Man gets 15 months in prison for joke post on Facebook

[Flash]

I'm not a lawyer, but don't the courts only rule on present law, ultimately Constitutional law? Congress makes the laws as you discussed elsewhere.

IMO, this is a pure 14th Amendment issue. Not a gender issue. Not a race issue. A basic American citizen rights issue. All citizens have “equal protection of the laws".

That's not always happening in America. The recent redistricting in Texas is a bold example of seeking to make some Texans more equal than others.

That's not in the spirit of the Amendment.

I don't understand your comment about ruling on current law, but a relatively few federal court cases rule on the constitutionality of an issue. Most cases involve interpretation of federal statutes.

It is a 14th amendment issue but it is a racial issue if a university policy gives an advantage to one race (10 points on admissions application). Universities and employers have a lot of flexibility in admissions or hiring employees. A person who is best on paper may not be the best student/employee. How do basic American citizen rights apply to admissions policies as long as the policy does not specifically discriminate against them.

I don't see how the Texas redistricting makes any citizen more equal than others. Redistricting has long been ruled a "political question" because it is done by a political body. The advantage goes to the winning party. Basically, Texas just increased incumbent protection which is very common in redistricting.

 

[Flash]

That is meaningless liberal gibberish and even you know it. Even you know that judges are supposed to base their decision on what the law says, not what they want it to say.

Nothing liberal about it. University admissions policies are educational issues which are reserved to the states. So, whether the Constitution says anything about diversity is irrelevant unless the policy violates some constitutional provision.

The state constitution creates educational systems and and gives the legislature the power to make policies. It may also list admissions policies or leave that decision to individual university systems. The university admissions office administers those policies. At that level they determine if diversity is a goal.

Saying the Constitution doesn't list diversity as a goal for America is a silly statement and irrelevant.

You can't make everything liberal or conservative.

 

[Nordberg]

I told you. Enforce section 1324 title 8 of the US code. That would take away all the freebies and jobs and even housing that illegals now get. They would have to leave. Getting rid of the illegals is very easy and would not cost a penny. In fact would save us $500 billion a year.

I see why you post so stupidly. You know nothing. Illegals get no help. Zip. They cannot vote. Neither should you. They do not get welfare or health coverage. They work hard, do less crime than American citizens and start more businesses. Immigration makes us stronger and wealthier.

 

[Walt]

There is no way to prove the posts came from his personal computer. Digital evidence is always weak. THINK

Easy enough to trace the posts to his home network. Next step is that he continued to post about it. Saying that he was hacked, MONTHS AFTER BEING CAUGHT, does nothing for his case. Clearly, he did not think he was hacked at the time.

Digital evidence can often be stronger than eye witness testimony.

 

[Walt]

Making threats should be legal. It's just words. Do you want freedom of speech or not? THINK

Making threats has never been legal. For instance, pointing a gun at someone and threatening to murder them unless he "give" you his wallet is known as threatening and robbery. It is not incumbent on him to test whether you will go through with your threat. He can treat the threat as real.

Other words that are illegal is hiring someone to kill another. These have always been over the line, including in the time they were writing the Bill of Rights.

 

[Walt]

How many times must we explain this to you. ? When a city calls itself a sanctuary city it is admitting that immigration laws do not apply there. That means the illegals vote.

That really does not. Non citizens are not allowed to vote, whether they are here legally or not. It has nothing to do with immigration laws, it is about citizenship laws. You are wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I told you. Enforce section 1324 title 8 of the US code. That would take away all the freebies and jobs and even housing that illegals now get. They would have to leave. Getting rid of the illegals is very easy and would not cost a penny. In fact would save us $500 billion a year.

Why didn't Trump enforce it? Or Bush?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't understand your comment about ruling on current law, but a relatively few federal court cases rule on the constitutionality of an issue. Most cases involve interpretation of federal statutes.

