ICE Has Started to Arrest Judges

[Rightguide]

I've not argued immunity.

She did, but she's wrong. How come these comments aren't kicking the thread to the first page?

 

[ll74]

She did, but she's wrong.

She can argue whatever she wants in her defense.

How come these comments aren't kicking the thread to the first page?

Because nobody gives a fuck about your additional commentary on the topic?

 

[Rightguide]

She can argue whatever she wants in her defense.


Because nobody gives a fuck about your additional commentary on the topic?

That doesn't answer the question. Your comments aren't kicking it up either.

 

[ll74]

That doesn't answer the question. Your comments aren't kicking it up either.

I don't give a fuck about the question, so yes... My answer is just mockery of your continued stupidity and irrelevant arguments

 

[Politruk]

She did, but she's wrong. How come these comments aren't kicking the thread to the first page?

It is on the first page.

 

[dmallord]

Prey tell, why is it so important that it appears on the first page? Vanity asking for attention?

 

[dmallord]

I get that you have issues with the administration. The campaign promise was to restore our southern border, and deportation of those who cut in front of the line or abused their privilege was part of that promise. It’s an effective deterrent. Border encounters are down 93%. State and local governments who declared themselves “sanctuaries” from immigration laws are rethinking their policies.

You were among those who said comprehensive immigration legislation was required. Trump said all we needed was a new president.

Trump said he would be a dictator for one day, but that's not true.

He's taken the dictator's route to attack any and every judge who disagrees with him throughout the judicial system, even those he appointed.

You are correct about needing a new president, just not the one now serving.

 

[dmallord]

Coyotes are not human traffickers.

That's an indefensible statement, fella.

They are the arms and legs of the same body that exploits others for profit. Each equally despicable and inseparable, no matter how you want to distinguish them in a court of law and the eyes of the public.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't give a fuck about the question, so yes... My answer is just mockery of your continued stupidity and irrelevant arguments

Why was my post refuting her claim of immunity irrelevant to the argument?

 

[ll74]

Why was my post refuting her claim of immunity irrelevant to the argument?

Because she has a right to argue her case.

Whether you consider it valid is irrelevant.

 

[Rightguide]

It is on the first page.

I see seven of your threads on page one but not this one.

 

[Rightguide]

Because she has a right to argue her case.

Whether you consider it valid is irrelevant.

But she can't argue her case with blatant lies.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Actually she can.
And it's upon the court to decide if she's lying or not.

 

[Rightguide]

Actually she can.
And it's upon the court to decide if she's lying or not.

It's the law that will decide. The law I just posted.

 

[ll74]

But she can't argue her case with blatant lies.

She can argue her case with the evidence provided to the court.

You can provide commentary as you NEED.
.and what you need is to dehumanize HER because you're a fucking misogynistic fuckhead.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

It's the law that will decide. The law I just posted.

Yes, the law must be observed. And it is up to the judiciary to decide when the law has been broken and possibly determine the punishment.
In our understanding of the law, the legislature passes the laws, the executive prosecutes those who have broken the law and the judiciary determines whether the law has been broken.
If a person now stands up and claims that the judiciary must subordinate itself to the legislature or the executive, then this is an attack on our system of values.
If a person stands up and claims that they are above the law, that is irrelevant. Because if a breach of the law has been established, a court will decide on it. And if the person resists, that is a further breach of the law.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, the law must be observed. And it is up to the judiciary to decide when the law has been broken and possibly determine the punishment.
In our understanding of the law, the legislature passes the laws, the executive prosecutes those who have broken the law and the judiciary determines whether the law has been broken.
If a person now stands up and claims that the judiciary must subordinate itself to the legislature or the executive, then this is an attack on our system of values.
If a person stands up and claims that they are above the law, that is irrelevant. Because if a breach of the law has been established, a court will decide on it. And if the person resists, that is a further breach of the law.

The point is, her argument about having "judicial immunity" from prosecution is false because the SCOTUS has ruled four times. In all of the four cases I just posted.

 

[ll74]

The point is, her argument about having "judicial immunity" from prosecution is false because the SCOTUS has ruled four times. In all of the four cases I just posted.

And yet she, a judge, is still arguing that.

And that is her prerogative

And as a judge, she is smarter about the law then you are.

You fucking troll

 

[Rightguide]

And yet she, a judge, is still arguing that.

And that is her prerogative

And as a judge, she is smarter about the law then you are.

You fucking troll

She is an incompetent, politically oriented inferior court judge who consults her politics instead of the law. If she is smart about the law, why did she decide to break it? Why doesn't she know the law?

 

[ll74]

She is an incompetent, politically oriented inferior court judge who consults her politics instead of the law. If she is smart about the law, why did she decide to break it? Why doesn't she know the law?

Nothing about what she has done has been proven to be against the law.

She knows this

You're a fucking idiot and have your bias.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

She is an incompetent, politically oriented inferior court judge who consults her politics instead of the law. If she is smart about the law, why did she decide to break it? Why doesn't she know the law?

How do you know she doesn't know the law?
Do you know something she doesn't know?
How do you know that?
Is what you know here with us right now?

 

[Politruk]

If the judiciary does not have the last word, we no longer have a republic.

 

[Rightguide]

How do you know she doesn't know the law?
Do you know something she doesn't know?
How do you know that?
Is what you know here with us right now?

She says she has "judicial immunity" from prosecution. The SCOTUS and I said she doesn't. How do I know? I posted the reasons in post #219. Go and read it and send her the link.

 

[Rightguide]

If the judiciary does not have the last word, we no longer have a republic.

If the judiciary is corrupt, we may have already lost the Republic.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

She says she has "judicial immunity" from prosecution. The SCOTUS and I said she doesn't. How do I know? I posted the reasons in post #219. Go and read it and send her the link.

In a functioning democracy, she actually does. In court, only the court has executive rights, and judges are free in their decisions.
Of course, judges are also subject to the law, but it is again the decision of a court that establishes a breach of the law.