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

Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 6620 times)

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

Reply #125 – 2024-01-09, 05:51:07

Quote from: ersi on 2024-01-08, 12:03:03

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?

First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
Third, if you're in the country legally (i.e., have been processed by Border Patrol and have a scheduled court hearing) and I offer you a bus or plane ticket to -say- New York, that is not "trafficking". That is largesse.
And since you only want to consider Florida's governor (and not Abbott of Texas...

), I'd ask how -do you think- the "migrants" got to Florida in the first place?

Of course, your quoted comment poses a false dilemma — and you know it. Is all your legal analysis predicated on self-righteous indignation? So it seems to me... If only you were Czar, eh?

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

Reply #126 – 2024-01-09, 08:35:12

The following are notes for myself. You are completely unqualified for this discussion, Oakdale.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-01-09, 05:51:07

First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.

This is exactly my point, knowing that "conservatives" and "literalists" in USA do not acknowledge the concept of human rights, even though Declaration of Independence of USA takes it "to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's an enlightenment concept, not a World Court concept.

A country that is in denial of this concept is not an enlightened country. It is in plain evidence now that what Declaration of Independence proclaims does not obtain in the legal and moral sense of the inhabitants of the country at all. The bussing of immigrants is a clear example that the moral turpitude is not limited to Oakdale rednecks in the country, but it is a general state of mind among the country's officials and jurists. As follows:

Quote from: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/us/migrants-marthas-vineyard-desantis-texas.html

The flights last month, carrying 48 migrants, attracted international attention and drew condemnation from Democrats as well as several legal challenges. Mr. DeSantis immediately claimed credit for what appeared to be a political maneuver — dumping dozens of asylum seekers on the doorstep of Northeastern Democrats who have resisted calls to clamp down on immigration.

The fact that DeSantis is using the budget of his own state to bus immigrants of another state (since his own state does not have such readily abusable immigrants) to a third state should be an inter-state/federal legal challenge in multiple ways, but this is not the most pertinent point. The most pertinent point is that "legal challenges" in this article refer to lawyers trying to figure out whether there is something legally challengeable in this activity.^[1]

If lawyers are puzzled about human trafficking on the level of governors of states, then clearly USA is a sad third-world dump when it comes to the legal framework concerning human trafficking.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-01-09, 05:51:07

Third, if you're in the country legally (i.e., have been processed by Border Patrol and have a scheduled court hearing) and I offer you a bus or plane ticket to -say- New York, that is not "trafficking". That is largesse.

To reduce the concept of human trafficking as far as possible, its minimum key feature is the consent of the trafficked. Now, many people *want*, even desperately so, to get to a country that has been presented to them as a better country. They are lured by alleged opportunities. So people's want is not the kind of consent relevant to the concept. Trafficking comes in with a trafficker/smuggler who does the allegations of the work/living opportunities and then the opportunities don't obtain at the destination.

Say a pimp promising a different job to someone at a destination while the actual job ends up being prostitution — this is sex trafficking even when the pimp pays all the costs to the destination and provides accommodation at the destination. This should be easy peasy to understand for a ten-year-old, if not a five-year-old. For an Oakdale pimping is a largesse because he cannot afford it, but legally pimping is sex trafficking. In case of the bussing of immigrants, the perpetrators provide nothing at the destination.

DeSantis and Abbott qualify as human traffickers. Human trafficking is a serious crime when regular people do it, but lawyers in USA are puzzled about it when governors do it, so once again so much for being a law-and-order country where people allegedly have rights. Immigrants deserve more adequate information about their destination country: USA is a below-average third world dump where non-citizens have zero constitutional rights and there is no recourse against state officials. African smugglers advertise the EU as the place where everyone who crosses the border receives an Adidas jumpsuit, iPhone and a fully equipped apartment. Sorry, dear immigrants, the traffickers are lying to you.

¹There's a class action lawsuit that has amounted to nothing much thus far.↵

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

Reply #127 – 2024-01-10, 02:23:59

Quote from: ersi on 2024-01-09, 00:35:12

The following are notes for myself. You are completely unqualified for this discussion, Oakdale.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL
First, the U.S. is not subject to the so-called World Court. So, your "serious charge" amounts to nothing more than impotent moralizing.
Second, immigrant status is not conferred by mere aspiration.
This is exactly my point, knowing that "conservatives" and "literalists" in USA do not acknowledge the concept of human rights, even though Declaration of Independence of USA takes it "to be self-evident that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's an enlightenment concept, not a World Court concept.

