Why do you allow the lies?

Leonthecat said:
In a way Brad is correct. A zero tolerance annex to any law can make it unreasonable, my esteemed sibling./QUOTE]

Isn't Congress responsible for the passage of laws, dear Brother?

By the failure of Congress to enact new legislation for the President to sign into law, they are culpable.

People affected by an application of existing law are rarely appreciative of the fairness of their apprehension under said law, in my experience.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OR; the solution may be as simple, as not speeding. :whoa:
Click to expand...

If applied to you, and you got a bunch of speeding tickets for going one MPH over the speed limit , you would be crying and screaming about the horrors of living in a strict police state.
The solution is for laws to be enforced in a flexible, prudent, reasonable and humane manner.
 
Leonthecat said:
If applied to you, and you got a bunch of speeding tickets for going one MPH over the speed limit , you would be crying and screaming about the horrors of living in a strict police state.
The solution is for laws to be enforced in a flexible, prudent, reasonable and humane manner.
Click to expand...

OOOOOOOOOOOR, maybe I just wouldn't speed.

Easy/peasy
 
Legion said:
Or, not blaming the jurisdictional Executive for the fact that you were caught?
Click to expand...

The president's extreme reaction of implementing a zero tolerance policy on existing law is his way of strong-arming congress to act by shaming them into submission. The policy is backfiring though and the administration is looking bad in the eyes of reasonable people. Most voters are reasonable people, and no one wants to see breastfeeding babies forcibly torn from their mothers by "zero tolerance" executives of the law, dear brother.
 
Leonthecat said:
The solution is for laws to be enforced in a flexible, prudent, reasonable and humane manner.
Click to expand...

That "solution" is in fact legally questionable, if not indefensible, dear Brother.

If current law as enacted and codified is deemed "too harsh", discretionary enforcement is not the Constitutionally-correct way to address the issue.
 
Leonthecat said:
The president's extreme reaction of implementing a zero tolerance policy on existing law is his way of strong-arming congress to act by shaming them into submission. The policy is backfiring though and the administration is looking bad in the eyes of reasonable people. Most voters are reasonable people, and no one wants to see breastfeeding babies forcibly torn from their mothers by "zero tolerance" executives of the law, dear brother.
Click to expand...


Even the Pope has denounced Trump's policy not to mention US churches.
 
Leonthecat said:
I do, fraternal friend.
Sessions is the perfect henchman to implement the zero tolerance policy because he has zero compassion for anyone darker skinned than himself.
Click to expand...

Sessions is VERY religious .. very evangelical.. which makes it hilarious that his own church has trashed him over this.
 
krudzu said:
Sessions is VERY religious .. very evangelical.. which makes it hilarious that his own church has trashed him over this.
Click to expand...

Should the natterings of a pack of superstitious zealots have any bearing on government policy on law enforcement?
 
Legion said:
That "solution" is in fact legally questionable, if not indefensible, dear Brother.

If current law as enacted and codified is deemed "too harsh", discretionary enforcement is not the Constitutionally-correct way to address the issue.
Click to expand...

What is the constitutionally correct thing and what is the humanely correct thing to do oftens differers in many situations.
Any law enforcement officer will be glad to explain it to you, out of uniform, over a beer.
Executive discretion is not always a crazy idea to those on the front line, brother, nor should it be.
Zero tolerance usually means zero thinking, zero practicality and zero humanity as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top