Re: POTUS-DONALD TRUMP-Already making America Great Again!
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:10 pm
Come on, you crave the attention.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Come on, you crave the attention.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
It is helpful to distinguish between four categories of cases: (1) aliens seeking entry into the United States; (2) aliens outside the United States not seeking entry; (3) aliens who recently crossed the border into the United States; and (4) aliens within the border. The Constitution applies to each category differently.
Trump v. Hawaii provides the rule only for the first category. The chief justice’s opinion describes entry as “the privilege of admission,” not a right. This statement of law comes from Landon v. Plasencia (1982), which Roberts did not cite: “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” This is not to say aliens seeking entry to the United State reside in a constitutional desert. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that an American “person’s interest in being united with his relatives [outside the United States] is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form the basis of an Article III injury in fact.” However, this interest in family unity is not governed by the domestic substantive due process standard under the Fifth Amendment. For example, several amici cited Moore v. City of East Cleveland for the proposition that “the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.” Yet, Moore was not even mentioned by the majority or dissenting opinions. Aliens seeking admission are not due the same process as those already in the United States. (Contrast the facts in Hawaii with Boumediene v. Bush, which found that “noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty [have] rights under our Constitution.”) Likewise, the court found that “Establishment Clause precedents concerning laws and policies applied domestically” are simply inapplicable to the context of a foreign exclusion order. Furthermore, under the rule in Mandel, the court’s domestic precedents concerning the freedom of speech—in which strict scrutiny is applied—are also inapplicable. Yet the court deliberately cabined its analysis “matters of entry and national security.”
Hawaii does not provide the rule for the second category: what rights are due to aliens outside the United States who are not seeking entry. In 2017, the Supreme Court left this question open in Hernandez v. Mesa. In that case, a border patrol agent fired two bullets across the border, killing a Mexican national. After deciding Ziglar v. Abassi, the court remanded Hernandez back to the Fifth Circuit to consider whether damages are available under the Bivens doctrine. On remand, the en banc Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protected “foreign citizens on foreign soil” Hernandez v. Mesa, 885 F.3d 811, 817 (5th Cir. 2018). Hernandez has been appealed to the Supreme Court a second time. Justice Kennedy’s replacement will be able to decide whether certiorari should be granted.
The third category concerns aliens who recently crossed the border into the United States. As a threshold matter, aliens who make it across the border are in a very different position than those outside seeking entry. Without question, aliens inside the United States are protected by the Constitution but do not receive the full panoply of rights and processes that are due to citizens. However, aliens who recently (an ill-defined term) entered the United States may be treated as if they had never entered in the first place. For example, the Third Circuit recently recognized in Castro v. DHS that aliens who are “apprehended within hours of surreptitiously entering the United States . . . cannot invoke the Constitution, including the Suspension Clause,” because they were treated as if they were “‘alien[s] seeking initial admission to the United States.’”Such recent entries may be afforded certain statutory protections—such as asylum laws—but, under this rule, cannot avail themselves of substantive and procedural constitutional protections. Trump v. Hawaii does not shed much light on this specific issue, which the Supreme Court has yet to address. However, as the court recognized in Landon, “once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.” Or, as the court explained in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), “aliens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.”
The fourth category considers the constitutional rights of aliens who are within the United States. In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court recognized that “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Yet that holding merely raises the question of what process is due. Specifically, do noncitizens receive the full panoply of constitutional rights? The simple answer is that they do not. Zadvydas acknowledged “that the Due Process Clause protects an alien subject to a final order of deportation . . . though the nature of that protection may vary depending upon status and circumstance.” In Osorio-Martinez v. Attorney General, for example, the Third Circuit found that aliens with the requisite connection with the United States “enjoy at least ‘minimum due process rights.’” The panel, however, did not explain precisely what those “minimum” rights are. There is also an open question of whether the federal government could expand “expedited removal” procedures into the interior of the United States—currently, regulations limit such removals to areas within 100 miles of the border. Beyond procedural rights, aliens lack certain substantive rights. For example, even lawful permanent residents are denied basic First and Second Amendment rights: They cannot contribute to political campaigns and are subject to a categorical ban on firearm ownership. Other issues are being actively litigated. Some courts have found that a liberty interest in family unity based on the Due Process Clause prevents the separation of parents from their children. And the Supreme Court did not resolve the scope of abortion rights that are due unaccompanied minors who are held in federal custody, a matter with which the D.C. Circuit has struggled recently. Trump v. Hawaii, far from a comprehensive explication of presidential power at the border, leaves these issues unresolved.
I see he's been repeating Trump's conspiracy theory about illegals voting for the Dems.c69 wrote:You have come across as a bit of a cock tbh.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
...is bollocks. I wonder if he typed that with a straight face.zt1903 wrote:
To be fair Roe v Wade, at this point in time is pretty much settled law. And there’s really no compelling reason for SCOTUS to look at it again in the near future.
I don’t really get why people are concerned about Trump nominating a conservative as conservatives on the court trend away from the judicial overreach that you mention. Conversely it is the more liberal justices that have tended towards the idea of SCOTUS as a super-legislature.
Hong Kong wrote:https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... LJULY3.pdf
Whistles quietly under a lamppost in the shade
Hong Kong wrote:https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... LJULY3.pdf
Whistles quietly under a lamppost in the shade
Oh my!Hong Kong wrote:https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... LJULY3.pdf
Whistles quietly under a lamppost in the shade
It's interesting that you have come to that conclusion on relatively flimsy information. Assuming of course that you meant to say massive with chunt.guy smiley wrote:Well, I think that supports the argument that this has been a massive withchunt.Ted. wrote:Oh my!Hong Kong wrote:https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/d ... LJULY3.pdf
Whistles quietly under a lamppost in the shade
Who would have thought.
