Another day, another idiot judge

[Into the Night]

So, Trump over the US Constitution.

No one claimed Trump supercedes the Constitution, Hugo.
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

 

[Hume]

No one claimed Trump supercedes the Constitution, Hugo.
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!

fuck you

 

[Hume]

You can't blame your problem on anybody else, Hugo.

fuck you

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What is the point of a hearing when the outcome is known? He was convicted of a crime, given an order of deportation as a result. End of issue. His asylum hearing is a moot point.

OK. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. This is your standard - if you don't follow the law then there is no point in a hearing.

The law says all persons are supposed to get due process. Does that mean that we don't need a hearing to find that the people that denied that due process violated the law? Can we start jailing persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since it's clear they denied someone due process in violation of the law? Can we start deporting persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since violating the law means they can be deported?

This is where you are saying we should go.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Without all the drama, the question really is:

Who runs the country, Congress and the President, or unelected district court judges?

I would say the question is: do Congress and the President have to follow the Constitution they took an oath to uphold?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

OK. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. This is your standard - if you don't follow the law then there is no point in a hearing.

Wrong. If you commit a crime, are tried and convicted of it, and get an order of deportation, your request for asylum is denied by being tossed as one of the byproducts of that. No hearing because you fucked away the conditions necessary to get an asylum hearing.

The law says all persons are supposed to get due process. Does that mean that we don't need a hearing to find that the people that denied that due process violated the law? Can we start jailing persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since it's clear they denied someone due process in violation of the law? Can we start deporting persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since violating the law means they can be deported?

This is where you are saying we should go.

He got due process. He was arrested for a crime, tried and convicted. The government as one of the penalties assessed was deportation due to his being a foreign national. No asylum hearing for you.

You make a fallacy of omission dragging Trump into this as an example. He is a citizen so deportation won't be a penalty regardless of what crime(s) he has or may commit.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, who put you in charge of deciding what is and isn't common sense?

People are in charge of common sense, Normy.

What about people whose idea of common sense differs from yours?

You either have it, or you don't Normy.

Should we always put you ahead of everyone else?

What you brush off as bureaucratic procedure, is really adherence to the rule of law. You think because you disagree with some laws they don't need to be adhered to.

You despise the law, Normy.

Typical trumper simpleton who can't see the forrest for the trees.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns are always capitalized. Misspelled words.
Cliche fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Wrong. If you commit a crime, are tried and convicted of it, and get an order of deportation, your request for asylum is denied by being tossed as one of the byproducts of that. No hearing because you fucked away the conditions necessary to get an asylum hearing.

He got due process. He was arrested for a crime, tried and convicted. The government as one of the penalties assessed was deportation due to his being a foreign national. No asylum hearing for you.

You make a fallacy of omission dragging Trump into this as an example. He is a citizen so deportation won't be a penalty regardless of what crime(s) he has or may commit.

It seems its you that is making the fallacy of omission here by claiming conviction for one crime means you get no due process for any other legal process.

What is to prevent the government from simply claiming someone has been convicted of a crime whether they have been or not? Then based on that claim without a fact finder looking at the evidence they can deport whether the claim is true or not.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, who put you in charge of deciding what is and isn't common sense?

What about people whose idea of common sense differs from yours?

Should we always put you ahead of everyone else?

What you brush off as bureaucratic procedure, is really adherence to the rule of law. You think because you disagree with some laws they don't need to be adhered to.

Typical trumper simpleton who can't see the forrest for the trees.

There is no law that requires a hearing of any kind before someone is deported.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It seems its you that is making the fallacy of omission here by claiming conviction for one crime means you get no due process for any other legal process.

What is to prevent the government from simply claiming someone has been convicted of a crime whether they have been or not? Then based on that claim without a fact finder looking at the evidence they can deport whether the claim is true or not.

Reductio ad absurdum argument. The guy was convicted of a crime and ordered deported. He got his due process. His asylum hearing is moot as a result of that.

 

[Into the Night]

It seems its you that is making the fallacy of omission here by claiming conviction for one crime means you get no due process for any other legal process.

What is to prevent the government from simply claiming someone has been convicted of a crime whether they have been or not? Then based on that claim without a fact finder looking at the evidence they can deport whether the claim is true or not.

No hearing or court trial is required before deportation.

 

[Into the Night]

If you say so.

He does...and he's right.

Trump is ignoring due process.

Define 'due process'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You OTOH, have probably been a defendant in the system several times and in each instance, demanded every due process right you felt you were entitled to and probably some you weren't.

But when it comes to some immigrant to whom the Constitution also guarantees due process, you bitch and complain that theirs should be denied.

You are a massive hypocrite of the highest order.

Define 'due process'.

 

[Into the Night]

OK. Let's take this to the logical conclusion. This is your standard - if you don't follow the law then there is no point in a hearing.

Trump is not breaking any law.

The law says all persons are supposed to get due process.

He did.

Does that mean that we don't need a hearing to find that the people that denied that due process violated the law?

Random words. No apparent coherency.

Can we start jailing persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since it's clear they denied someone due process in violation of the law? Can we start deporting persons working in the Trump administration without a hearing since violating the law means they can be deported?

A hearing is not required for someone to be deported, Poorboy.

This is where you are saying we should go.

Already there. No hearing is required before someone is deported.
Most get one anyway, but it's not required.

 

[Into the Night]

I would say the question is: do Congress and the President have to follow the Constitution they took an oath to uphold?

They are. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!