more than law and order.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #117
Slogans and name-calling, and an incredulous bias are what you offer?

The New York civil trial (with no plaintiff!) is likely to lead to a U.S. Supreme Court case... :) While you may not like it or even understand it, the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land; and this use of prosecutorial over-reach is an affront to due process.
But we'll see what happens, no?


Trump should have been stopped at the latest when he was pimping together with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 90's
You mean when he barred Epstein from his clubs? Let's add libel to the list...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #118
But we'll see what happens, no?
So you lay all your love and hopes on Trump because he might become good in the future? Wait, this cannot be. You lay all your love and hopes on Trump because he is a Republican who worships power regardless of principles and so do you. You condone insurrection — as long as it is your guy doing it. This takes some major lack of legal and moral sensibilities.

Trump should have been stopped at the latest when he was pimping together with Jeffrey Epstein back in the 90's
You mean when he barred Epstein from his clubs? Let's add libel to the list...
Wow, you were able to dig up a fact for once! Well done! Trump banned Epstein from his parties in 2008 after Epstein had already become a legally certified pedophile. However, I spoke about 90's, when Trump and Epstein were, hm, very intimate business partners in the same business servicing (themselves first of all but also) the Hollywood & financial & (worldwide!) political elite who were keeping it under the radar.[1] They are both pimps.

Since you are a hypocrite with no principles, you are perfectly fine with a pimp (and a dictator insurrectionist, obstructor of justice, tax evader, business fraudster, serial adulterer etc. etc.) if he is in your beloved political party. But here's a minor hilarious note: in 2008 Trump was a Democrat, so how can you possibly look favourably at the fact that he banned Epstein? Oh, right, you have no principles, therefore anything goes.

Well, you are in good company with Trump: He has no principles either, neither moral, legal or political! His main desire is to do stuff like shoot people on the Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. And to pay no taxes because that makes him smart. Is there something similar you need to get away with too? You can open up here, we won't tell anyone :)

Until now I assumed you still had some way to go until absolute irreversible depravity. I didn't realise I had some way to go to drop all assumptions.
Edit: As a corollary, Trump has/shares dirt (in Russian, kompromat) on those people. This partly explains why the political elite (of both parties) and the judicial system pamper him on issues that would get an average person ostracised and jailed many times over. It's not due process that protects him. It's corrupt privilege. This corruption is part of why it can be reasonably expected that Supreme Court lets him off the hook with all aspects of the insurrection. The other part is that it is a solid political tradition that the president of USA has no accountability, and Trump did the insurrection while he was president, so there. For the same reasons, a similar outcome can be expected in the election theft case (which Trump will naturally appeal all the way to the Supreme Court), but perhaps not (one would hope, if law and order matters) in the case of theft of state documents, because that one he perpetrated while moving out of office.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #119
Are you off your meds, ersi? :) Your hallucinatory world must be fascinating — as a case study!

(BTW: I still prefer DeSantis for the 2024 nomination... Hope my mentioning it again doesn't cause you any "cognitive dissonance"; as if that were a possibility!)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #120
Are you off your meds, ersi? :)
I take this as one of your regular reflexive projections. Being a hyperpartisan hypocrite you think everyone else is a hyperpartisan hypocrite, and also, being on meds you think everybody else must be on meds as well.

(BTW: I still prefer DeSantis for the 2024 nomination... Hope my mentioning it again doesn't cause you any "cognitive dissonance"; as if that were a possibility!)
Sure enough this can be a possibility for you. It fits with your characteristic pattern by adding another layer of compulsive delusion. DeSantis is the Trumpiest of all Republican candidates. Maybe Ramaswamy would be Trumpier, but his skin colour prevents him from getting sponsors and supporters.

However, I have to warn you on two points. First, DeSantis is an actual politician. This means he is professionally guaranteed to disappoint you. He says Trumpy stuff, but he may very well turn around after he gets what he wants. And what does he want? As a politician, he wants the office, and do nothing with it. (On second thoughts, Trump also betrayed every promised value and principle once he got into office - actually he had already demonstrated that he has nothing to do with those values before he got into office -, but his supporters disregard this reality and stay with the Trump cult, so maybe this point will not deter you at all.)

Second, Trump is making sure that in the current Republican party no other candidate has a chance, except when Trump is literally gagged, handcuffed and thrown in jail. Or dies on the campaign trail. So if you want to stick with the likeliest winner among Republicans, it's Trump. But Trump will not be the overall winner of the presidential elections. He never got the popular vote ever once, despite his false claims to the contrary (which again should have been handled in the court system years ago, if law and order matters) and this time the establishment will make sure his election manipulations are actionably countered.

