Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Supreme Court: Foreigners May Continue to Adjust Their Status

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=cr726;2585780]You have a point, but you have to click your heels three times before you make that statement again.

    But trust me to do what you are saying you will never want to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

    Interesting argument. You'd be suprised what I'd be willing to pay for. I'd certainly choose to pay for Immigration Reform, REAL reform, over say.....Universal Heathcare.

  2. #22
    A lot of variables come into play with illegal immigration. There are a ton of situations that no one really ever thought about, it is not an easy fix.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2585790]Interesting argument. You'd be suprised what I'd be willing to pay for. I'd certainly choose to pay for Immigration Reform, REAL reform, over say.....Universal Heathcare.[/QUOTE]

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585784]Look I'm not saying what he did was wrong or Bush wouldn't have done the same thing, I'm just saying once it was taken to court {by Al Gore} it was inevitable it would be appealed to the SCOTUS because either side that lost at any level was going to appeal it to the next level until it went right up the chain of command to the final level

    Just like you said, should Gore accept Kate Harris's ruling, Bush wasn't going to accept some circuit court judges ruling either, so once it entered that arena its final destination was the SCOTUS[/QUOTE]
    Well actually many people were very surprised that the SCOTUS took up the case as it was very much a states rights issue that the Federal System does not want to get involved with.

    I think it's quite clear they became involved because if was a Presidential race and the whole Presidency was riding on it. If it was let's say for Governor of Florida, with the same issues they Court never would have been involved, and that's not right. Justice is supposed to be consistent, right?

    Also, I don't know how you can compare a decision by the Florida Supreme Court, with a decision made by Bush's campaign manager.

    My original question remains though. Were you outraged?

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=cr726;2585797]A lot of variables come into play with illegal immigration. There are a ton of situations that no one really ever thought about, it is not an easy fix.[/QUOTE]

    We'll have to agree to disagree then. I believe it is a VERY simple fix. And it starts with actually enforcing the ****ing Law, and using common sense once in a while.

    It's only complicated if you support the illegals or big business, frankly.

  5. #25
    I used to think like you until you actually get involved with an investigation when it comes to immigration the laws are being enforced, but there are circumstances that have to be dealt with. It is not a black and white area at all and it would be tough to make it that way as well.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;2585812]We'll have to agree to disagree then. I believe it is a VERY simple fix. And it starts with actually enforcing the ****ing Law, and using common sense once in a while.

    It's only complicated if you support the illegals or big business, frankly.[/QUOTE]

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2585811]

    Well actually many people were very surprised that the SCOTUS took up the case as it was very much a states rights issue that the Federal System does not want to get involved with.

    I think it's quite clear they became involved because if was a Presidential race and the whole Presidency was riding on it. If it was let's say for Governor of Florida, with the same issues they Court never would have been involved, and that's not right. Justice is supposed to be consistent, right?

    Also, I don't know how you can compare a decision by the Florida Supreme Court, with a decision made by Bush's campaign manager.

    My original question remains though. Were you outraged?[/QUOTE]No, because I repeat, it was Al Gore who chose to take it to court and at that point it would be appealed up the ladder all the way to the SCOTUS

    You say you didn't know that, but I did and so did most of the commentators I listened to at the time, or did you think Circuit Court Judge Billy Joe Bob from Cowtown USA was going to decide the Presidency of the United States? :eek:

    But again, just to be clear, taking it to court was Gore's idea, that was his call, you can say he had to make that call and I won't disagree, but once he took it to court you can't fault the other side for appealing it up the ladder, same as you can't fault Al Gore for in effect appealing Kate Harris's decision

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585836]No, because I repeat, it was Al Gore who chose to take it to court and at that point it would be appealed up the ladder all the way to the SCOTUS

    You say you didn't know that, but I did and so did most of the commentators I listened to at the time, or did you think Circuit Court Judge Billy Joe Bob from Cowtown USA was going to decide the Presidency of the United States? :eek:

    But again, just to be clear, taking it to court was Gore's idea, that was his call, you can say he had to make that call and I won't disagree, but once he took it to court you can't fault the other side for appealing it up the ladder, same as you can't fault Al Gore for in effect appealing Kate Harris's decision[/QUOTE]

    You show quite a bit of disrespect for US Circuit Judges in Ga. They ruled it wasn't a federal case, which was what most of the legal pundits were saying at the time. It would seem to me to be consistent with your recent writing you should have been very upset over them getting involved in something that was a States rights case.

    My point is that it seems that in that case the Justices were looking for law they could apply to that case to get the result they wanted. The majority even said that this decision should not be used as precedent for other decisions it was so bizarre.

    It seems to me bizarre your rant now against the Court for the Habeus decision, while dismissing the Bush v Gore decision as well Gore first brought it to Court so whatever they did was ok.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2585849]

    You show quite a bit of disrespect for US Circuit Judges in Ga. They ruled it wasn't a federal case, which was what most of the legal pundits were saying at the time. It would seem to me to be consistent with your recent writing you should have been very upset over them getting involved in something that was a States rights case.

