Round'em up,

[HisArpy]

There is no "and?" You're a fucking idiot and we enjoy making you feel stupid.

And?

 

[HisArpy]

And if that requires other people to live horrible lives Joe Six Pack is cool with that.

So am I. Coincidentally, so are you.

Why is that?

Because your bullshit is meaningless in the grander scheme of life. Don't think so? Check your memories of how difficult it was to buy eggs recently and how often stores had to put up signs limiting how many people could buy at once.

You think any of the ones who were buying eggs in bulk gave a shit about whether you live a horrible life or not? Doubtful. And you can scream and rail about it all you want, but the truth is that when you stand in the way of someone's desires, your needs don't matter to them.

And they're cool with that. Just like you are. Which makes you nothing more than fake news.

 

[Rightguide]

No Trumper is in any position to say anyone else is "intellectually armored by ideology against the truth."

We can always point to you because it's true. Talking to you is like addressing a tree stump.

 

[Politruk]

We can always point to you because it's true. Talking to you is like addressing a tree stump.

Only if you could find a tree stump smarter than you.

Not difficult, in your case.

 

[HisArpy]

Only if you could find a tree stump smarter than you.

Not difficult, in your case.

Exceedingly unlikely in your particular case.

 

[Rightguide]

The AG does not have the authority to deport a migrant if an immigration judge says no.

The Attorney General has the power under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1) to overturn BIA decisions, as well as circuit court precedent, on nearly any immigration case they see fit

See, e.g., Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino I), 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (showing the Attorney General’s broad power to overturn rulings on immigration cases); Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino II), 26 I&N Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015) (same).

Immigration is an Article II function.

 

[HisArpy]

The Attorney General has the power under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1) to overturn BIA decisions, as well as circuit court precedent, on nearly any immigration case they see fit

See, e.g., Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino I), 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (showing the Attorney General’s broad power to overturn rulings on immigration cases); Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino II), 26 I&N Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015) (same).

Immigration is an Article II function.

The guy is clueless. He thinks that if you say it, it can't be true. Especially since he doesn't believe it merely because you said it.

 

[Rebel5soul]

The guy is clueless. He thinks that if you say it, it can't be true. Especially since he doesn't believe it merely because you said it.

Is the moron still claiming he's an attorney?

 

[HisArpy]

Is the moron still claiming he's an attorney?

He says so, but everything he posts is either flat out wrong or so one sided he's acting like a defacto attorney for the Left and creating an alternative reality defense made up of omissions and fake facts.

What he doesn't understand is that a 'defense' is only needed when one is already in the hole and is looking for a way, ANY way, to get out of it.

 

[Politruk]

The Attorney General has the power under 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1) to overturn BIA decisions, as well as circuit court precedent,

No statute can authorize an executive official to overturn court precedent.

on nearly any immigration case they see fit

See, e.g., Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino I), 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (showing the Attorney General’s broad power to overturn rulings on immigration cases); Matter of Silva-Trevino (Silva-Trevino II), 26 I&N Dec. 550 (A.G. 2015) (same).

Immigration is an Article II function.

Silva-Trevino was not a case before a judge, it was an internal proceeding of the DOJ. It has no precedential effect whatsoever. If the AG ever tries to rely on that to reverse an immigration judge's decision, she will be laughed out of court in five minutes.

 

[Rotadom]

Is the moron still claiming he's an attorney?

Are they all rounded up and shipped out yet?

*chuckle*

 

[Politruk]

Is the moron still claiming he's an attorney?

I am. HisArpy is not.

 

[HisArpy]

No statute can authorize an executive official to overturn court precedent.

Lol. Seriously, a ROFLMAO level of LoL.

Courts and Congress are, at times, engaged in a kind of ongoing “conversation” about statutory law. Congress has exclusive power to enact statutes — but when statutory language is unclear, or doesn’t explicitly resolve a factual question that arises under a statute, courts must resolve the issue through statutory interpretation. Congress then may choose to “override”1 judicial interpretations with which it disagrees (so long as the judicial decision is not constitutional in nature) by amending the law at issue or enacting a new law. The power to enact such overrides is core to maintaining democratic accountability for policy.

