Sotomayor says she's "uniquely American"

[Damocles]

True, the right to due proccess was established via precedent. Because no illegal immigrant has been arrested for "protesting" does not neccecitate he has a right to do so. The very fact that he is illegal, has no right to vote and therefore no position to redress elected officials, makes clear that "technically" he does not hold the rights as that of a US citizen to protest. And that was my point.

And my point was, there is no law they are breaking by protesting. No illegal would be arrested for protesting because they are not breaking a law by doing so. And they can redress public officials through petition.

They have a right to protest, and won't be arrested for protesting. While they may be arrested while protesting because they are here illegally, it would not be because they have no right to protest.

Again, rights are rights, precedent is set for that. Incorporated rights are rights regardless of your immigration status.

 

[Canceled2]

And my point was, there is no law they are breaking by protesting. No illegal would be arrested for protesting because they are not breaking a law by doing so. And they can redress public officials through petition.

They have a right to protest, and won't be arrested for protesting. While they may be arrested while protesting because they are here illegally, it would not be because they have no right to protest.

Again, rights are rights, precedent is set for that.

If the law were being applied ther'd be nothing to discuss because they could not protest...again the technicality is that they are breaking the law period. The fact that massive protest by illegals is a rather new phenomina will likelly result in actual arrests and precedent for there legal staus to protest will, imo, eventually be addressed in court.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Not quite true Damo. Illegals for instance cannot carry guns. The term "technically" again is appropriate because it is assummed by the law that illegal immigrants not having any political right to redress elected officials have no political standing and therefore no protected right to protest. So case law actually becomes neccesary to decide the actuallity of any perceived right to protest by an illegal.

SIGH!! You can't win. La Raza to whom Sotomeyor belongs or did belong is fighting to have open borders and automatic citizenship.

 

[Damocles]

SIGH!! You can't win. La Raza to whom Sotomeyor belongs or did belong is fighting to have open borders and automatic citizenship.

Oddly enough, this is the stance of many libertarians.

If the law were being applied ther'd be nothing to discuss because they could not protest...again the technicality is that they are breaking the law period. The fact that massive protest by illegals is a rather new phenomina will likelly result in actual arrests and precedent for there legal staus to protest will, imo, eventually be addressed in court.

Anyway, if you are breaking a law and are caught in the public square while protesting it is not a legal defense. Say I robbed a liquor store and was caught on tape. I went out with a bunch of people protesting harsh sentencing for robbers. I get arrested for the robbery, I would not be able to say, "I was protesting they couldn't arrest me!" They aren't arresting me for protesting, they are arresting me for the robbery.

Now had I committed no crime and was arrested I could sue, and I could use that I had a right to protest as part of the lawsuit.

 

[Canceled2]

Oddly enough, this is the stance of many libertarians.



Anyway, if you are breaking a law and are caught in the public square while protesting it is not a legal defense. Say I robbed a liquor store and was caught on tape. I went out with a bunch of people protesting harsh sentencing for robbers. I get arrested for the robbery, I would not be able to say, "I was protesting they couldn't arrest me!" They aren't arresting me for protesting, they are arresting me for the robbery.

Now had I committed no crime and was arrested I could sue, and I could use that I had a right to protest as part of the lawsuit.

What illegal alien has ever been granted the right to protest thereby giving him legal precedent to sue?

 

[Damocles]

What illegal alien has ever been granted the right to protest thereby giving him legal precedent to sue?

Again, we all have the right to protest and no illegal alien has been arrested for protesting. If they are arrested at a protest for being here illegally their right to protest has not been violated.

You must first have a law against protest before anybody will be arrested for protest. There is no such law, ergo, no arrests for protesting. There is no such law because we all have the right to protest. One can get arrested for disturbing the peace while protesting, but they don't get arrested for protesting.

It's like saying, "Show me the precedent that says they can breathe air! The courts haven't ruled that they can!"

First you have to arrest somebody for "breathing air", in order to get that done you must have a law against it, there is no law against it nobody will ever be arrested for it, yet illegals can get arrested while breathing air, therefore "technically" by your standard they have no right to breathe. However because in the US we recognize everybody's right to free speech, even people that are here illegally have the right to free speech, they'll never be arrested for protesting or practicing that right.

They may get arrested for being here illegally while they protest, but not for practicing the right to free speech. You can't charge people with something that there is no law against.

 

[christiefan915]

The National Council funded the thousands of protesters in Los Angeles and around the country, with many illegals and legals carrying their own flags. They were protesting the very U.S. immigration laws they were violating. They found it offensive and a violation of their rights that the U.S. dared to have immigration laws to begin with.

I didn't find any such info about NCLR. Furthermore, they've been around in some form or other since the '60's and used to be almost completely funded by the federal government.

I can understand your comments, though, considering you rely almost exclusively on info from righty bloviators.

 

[belme1201]

Where did your info come from?

David Duke?

 

[belme1201]

I didn't find any such info about NCLR. Furthermore, they've been around in some form or other since the '60's and used to be almost completely funded by the federal government.

I can understand your comments, though, considering you rely almost exclusively on info from righty bloviators.

What she deliberately failed to mention is the fact that the INS was separating Latina mothers from their children and that was the crux of the protest. I think most Americans (with a heart) would object to that practice also.

 

[belme1201]

How is that any different from people joining the Italian Sons & Daughters of America, or the Ancient Order of Hibernians, or Germania lodges, for example? Thurgood Marshall was a lawyer in the NAACP.

Mostly it's about cultural identity and pride.

They have no problems with Daughters of the American Revolution or Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy who have exhibited overt racism in their history. It's only when a minority group that has obviously been the object of discrimination rises up in protest that the hacks get all up-in-arms.

 

[belme1201]

she's a horrible pick, but the kind that "the Obama" wants..
and the yellow bellied Republicans are just going to roll over again..

Your opinion is prime evidence that Sotomayor will be a great judge.