https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...BBnb7Kz#page=2
The link speaks for it’s self.
This isn’t the end, but it sure is a good start.
- Jackie S
- 09-11-2019, 06:14 PM
- themystic
- 09-11-2019, 06:28 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...BBnb7Kz#page=2My next trip to DC, in a few months, Im going to stay at Trumps hotel. I'm going to ask every hotel employee for ID. If they want over here they find a way. Its the people who hire them that are really the problem
The link speaks for it’s self.
This isn’t the end, but it sure is a good start. Originally Posted by Jackie S
- friendly fred
- 09-11-2019, 07:24 PM
My next trip to DC, in a few months, Im going to stay at Trumps hotel. I'm going to ask every hotel employee for ID. If they want over here they find a way. Its the people who hire them that are really the problem Originally Posted by themysticI agree with you my brother. Motherfuckers who don't hire real Americans (whether born here or legal migrants) are a large portion of the cause of illegal immigration and as such should feel extreme guilt when American citizens are unable to get a good paying job.
- dilbert firestorm
- 09-11-2019, 08:35 PM
appeals court also threw out the another nationwide ban by Judge Tigar.
Tigar should be impeached for judicial abuse.
Tigar should be impeached for judicial abuse.
- Yssup Rider
- 09-11-2019, 10:50 PM
Hold that Tigar!
Tigar’s father is a big deal in these parts. I bet he could beat up Trump Mano a Mano.
Tigar’s father is a big deal in these parts. I bet he could beat up Trump Mano a Mano.
- dilbert firestorm
- 09-11-2019, 10:57 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 09-11-2019, 10:59 PM
- bb1961
- 09-11-2019, 11:03 PM
Hold that Tigar!You love and encourage physical violence...we all know that Mr. Gaffe.
Tigar’s father is a big deal in these parts. I bet he could beat up Trump Mano a Mano. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Why don't you take your nonsense and violence off this board and somewhere else...you're not wanted here.
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INTELLECT TO ARGUE WITH!! JUST LIKE YOUR ANTIFA FRIENDS...IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM WITH IDEAS, VIOLENTLY ASSAULT THEM!!
- oeb11
- 09-12-2019, 06:57 AM
- nevergaveitathought
- 09-12-2019, 07:05 AM
big Hollywood's yard guys and maids need careful scrutiny
as does Big Hollywood's collusion with the drug cartels, aiding and abetting all the murders, smuggling and harm to our kids and country by their financial support via their cocaine purchases
as does Big Hollywood's collusion with the drug cartels, aiding and abetting all the murders, smuggling and harm to our kids and country by their financial support via their cocaine purchases
- rexdutchman
- 09-12-2019, 07:10 AM
Lock the doors
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 09-12-2019, 02:44 PM
What if they were prevented from coming in in the first danged place? Put another way, what is being done to prevent it? If nothing much, well then - so what?
Way back in the day there was a pivotal corporate espionage case with IBM. Some guy walked in to a building and was caught taking pictures of schematics and making copies of files. In court, the defense argued and won on the principle that the company had done nothing to prevent it. And that boys and girls began the era of badges, check-ins and layers of security.
Way back in the day there was a pivotal corporate espionage case with IBM. Some guy walked in to a building and was caught taking pictures of schematics and making copies of files. In court, the defense argued and won on the principle that the company had done nothing to prevent it. And that boys and girls began the era of badges, check-ins and layers of security.
I agree with you my brother. Motherfuckers who don't hire real Americans (whether born here or legal migrants) are a large portion of the cause of illegal immigration and as such should feel extreme guilt when American citizens are unable to get a good paying job. Originally Posted by friendly fred
- lustylad
- 09-12-2019, 04:52 PM
The High Court’s Injunction Slapdown
A victory for the rule of law, no matter who is President.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 12, 2019 6:21 pm ET
After three flip-flops in lower courts, the Supreme Court intervened Wednesday to let President Trump’s new asylum rules take effect as legal challenges proceed. This is a victory for a functioning judiciary and the rule of law, no matter who is President.
To review: On July 15, the Trump Administration moved to bar asylum claims from refugees who transited a third country, such as Mexico, without trying to stay there first.
On July 24, Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland, Calif., issued a sweeping injunction that blocked the asylum policy’s enforcement nationwide.
On Aug. 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed that order to apply in its jurisdiction alone, saying Judge Tigar had “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harm.”
On Sept. 9, Judge Tigar reinstated his original order’s unlimited scope, saying the plaintiffs in the case could get “complete relief” only if the policy were blocked entirely.
On Sept. 10, the Ninth Circuit reversed that reversal, issuing a stay of Judge Tigar’s renewed injunction, pending further review.
This is no way to run a judiciary. In seven weeks, federal officials got five different directives: implement, stay, implement, stay, implement. The Ninth Circuit covers California and Arizona, but the other end of the Mexican border is 1,000 highway miles away, in Texas.