It is a 14th amendment issue but it is a racial issue if a university policy gives an advantage to one race (10 points on admissions application). Universities and employers have a lot of flexibility in admissions or hiring employees. A person who is best on paper may not be the best student/employee. How do basic American citizen rights apply to admissions policies as long as the policy does not specifically discriminate against them.

I don't see how the Texas redistricting makes any citizen more equal than others. Redistricting has long been ruled a "political question" because it is done by a political body. The advantage goes to the winning party. Basically, Texas just increased incumbent protection which is very common in redistricting.

Agreed they determine the constitutionality of laws but never make them.

Which is why it's always unwise to divide people by race regardless of the reason. It only perpetuates racism. All citizens have a right to equal protection under the law. If they aren't getting it, they have a right to address it.

They took extraordinary measures to nullify minority voters. The entire intent was to eliminate opposing voices. That's not what the Founders had in mind when designing the system.

 

[Walt]

Diversity in colleges goes back to the Greeks, and the liberal arts. I know it has the word liberal in it, but that just means "free person" arts, as opposed to the servile (slave) arts.

The Greeks had many different political systems from democracies to oligarchies, and constitutional monarchies... But all were political in some way. That meant that a free man in Greece was supposed to be able to debate. The liberal arts were centered on debate. To have debate, you must have diverse points of view. There has been quotas and diversity in the western liberal education system for over 2,500 years.

It has done us well. The universities have not always gotten everything right at first, but through debate, and diversity, has sooner or later gotten it right. Other systems, namely the Chinese and Arab systems, emphasized getting the best students without caring about diversity. The problem with this is the best students are judged by the former best students, and so nothing ever changes. The Arabs have the world's oldest universities, which are still pushing outdated thinking. The Chinese were still teaching two thousand year old ideas in their education, up until the communist revolution. It becomes a closed, non-evolving system.

This idea of diversity would have been familiar to the Founding Fathers, but how diverse it has gotten would be totally alien to them. They would expect diverse geographically, socially, economically, and within tight area religiously. So you could have a rich white male Baptist from the South, and a poor white male Presbyterian from North... But a Catholic might be going to far, and a Jew would almost definitely be going to far. Certainly no Blacks or women would be admitted to many universities.

Diversity has grown over the centuries, much like citizenship and voting has grown.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

I see why you post so stupidly. You know nothing. Illegals get no help. Zip. They cannot vote. Neither should you. They do not get welfare or health coverage. They work hard, do less crime than American citizens and start more businesses. Immigration makes us stronger and wealthier.

HAHAHAHA. More brazen lies from the most brazen liar of JPP. The EMTALA act of 1985 says illegals get free health care at ERs.!!!

As for welfare and voting, federal law says they can't do either but the law is simply ignored.

Illegals do NOT work hard. Most don't even have jobs. They live off crime and welfare. They are bankrupting america and that is the plan of china and russia and iran. Our enemies pay the DNC and RNC to support illegals.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Why didn't Trump enforce it? Or Bush?

Don't ask me. Trump could have used this law to remove all the illegals and put their enablers in prison . But he didn't. He promised to rid us of the illegals and he didn't. I am no fan of trump though he is of course better than Pedodent Brandon or the Babbling Baboon from kenya.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Agreed they determine the constitutionality of laws but never make them.

So show us where the consttitution gives the SC power to decide the constitutionality of laws.

 

[Flash]

Agreed they determine the constitutionality of laws but never make them.

Which is why it's always unwise to divide people by race regardless of the reason. It only perpetuates racism. All citizens have a right to equal protection under the law. If they aren't getting it, they have a right to address it.

They took extraordinary measures to nullify minority voters. The entire intent was to eliminate opposing voices. That's not what the Founders had in mind when designing the system.

What equal protection was violated? I'm not defending the TX redistricting, but drawing districts to benefit the majority party is the practice in every state. I'm not sure they nullified minority voices since drawing a district with a majority of black or Hispanic voters guaranteed them representation.

