Judge Roll
-
Oh my God.
-
Oh my God.
-
Mine was too.
-
>>I'm not seeing the "distasteful" in handing out T-shirts that say "Together we stand" - or whatever they said. That hardly gets me going.>>
"Together we stand" against what? Mentally deranged people shooting and killing people?
I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's organization commandere, "Together We Stand" as Obama's campaign slogan in 2012.
To bad all the, "We Are Fam-ily" shirts are torn, stained or already licensed.
-
I don't know, John, as a community after a giant tragedy?
Just a guess.
-
It was a political rally of sorts. It was just a situation to be used and abused, in the favor of Obamao and the left.
Not anywhere near like that business where the left blamed Rush and Sarah Palin and the Tea Party...
but, they leave no op unused, no stone unturned, no chance wasted, no minority interests that aren't worth buying...
blech.
-
Together We Thrive
Tuscon abd America.
FWIW
University says it was their idea and made no profit.
Shirts cost about 60K.
WSS
-
Yes, I think we can lay that one to rest now.
BTW, according to the Safeway security video it seems Roll acted very bravely and saved another man's life at the cost of his own.
-
that judge is the judge who ruled in favor of illegal immigrants, and against a Rancher, and let their lawsuit continue.
Not much of a hero with that much lib bias.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/0...-john-roll.html
-
Cal, he's a Republican. Nominated by the first President Bush at the behest of John McCain. He's a conservative.
When people do things you don't understand (make legal decisions) for people you automatically don't like (illegal aliens) that doesn't make them liberals. It just makes you a crank.
-
Heck, I know he was appointed by Bush. No freakin conservative judge rules
against an AMERICAN rancher, in favor of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
I remember reading about that fiasco. I never said he was a Dem.
That ruling was a sham, I don't care that Bush appointed him or not.
The rancher has had his home broken into, calves killed, trash dumped all over,
and he caught these illegals TRESPASSING on his property. He called the sheriff.
The rancher didn't do anything wrong. The freakin ILLEGALS have no civil rights.
You name me ONE conservative in this country, who says that illegals immigrants have
the rights of American citizens. If they DID, you would not be FREAKIN ALLOWED TO KICK THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
I just don't know where our country is headed, but I think we're headed for big, big, big trouble...
-
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
-
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
Wait. Don't you say you want judges making decisions based on the law, not on their personal feelings or political preferences?
And are you, Cal, really attacking a judge's legal reasoning? None of the reasons you just mentioned have anything to do with the law. They're just your personal preferences.
Your personal preferences and sympathetic feelings toward the rancher aren't the same thing as the law.
Not to question this particular decision Heck but of course there's ideology involved in the law.
If there wasn't every SC decision would be unanimous.
WSS
-
This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.
Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.
"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."
When the decision ends up being something conservatives disagree with, they think it's because someone inserted their liberal political beliefs into the equation, as if the Constitution doesn't leave certain gray areas that are subject to different interpretations.
And it's even gone beyond that - now base conservatives think that if you can't find the actual words of something in the Constitution, that means it's unconstitutional. Ex: Michelle Bachman asking Tim Geithner where in the Constitution it says he could bailout the banks.
Well, where does it say you can drill for oil? Where does it say you can tell businesses they can't dump untreated waste into a watershed?
Maybe it's that part where it says Congress gets to make laws about all of this stuff.
-
heck you are comparing oranges to pears in your analogy. I know that is your opinion but lets get real.
Does the Constitution say you have to buy oil?
Does the Constitution say you have to buy insurance?
And when is one judge allowed to create laws because that it is their political belief?
-
"The freakin ILLEGALS have no civil rights."
You think that's true, Cal? Read that Constitution you're so big on.
-
YOU go read the Constitution that you couldn't care less about.
"WE THE PEOPLE", are us.
When it talks about taxes, it's talking about citizens. When it ...
you know. The whole Constitution is about AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Or, do you think illegal aliens have the right to vote...
Iow's, OUR Constitution doesn't apply to any other country on earth.
It's OURs. Illegal aliens with no citizenship here, are citizens somewhere freakin else.
Therefore, our CONSTITUTION does not apply to them.
Let me know if you find that "We the People" refers to people from other countries
who officially don't even exist here, and are criminals right off the bat.
People in prison lost their civil rights because they are... criminals.
Illegal aliens never had them to begin with, because they are already freakin illegal.
Do not confuse "human rights" with "civil rights". Even if it would mean more dependents
, therefore, more VOTES for your corrupted political party.
-
This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.
Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.
"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."
When the decision ends up being something conservatives disagree with, they think it's because someone inserted their liberal political beliefs into the equation, as if the Constitution doesn't leave certain gray areas that are subject to different interpretations.
And it's even gone beyond that - now base conservatives think that if you can't find the actual words of something in the Constitution, that means it's unconstitutional. Ex: Michelle Bachman asking Tim Geithner where in the Constitution it says he could bailout the banks.
Well, where does it say you can drill for oil? Where does it say you can tell businesses they can't dump untreated waste into a watershed?
Maybe it's that part where it says Congress gets to make laws about all of this stuff.
This is the fundamental problem with how the conservative base thinks of the courts.
Ideology, or a legal ideology, and someone's personal preferences and political beliefs are not the same thing. They don't come down differently in cases because of their personal beliefs. They come down differently because they interpret the Constitution or certain statutes or case law differently.
"I believe the Constitution allows this" is different from "I wish the Constitution allowed this."
I think you're wrong Heck.
It seems to me the "conservatives" are all about strict constructionist judges while the "liberals" seek those who see a living breathing document.
They seem to be the ones who wish the constitution says something and strive to make it so.
I think uncle John Marshall (in a nutshell) felt "if it isn't specifically denied then it's not the courts problem."
But (again I'm not speaking of the Roll decision) you don't think everybody on earth should have exactly the same rights benefits anbd responsibilities as US citizens do you?
If so why even have citizens?
WSS
-
No, of course not. Which is why it would be nice if we used words and knew what they meant in here.
Cal said illegal aliens have no civil rights. That's simply not true. They obviously don't have the same legal rights as citizens do, but they do have some civil rights afforded to them in the Constitution.
Is it really too much to ask for the people who yell the loudest about the Constitution to have actually read it?
Here you go, Cal. This is the first section of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
All Judge Roll did was allow a lawsuit to proceed. Then he got lots and lots of death threats from people who are misinformed like Cal and don't understand how the man was simply doing his job.
And no, you're not right about the other stuff either. Whether or not you think the Constitution is set in stone or a living document that evolves, you're going to find judges who interpret the language that is already there differently.
-
Cal, any response? That's the 14th Amendment of the Constitution laying out some basic civil rights for anyone who happens to be in our country.
You said illegal alien have no civil rights. Were you wrong?
Judge Roll didn't decide the case in the plaintiff's favor, but decided that there was enough evidence that the illegal aliens' rights may have been violated to allow the case to continue. How was he wrong to do that?
Also, how does a Republican and a conservative judge show a liberal bias? Do liberals hypnotize him into thinking something he doesn't? How does that work?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login