Nationwide injunctions are supposed to be extraordinary measures to prevent irreparable harm. Judge Tigar couldn’t make a convincing argument. The plaintiffs are aid groups that help migrants. If the asylum rules took effect in Texas and New Mexico, what permanent injury would befall them? Judge Tigar’s first example was that one of the nonprofits would have to “redesign its workshops and templates.”
He also cited “the need to maintain uniform immigration policy,” saying that bifurcated asylum rules would “create major administrability issues.” The executive branch didn’t agree.
The Supreme Court’s intercession isn’t about Mr. Trump’s policy choices. It’s about the proper operation of the lower courts. The Justices’ unsigned order puts Judge Tigar’s overdrawn injunctions on hold, awaiting Ninth Circuit and perhaps High Court consideration. Courts may eventually rule that Mr. Trump’s asylum rules contravene the law. But until then the Supreme Court is right to rein in a judge who blocks the policy nationwide, with little evidence of irreparable harm and no respect for the President’s authority or duty to protect the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hig...wn-11568326896
A victory for the rule of law, no matter who is President.
By The Editorial Board
Sept. 12, 2019 6:21 pm ET
After three flip-flops in lower courts, the Supreme Court intervened Wednesday to let President Trump’s new asylum rules take effect as legal challenges proceed. This is a victory for a functioning judiciary and the rule of law, no matter who is President.
To review: On July 15, the Trump Administration moved to bar asylum claims from refugees who transited a third country, such as Mexico, without trying to stay there first.
On July 24, Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland, Calif., issued a sweeping injunction that blocked the asylum policy’s enforcement nationwide.
On Aug. 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed that order to apply in its jurisdiction alone, saying Judge Tigar had “failed to discuss whether a nationwide injunction is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harm.”
On Sept. 9, Judge Tigar reinstated his original order’s unlimited scope, saying the plaintiffs in the case could get “complete relief” only if the policy were blocked entirely.
On Sept. 10, the Ninth Circuit reversed that reversal, issuing a stay of Judge Tigar’s renewed injunction, pending further review.
This is no way to run a judiciary. In seven weeks, federal officials got five different directives: implement, stay, implement, stay, implement. The Ninth Circuit covers California and Arizona, but the other end of the Mexican border is 1,000 highway miles away, in Texas.
Nationwide injunctions are supposed to be extraordinary measures to prevent irreparable harm. Judge Tigar couldn’t make a convincing argument. The plaintiffs are aid groups that help migrants. If the asylum rules took effect in Texas and New Mexico, what permanent injury would befall them? Judge Tigar’s first example was that one of the nonprofits would have to “redesign its workshops and templates.”
He also cited “the need to maintain uniform immigration policy,” saying that bifurcated asylum rules would “create major administrability issues.” The executive branch didn’t agree.
The Supreme Court’s intercession isn’t about Mr. Trump’s policy choices. It’s about the proper operation of the lower courts. The Justices’ unsigned order puts Judge Tigar’s overdrawn injunctions on hold, awaiting Ninth Circuit and perhaps High Court consideration. Courts may eventually rule that Mr. Trump’s asylum rules contravene the law. But until then the Supreme Court is right to rein in a judge who blocks the policy nationwide, with little evidence of irreparable harm and no respect for the President’s authority or duty to protect the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hig...wn-11568326896
- friendly fred
- 09-12-2019, 06:20 PM
What if they were prevented from coming in in the first danged place? Put another way, what is being done to prevent it? If nothing much, well then - so what?Please cite the relevant case involving IBM. Intellectual property ownership has been around for awhile.
Way back in the day there was a pivotal corporate espionage case with IBM. Some guy walked in to a building and was caught taking pictures of schematics and making copies of files. In court, the defense argued and won on the principle that the company had done nothing to prevent it. And that boys and girls began the era of badges, check-ins and layers of security. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
Davoll et al. v. Brown October 1845
I need not affirmatively act to protect my rights of intellectual property inside my building if a reasonable person would consider such a building to be private property not explicitly granting public trespass.
Clearly in Texas I could shoot a burglar in my home even in absence of warnings against trespass.
However, for our countries borders I agree we should dissuade illegal immigration with multiple measures.
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 09-15-2019, 05:03 AM
Clearly in Texas I could shoot a burglar in my home even in absence of warnings against trespass.
However, for our countries borders I agree we should dissuade illegal immigration with multiple measures. Originally Posted by friendly fred
In Texas you do not have to prove they are a "burglar". You don't even have to really prove much other than they are uninvited. Your home is your sovereign boarder/space. Personally, I would feel the better odds in court if there was some story line that I did tell them they are trespassing first. But then - a stranger appearing in my bedroom doorway at 2AM is not going to find me being in a conversational mood either.
And then I ponder, how is that much different than people pouring across the US sovereign boarder? Not that I think they should be shot on-sight, as we have paid security forces (which I strongly support) that can round them up - unlike individual homeowners who don't have those resources.