A country that is in denial of this concept is not an enlightened country. It is in plain evidence now that what Declaration of Independence proclaims does not obtain in the legal and moral sense of the inhabitants of the country at all.

Human rights? Another symptom of your self-righteousness: You believe everyone in the world has the right to residence and citizenship anywhere they choose... Why? It's certainly not enlightenment. It's Soros-style agitprop.
How do you determine that residence and citizenship are inalienable? Hand-waving?
No. You just want to keep the argument going, and this red herring is just a means to that end. It doesn't matter that it's nonsensical!

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

Reply #128 – 2024-01-10, 07:21:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-01-10, 02:23:59

Human rights? Another symptom of your self-righteousness: You believe everyone in the world has the right to residence and citizenship anywhere they choose... Why? It's certainly not enlightenment. It's Soros-style agitprop.
How do you determine that residence and citizenship are inalienable? Hand-waving?
No. You just want to keep the argument going, and this red herring is just a means to that end. It doesn't matter that it's nonsensical!

Oh dear, you have not learned your fallacies properly. Your reading comprehension is F as usual.

My point was that DeSantis and Abbott are engaged in human trafficking. Human trafficking is a crime. Crimes should be prosecuted in a law-and-order country. Also, human rights reads straight in the Declaration of Independence of USA.

Your attempt to sidetrack from this by attributing the concept of human rights to Soros instead is a red herring. You are using logical fallacies to compensate for your lack of facts, but this is not going to work. Just keep on cheering crimes and criminals - when they are of your own party, you hyperpartisan hypocrite.

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

Reply #129 – 2024-03-12, 18:47:58

This one, restoring Trump to presidential candidacy in Colorado, may yet take the cake for being the worst SCOTUS decision ever. It's all the more tragic because it was formally unanimous. ^[1] And some comments were unwarranted, such as the one saying that the court is turning "the national temperature down" on a politically charged issue. How do you turn the temperature down by enabling an insurrectionist?

The ruling is flatly wrong. The constitution, Amendment 14 Section 3, says that insurrectionists do not belong to state office. This is how straightforward it is. How was it possible to mess this up? The court focused on Section 5 which says, in full, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." From this the court decided that the states cannot apply the sections of the amendment on their own. However, in reality the states have much liberty and variety in applying for example Section 1, the citizenship and civil rights section.

Moreover, we are talking about a candidate of the presidential elections. Had SCOTUS members read the constitution about presidential elections, instead of relying on stupid political propaganda, they'd know that such a thing as a candidate of presidential elections is not prescribed to the states by the constitution. Entire USA is widely brainwashed into thinking that the voting population choose the president. This is false. According to the constitution, the states appoint electors and the only requirement for the presidential candidates, insofar as the electors are concerned, is that at least one of them is not from the same state as the electors are. So, essentially, Colorado was in full liberty to remove Trump from candidacy, have a list of candidates as they themselves please, and instruct their electors as they please. If constitution matters, that is. To SCOTUS something else matters.

Now, what did Colorado do when this ruling was handed down to them by SCOTUS? Did they whine like liberals that their rights and liberties are being trampled on? That it is a witch hunt and persecution? No. They put Trump back on the ballot and bowed themselves to the SCOTUS idiocy in the name of formally upholding the rule of law. This is squarely contrasting to Trump's behaviour, who in every indictment against him whines like a liberal that his rights and liberties are being trampled on, that it is a witch hunt and persecution, while himself being an insurrectionist who cares nothing about the rule of law.

Also, SCOTUS deployed some technicalities in taking Trump's absolute immunity argument for consideration in order to delay the documents investigation case. Thus SCOTUS aims to ensure that Trump not only remains on the ballot as an insurrectionist, but also as the thief and distributor of state secrets, an asset of foreign powers.

SCOTUS evidently has decided that USA is ripe for doom and Trump is up for the job. However, according to reasonable projections, Biden will win, if he survives until inauguration. But I'd say that even when Trump loses, it is a very bad mark on USA that the country's highest justices stepped in to prevent justice from happening.

¹In reality, the assenting comments sounded occasionally close to dissent. There is evidence of actual dissent according to those who have examined the metadata of the document.↵