I find that incredibly interesting.
Claiming he actually wrote his own booksDonald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)
After having written many best selling books, and somewhat priding myself on my ability to write, it should be noted that the Fake News constantly likes to pore over my tweets looking for a mistake. I capitalize certain words only for emphasis, not b/c they should be capitalized!
The pro peace candidatesewa wrote:https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingn ... 52935.html
Apologies if its already been covered in this shitstain of a thread but the orange clown wanted to invade Venezuela
Saw it on Fox of course...Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)
Just out that the Obama Administration granted citizenship, during the terrible Iran Deal negotiation, to 2,500 Iranians - including to government officials. How big (and bad) is that?
BokJock wrote:Just flat out lies - constant never ending falsehoods....
Saw it on Fox of course...Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump)
Just out that the Obama Administration granted citizenship, during the terrible Iran Deal negotiation, to 2,500 Iranians - including to government officials. How big (and bad) is that?
Data? Pfft. Deep state cover up.Jeff Prescott, the former senior director on Obama's National Security Council, called Trump's allegation "absurd and entirely false." Prescott shared with CNN immigration data from the Department of Homeland Security which showed that the number of Iranians naturalized in the United States over the course of the Obama and Bush administrations was relatively consistent.
Clearly a man with his finger on the pulse. Trustworthy news source, not like those damn communists Maddow and Lemon.The unsubstantiated claim first gained attention with a Monday story on Fox News' website that relied on the word of an Iranian cleric who is also a member of the country's parliament.
TRUMP: "Just out that the Obama Administration granted citizenship, during the terrible Iran Deal negotiation, to 2,500 Iranians - including to government officials. How big (and bad) is that?"
So bigTHE FACTS: Trump's claim is baseless. The agreement was signed in July 2015 to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability in exchange for lifting international oil and financial sanctions. Nothing in the agreement addresses the naturalization or immigration of Iranians.
Rather than increase, the number of Iranians naturalized in the U.S. declined after the deal was signed, from 10,344 in 2015 to 9,507 in 2016, according to the Department of Homeland Security. In 2014, the number of Iranians who were made citizens was 9,620. There are about a million Iranians living in the U.S., many with green cards, representing a wide pool of residents who can eventually become citizens.
I'm not convinced, he's since corrected it.Bowens wrote:I'd say Shapiro is right for once. Yet geniuses like Merriam Webster flopped right into the boat. This is what I was talking about several pages back. Certain types (mostly McResistance) obsess over his distractions. He's good at it.
And? It did what it was supposed to.happyhooker wrote:I'm not convinced, he's since corrected it.Bowens wrote:I'd say Shapiro is right for once. Yet geniuses like Merriam Webster flopped right into the boat. This is what I was talking about several pages back. Certain types (mostly McResistance) obsess over his distractions. He's good at it.
That'll show them neo-cons!BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
As demonstrated, you have 0 capacity to understand this stuff.houtkabouter wrote:It’s more likely Shapiro is trolling than Trump was.
It's a tweet about grammar that included a grammatical error. He (and his minions) never tweet shit like that. GTFO.Seneca of the Night wrote:Tbh, that Trump tweet looks like one of the ones that is written by his advisors.Bowens wrote:As demonstrated, you have 0 capacity to understand this stuff.houtkabouter wrote:It’s more likely Shapiro is trolling than Trump was.
Bowens wrote:Some of my best ideas come to me in the shower.
I'd watch what you're putting into your morning cuppa.Bowens wrote:Maddow and Lemon are corporatists. Maddow is especially bad. Warmonger too.
But yeah the tweet by Trump is one of his most bizarre and will surely be proven false.
I’m a bit of a cock irl to be fairc69 wrote:You have come across as a bit of a cock tbh.zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Trump 'angry baby' blimp gets green light to fly over London during president's visit
The six-metre balloon depicting Mr Trump as a nappy-clad orange baby will take flight from Parliament Square Gardens on 13 July.
Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
It's the old free speech for me but not for thee idea and lefties are stepping away from the free speech principle in their droves. Even the ACLU has changed from a principled approach to one based on moral judgement instead.zt1903 wrote:Fundamentally describing its application in decisions you don’t like as “weaponising” the first amendment is troubling rhetoric from the press! It has been no more weaponised as when the other side of the political spectrum successfully used it to allow flag burning.RuggaBugga wrote:Oh please Bucky swiller and smasher of real men...zt1903 wrote:The keyboard warriors are out in force today
Please elaborate, in your own words, on how the NY Times have come out against the first amendment again?
The potential slippery slope in the NYT coverage is the implication is that if free speech allows positions you don’t like then the problem is with free speech.
This article covers it more articulately than I could.
https://quillette.com/2018/07/04/the-ne ... ee-speech/
What the hell is going on here? it's like Carlson is a robot and they've activated his smile and laugh programme.Seneca of the Night wrote:This is pretty amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myozsiCo8BM
This guy is actually a Harvard law lecturer. Is he like Milo's eviler left-wing twin?
The guy took petty corruption to a whole new level. Bit of a rock star tbf.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
They now need to follow on & charge the prick with some of the dozens of corrupt actions he's carried out in his time in office.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
He's being replaced by a former coal industry lobbyist. So you're merely trading one scumbag for another.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
I know - that swamp is only moving in one directionConservative Eddie wrote:He's being replaced by a former coal industry lobbyist. So you're merely trading one scumbag for another.Saint wrote:The weight of ethics violations finally does for Pruitt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44733072
As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.”