    My point is that it seems that in that case the Justices were looking for law they could apply to that case to get the result they wanted. The majority even said that this decision should not be used as precedent for other decisions it was so bizarre.

    It seems to me bizarre your rant now against the Court for the Habeus decision, while dismissing the Bush v Gore decision as well Gore first brought it to Court so whatever they did was ok.[/QUOTE]There's something you're ignoring here, QJF, and its a very important point

    What has been the entire basis of my outrage over the habeas decision?

    [SIZE="6"]WAR POLICY[/SIZE]

    I said many times my problem with the decision is that war policy is the exclusive domain of the elected branches

    I understand that the SC has a much wider range of latitude on domestic issues, often times too wide for a strict constructionist like myself, but my main point of contention in regards to the habeus case was "war policy" and the SC not respecting the long standing precedent, war policy belongs to the exectutive and legislative branches

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=cr726;2585818]I used to think like you until you actually get involved with an investigation when it comes to immigration the laws are being enforced, but there are circumstances that have to be dealt with. It is not a black and white area at all and it would be tough to make it that way as well.[/QUOTE]

    As I said, we'll agree to disagree.

  10. #30
    Great point but Gitmo was not only housing WAR related prisoners.

    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585867]There's something you're ignoring here, QJF, and its a very important point

    What has been the entire basis of my outrage over the habeas decision?

    [SIZE="6"]WAR POLICY[/SIZE]

    I said many times my problem with the decision is that war policy is the exclusive domain of the elected branches

    I understand that the SC has a much wider range of latitude on domestic issues, often times too wide for a strict constructionist like myself, but my main point of contention in regards to the habeus case was "war policy" and the SC not respecting the long standing precedent, war policy belongs to the exectutive and legislative branches[/QUOTE]

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585867]There's something you're ignoring here, QJF, and its a very important point

    What has been the entire basis of my outrage over the habeas decision?

    [SIZE="6"]WAR POLICY[/SIZE]

    I said many times my problem with the decision is that war policy is the exclusive domain of the elected branches

    I understand that the SC has a much wider range of latitude on domestic issues, often times too wide for a strict constructionist like myself, but my main point of contention in regards to the habeus case was "war policy" and the SC not respecting the long standing precedent, war policy belongs to the exectutive and legislative branches[/QUOTE]
    Ok this has been debated enough in this forum. I would just strongly disagree that giving HC rights to detainees interferes with the Presiden't role as Commander in Chief, and as such is directing War Policy. The SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2585886]

    Ok this has been debated enough in this forum. I would just strongly disagree that giving HC rights to detainees interferes with the Presiden't role as Commander in Chief, and as such is directing War Policy. The SCOTUS did nothing of the sort.[/QUOTE]You know what, QJF, I wish I didn't defend the Florida recount going up the the SC, if that's what it takes to get democrats on my side, if that keeps them good and mad at the SC and maybe we can all agree its high time someone slaps some sense into these Judges, then I'm with you on Florida, how dare they stick their noses in that case!! :mad:

    :D

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2585907]You know what, QJF, I wish I didn't defend the Florida recount going up the the SC, if that's what it takes to get democrats on my side, if that keeps them good and mad at the SC and maybe we can all agree its high time someone slaps some sense into these Judges, then I'm with you on Florida, how dare they stick their noses in that case!! :mad:

    :D[/QUOTE]

    You're a good guy Ham. I like you. You're funny to boot. If you think that changing my mind will change anything in this country then ok. You got it. Who the f cares about detainees in Gitmo. Let them rot. I'm with you Ham.:steamin:

    Now you think we can turn back the clock and Gore will be Pres and there would be no Gitmo so no HC problem. You see how well that works out? Everybody's happy. That f'n Court. Messed everything up. :D
    Last edited by Queens Jet Fan; 06-16-2008 at 09:54 PM.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2586119]

    You're a good guy Ham. I like you. You're funny to boot. If you think that changing my mind will change anything in this country then ok. You got it. Who the f cares about detainees in Gitmo. Let them rot. I'm with you Ham.:steamin:

    Now you think we can turn back the clock and Gore will be Pres and there would be no Gitmo so no HC problem. You see how well that works out? Everybody's happy. That f'n Court. Messed everything up. :D[/QUOTE]:P

  15. #35
    Take a look at the prisoners of Gitmo.

    [url]http://detainees.mcclatchydc.com/[/url]

    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;2586540]:P[/QUOTE]

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2585544]So, the Supreme Court has taken awat Proporty Owners rights. Taken away the Executive's authority to wage War and handle Prisoners. And now it usurps the Congresses power to control immigration.

    We need immigration reform, no doubt. But is the Supreme Court re-writing the Law the way to achieve it?[/QUOTE]

    +1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us