Edit: My own opinion of DeSantis is that of course he should be in jail by now too, for bussing immigrants. Or is there no legal punishment for that in USA? So much for being a law-and-order country then...

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #121
But Trump will not be the overall winner of the presidential elections. He never got the popular vote ever once
Had you the ability and the inclination to pay attention, you'd know that winning the national popular vote doesn't matter...
Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way! (Her husband tried to tell her...but I guess she believed her own hype. :) )
Of course you wouldn't consider the possibility that Trump meant American voters were more numerous and engaged than ever before... :)

My own opinion of DeSantis is that of course he should be in jail by now too, for bussing immigrants.
Why? Once an "immigrant" is cleared by the federal authorities[1], they can go wherever they want! In fact, the constitution guarantees such freedom of movement.

What I consider to be DeSantis' strong points you likely decry — so we needn't go into his record of electoral success and his record as governor. Yes, he's Trump-y enough for me, with the advantage of being eligible to serve two terms — time enough to right the ship!
Processed and given a court date for an administrative hearing...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #122
But Trump will not be the overall winner of the presidential elections. He never got the popular vote ever once
Had you the ability and the inclination to pay attention, you'd know that winning the national popular vote doesn't matter...
I know this. Trump does not. His false argument for his victory is that he got more votes than anybody had ever seen, and he got even more the second time. Therefore "they stole it" even though all the traces of election theft are on him.

Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way! (Her husband tried to tell her...but I guess she believed her own hype. :) )
Had you the ability and the inclination to pay attention, you would actually note that Trump is yet to learn it. And he is making absolutely sure that he learns this in the hardest way anyone has ever seen.

But of course, you prefer factless partisan delusions of grand propaganda. Hillary conceded within a day. Trump has still not conceded to this day. Are you paying attention? No, you are not. Facts are not your thing.

My own opinion of DeSantis is that of course he should be in jail by now too, for bussing immigrants.
Why? Once an "immigrant" is cleared by the federal authorities[1], they can go wherever they want!  In fact, the constitution guarantees such freedom of movement.
So you have not been paying any attention to this one either. The facts are as follows:

The immigrants are taken to where they do not want to go. They are not going by themselves. They are taken to where nobody expects them, i.e. they are literally dumped at the destination. The name of the crime is human trafficking.

And you are completely clueless of the fact that the American constitution has been argued (by "conservatives" and "literalists") to guarantee literally nothing to non-citizens. You really have no grasp on law. Same as on facts.

Then again, this is to be expected in the Trump cult. As you were.
Processed and given a court date for an administrative hearing...

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #123
The facts are as follows:

The immigrants are taken to where they do not want to go. They are not going by themselves. They are taken to where nobody expects them, i.e. they are literally dumped at the destination. The name of the crime is human trafficking.

And you are completely clueless of the fact that the American constitution has been argued (by "conservatives" and "literalists") to guarantee literally nothing to non-citizens. You really have no grasp on law. Same as on facts.
Sigh... Your set of "facts" supporting the human trafficking charge happens to be another of your delusions.

FYI: Resident Aliens are both subject to U.S. jurisdiction and protected by most constitutional provisions — one obvious exception being the right to vote in federal elections. :)
What? I'm now required to agree with anyone you call "conservative" or "literalist"? No thanks: I'm not a follower! And -even if I were- your pervasive and constant bad faith would preclude me from accepting your recommendations at face value...
(But I did note your failure to cite an example or culprit! :) Typical "ersi".)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #124
FYI: Resident Aliens are both subject to U.S. jurisdiction and protected by most constitutional provisions — one obvious exception being the right to vote in federal elections. :)
Your dilemma is as follows: If immigrants had no nominal rights, then USA would be under serious charge due to lack of legal framework for human rights at home. But if immigrants have nominal rights, then bussing them *is* human trafficking and against the law. Which way is it?

Either way I know both the legal situation and concrete facts better than you. You are not in a position to FYI anything. All your years on this forum you have provided very little factual information, but none that was not known already. Otherwise you have only provided so-called alternative facts, which are sometimes fascinating to observe for psychoanalytical purposes.

What? I'm now required to agree with anyone you call "conservative" or "literalist"?
An entrenched Trumpite who did not see the insurrection happening and thinks Hillary is somehow crooked while Trump is not obviously lacks sufficient epistemological acumen to agree or disagree with anything. 

(But I did note your failure to cite an example or culprit! :) Typical "ersi".)
The name and example is DeSantis. Come on, it's directly in the post you were responding to, inside the embedded quotes. Typical Oakdale dropping off half of the content when parsing sentences both when reading and writing. Since you are clearly overburdened with incoming information already, I won't bother you with any further details.