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/how-courts-do-and-dont-respond-to-statutory-overrides/

I'm really wondering how long you can continue to make a fool of yourself before you realize how bad your rampant TDS driven stupidity has gotten.

Silva-Trevino was not a case before a judge, it was an internal proceeding of the DOJ. It has no precedential effect whatsoever. If the AG ever tries to rely on that to reverse an immigration judge's decision, she will be laughed out of court in five minutes.

Except...

And of course, immigration judges work for the AG as part of the Executive Branch and not the Judicial Branch and have to follow the Administrative Branch's guidelines.

 

[Politruk]

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/how-courts-do-and-dont-respond-to-statutory-overrides/

Error – This page cannot be found​

 

[HisArpy]

Error – This page cannot be found​

Link works for me both as a clicky and copy/paste.

Maybe it's you?

 

[Rebel5soul]

He says so, but everything he posts is either flat out wrong or so one sided he's acting like a defacto attorney for the Left and creating an alternative reality defense made up of omissions and fake facts.

What he doesn't understand is that a 'defense' is only needed when one is already in the hole and is looking for a way, ANY way, to get out of it.

Basically my read as well. His continued repudiation of immigration as an Article II power is all that is needed to support our assertions.

 

[Politruk]

Basically my read as well. His continued repudiation of immigration as an Article II power is all that is needed to support our assertions.

It is for Congress, not the president, to set immigration policy.

 

[HisArpy]

It is for Congress, not the president, to set immigration policy.

Congress creates the Bills (which the Prez signs into law) which delineate and delegate Congressional duties to the Executive Branch. Under those laws, the Executive has the Constitutional authority, power, and duty to set policies which further the laws established by Congress.

So it actually IS the President who sets policy. Just like how Biden set policy with the BATFE about pistol arm braces. Something you approved of IIRC.

 

[DeYaKen]

Hmm, sounds a lot like this.

 

[Rightguide]

No statute can authorize an executive official to overturn court precedent.

You're wrong. Immigration courts are not Article III courts. They are Article II courts administered by Executive Branch authority granted by Congress. You would do well to be better educated on the issue. This is the second time I've had to correct your subject matter ignorance.

 

[Politruk]

Just like how Biden set policy with the BATFE about pistol arm braces. Something you approved of IIRC.

No, I never even heard about that at the time. What are "pistol arm braces"?

 

[Politruk]

You're wrong. Immigration courts are not Article III courts.

But they are bound by the law Article III courts make.

 

[Rightguide]

It is for Congress, not the president, to set immigration policy.

Congress purposely created Article II Immigration courts for the express purpose of removing that jurisdiction from Federal Article III district court. Hence the federal statute citation I provided above.

 

[Politruk]

Congress purposely created Article II Immigration courts for the express purpose of removing that jurisdiction from Federal Article III district court. Hence the federal statute citation I provided above.

See post #198.

 

[rgraham666]

Partisan Nonsense.

Joe Six Pack just wants to be able to live a life without worry.

Since a simple statement didn't communicate my idea I will go into detail.

Human beings are social animals. They live in groups known as societies. Those societies can be a simple as a tribe or as complex as a modern nation.

The main purpose of a society is to distribute power; who gets the power, what they can do with it, and the punishments for abusing it. For most of history that meant societies were based around the principle 'The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must'.

Many, usually the weak, thought this unfair. Some of the powerful came around to this idea as well. This lead to things like The Magna Carta which limited the power of the monarchy. Not that the nobles did this out of any altruism but it was a start.

History continued on that arc. More and more people came to realize that power needed to be limited. Unlimited power causes only misery. Even, eventually, for the powerful.

The modern age, in my opinion, started with the US Constitution. This document laid out a specific balance of power. It excluded wide swathes of the population but it did set the ground work. Over time that document was amended to allow more people to have power.

The point of this history recap is that a free society is a balanced one. In a free society no one has too little power and no one has too much. Which really pisses of the people who want more power, or those who once had too much and want it back.

It's why the current administration is getting rid of the things it is destroying. DEI allowed power to people who until recently had little power. Education and history could lead someone to believe that others should have power. So they are being destroyed. Only the 'right people' should be allowed power.

So, I say again.

Most people do not understand freedom and when they do they don't like it very much.

Why?

Freedom gets in the way of power.