Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    41535
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. I dislike Kubiks.
  2. We do have middles, ladies.
  3. Give em the business, ladies.
  4. Collis' religious liberty clinic sounds frightening, but to his/its credit, they seem to be representing a lot of non-judeo-christian parties.
  5. That is a more academic outgrowth of the Civitas Institute. Collis is a Morm, although I see some of his scholarly work is praised by non-right-wing sources. Regnerus has written some scorchingly anti-LGBTQ stuff. This is a bunch of Nazis. Also, so much for the idea that conservative viewpoints aren't represented at UT.
  6. Not to mention, which is a more clear and present danger at this point? Some kind of Muslim takeover of the USA and the imposition of Sharia law? Or the accretion of undue and unlawful executive power and the unchecked exercise of it? You good with that under a Democratic or Muslim administration @Chopped @Screwed?
  7. You wouldn't know her, she's from Canada.
  8. What evidence do you have that Islam is taking over America, or Europe for that matter? And why are we talking about Muslims when the topic was Sergio?
  9. Can't find it now, but lawfare or justsecurity had an article about how the presidential immunity decision really fucks up the chain of command. Because every presidential decision pursuant to commander-in-chief powers is presumptively if not conclusively immune from prosecution, an unlawful order from POTUS will never be adjudicated as such. Therefore, officers confronted with an unlawful order from POTUS are unlikely to be vindicated, at least in the form of POTUS being adjudged guilty of issuing an unlawful order. Particularly at the highest levels of the armed forces. Junior officers can still be vindicated from unlawful orders of superiors under POTUS. Quite problematic and frightening.
  10. Looks like it might be the same guy photographed earlier in another act of heresy. IIRC he was a Presby minister also.
  11. There's a problem with this whole unpredictability thing. It might work out ok with enemies sometimes. But a rational counterparty, that is, our allies, don't want to deal with an unpredictable asshole. It's a great way to be shunned by allies and enemies alike.
  12. Well, your ancestors were white, were they not?
  13. Also, kind of an interesting note. In Trump's speech to "the Navy" at Norfolk this weekend, he paid some lip service to the notion that "everyone wants free immigration, it's a nice thing, but we can't have it." So it would appear that criticism of mass deportation may be hitting home a little bit.
  14. Well, lookit you Mr. Pollyanna. Someone put benzedrine in your cornflakes this morning? Maybe some ecstasy in your full English?
  15. Rationals know it's huge. But the idiots that comprise approximately half of this country do not know who is Stephen Miller or what he's about. That much is true.
  16. Agreed. He doesn't know what plenary means, other than unlimited and unchecked.
  17. Oh, she's right. Authority delegated by Congress is not plenary, by definition. Theoretically, at least, Congress can revoke it or place limitations on it and it is therefore not plenary.
  18. Let's flesh out this legalism some. Because that's all you people are relying on here, technical legalism. Using the "warrant in Denton County" scenario. If you have a warrant for your arrest somewhere, one of two things is going to happen: that jurisdiction takes your crime seriously enough that they mount up the MRAP and battle rattle and come serve your ass with it. OR, you get a traffic ticket or some other LE encounter that results in the warrant being served upon you. If neither of those things happen in 23 years, odds are damn good that warrant is going to go away. If nothing else, Denton County is probably not going to bother moving it from IT system to IT system because, if neither of the above scenarios involving serving that warrant have occurred in 10+ years, who gives a shit, which is a layman's interpretation of the doctrine of laches, discussed below. Second, if a 23 year old warrant is served and you appear in court, the judge is pretty likely to be highly skeptical. Although any statute of limitations is probably tolled by the filing of a complaint and the subsequent issue of a warrant, there is a concept in the law of laches, that recognizes the fundamental unfairness of "resting on your rights." It also recognizes and embodies the difficulties of trying a case where the events and evidence of them occurred in the distant past. On the flip side, it's not great to sit around and hope you don't get served, or just exist in ignorance of the warrant, but it surely happens. Also, there's evidence here that Sergio made efforts to clear up his immigration status. Additionally, Sergio's deportation order wasn't a criminal matter. Yes, unlawful entry, first time, can be a crime, but for decades it has not been treated as such. So the criminal warrant analogy is a bit inapt. Finally, what do we want from our immigration policy? To make sure that people living in the US are good and productive citizens, permanent residents, etc. Sure, Sergio didn't go through the proper channels. But there's thirty years of evidence that that is exactly what Sergio was. Does it really serve legitimate immigration policy goals to deport Sergio? I'm going to leave out the sub rosa current immigration policy of confining immigrants to suitably white, English-speaking people with a lot of money. The notion that immigration rule violators should be deported holds some force as long as the government doesn't wait decades to deport. It holds more force if the deportee is somehow unworthy of citizenship or permanent residence, either by criminal history or commission of crimes here, possibly other circumstances. Sergio's deportation, and those of many other worthy immigrants, is supported only by technical legalism. Legalism that this administration is famous for following and obeying. Again, not mentioning that whole racism thing.
  19. I caught the clit first time around, which evidently caused me to miss the white power.
  20. Chopped probably ought to get banned for creating a likelihood of confusion with Chopper, in violation of 15 USC 1025(a) the laws of the State of Texas.
  21. But why do we need to deport the guy? He's not a criminal. Biden didn't let him in. Why do we need to disrupt the status quo of 30 some odd years?
  22. Whiskey Pete gonna have some problems with them. Enchiladas y mas, mucho mas.
  23. Gee, Tomi looking a little less synthetic these days. She's still plastic shittastic.
  24. Dunno why that's any big deal, they've been pretending that Trump has plenary authority over all sorts of shit. Technically, legally speaking, it is amusing to cite a section of US Code (a statute passed by Congress), when stating POTUS has plenary authority. If Congress has to grant it, it's not plenary.
×
×
  • Create New...