When the founders designed the system they did not even specify how the House members were to be chosen within each state. Many elected all the members at-large. Single member districts were not required until 1842 and even then states ignored that requirement.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Don't ask me. Trump could have used this law to remove all the illegals and put their enablers in prison . But he didn't. He promised to rid us of the illegals and he didn't. I am no fan of trump though he is of course better than Pedodent Brandon or the Babbling Baboon from kenya.

Only a hypocritical cocksucker, probably a foreign spy, would attack one President for failing to uphold the law while attacking another for exactly the same thing.

Sad. Hypocrites really do suck cock.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What equal protection was violated? I'm not defending the TX redistricting, but drawing districts to benefit the majority party is the practice in every state. I'm not sure they nullified minority voices since drawing a district with a majority of black or Hispanic voters guaranteed them representation.

When the founders designed the system they did not even specify how the House members were to be chosen within each state. Many elected all the members at-large. Single member districts were not required until 1842 and even then states ignored that requirement.

Do you think that was what the Founders and other great leaders had in mind when they discussed fairness? Voting? A government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Yes, they nullified voices by ensuring Republican party agenda issues, themselves often racist with Trump, rules the day in multiple districts.

No doubt you and I can agree that life isn't fair, but you and I seem to be disagreed on whether or not our own government should be fair.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/17/texas-redistricting-congressional/

 

[Flash]

Do you think that was what the Founders and other great leaders had in mind when they discussed fairness? Voting? A government of the people, by the people and for the people?

Yes, they nullified voices by ensuring Republican party agenda issues, themselves often racist with Trump, rules the day in multiple districts.

No doubt you and I can agree that life isn't fair, but you and I seem to be disagreed on whether or not our own government should be fair.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/10/17/texas-redistricting-congressional/

They really did not change much in the districts. They had to add two districts and one is Republican and the other Hispanic.

Being "fair" is impossible to measure when making partisan political decisions. Most states are not fair in redistricting. Even those states using "bipartisan" commissions to redistrict have results not "fair." WA, for example, tends to protect incumbents.

The Republican agenda was already in control. They are criticized for using race/ethnicity when they draw the lines and criticized when they don't.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So show us where the consttitution gives the SC power to decide the constitutionality of laws.

It's pretty basic, dude.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Besides you, who else is "us"? I'm curious. I understand if you are too afraid to reply.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

They really did not change much in the districts. They had to add two districts and one is Republican and the other Hispanic.

Being "fair" is impossible to measure when making partisan political decisions. Most states are not fair in redistricting. Even those states using "bipartisan" commissions to redistrict have results not "fair." WA, for example, tends to protect incumbents.

The Republican agenda was already in control. They are criticized for using race/ethnicity when they draw the lines and criticized when they don't.

I believe fairness is part of the intent of the Constitution.

Do you believe the same way?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

It's pretty basic, dude.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Article III Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Besides you, who else is "us"? I'm curious. I understand if you are too afraid to reply.

Judicial review isn’t in the constitution. That practice wasn’t established until 15 years later with Justice Marshall. This is another one of those things similar to immigration law where we’ve been doing things a certain way for so long that it gets overlooked.

In the federalist papers and some of Thomas Jefferson’s plans for the courts it’s clear that they all wanted some form of what we call judicial review today, but there never was a consensus. I don’t know if it was something that the founders felt didn’t need to be in there because it was a no brainer or since they never could reach a consensus they just decided to burn that bridge when they got there, so it wasn’t listed in Article 3 section 2 as a power of the court.

If you haven’t already you should check out some of the articles out there on the feud between Adams and Jefferson surrounding the courts at the tail end of Adams’ presidency. It will make you feel better(or worse depending on your perspective) to see that they were going through the same petty bullshit power struggles that we see today.

 

[Callinectes]

the fuckstick got what he deserved.............it's not a damned joke to fill the public with fear to make a funny

Agreed. This happened a few days before my sister died of that shit, and by that time, we all knew we were in for some serious evil. If I had been geographically close to him, and had known about this, I would have made a serious attempt to kick his ass(I always say I would "attempt" it because too many times I have said "I'm gonna kick that guy's ass" and ended up with my own ass beat).