Time to allow the racists to do something else unethical because you could technically interpret a 250 year old document in a way that allows for that, even though everyone that's not a bigot knows what the decent decision should be and that document could be interpreted that way as well.
Oh, you mean the treasonous Supreme Court?
Ooooh nice, so they’re effectively going to decide if they get to actually run concentration camps in an official capacity. Delightful.
Also, I don’t expect ICEatzgruppen to abide by the court order if it doesn’t go their way
Don’t worry court will write out an instruction manual worth of loopholes if they do rule against it
Trans people are next. They are trying to bring back psychiatric detention and calling Trans people mentally ill.
I'm not sure if transgender people or "antifa" is next. I think "antifa" because that allows them to classify any dissent about anything as supporting terrorism (NSPM-7 executive order). That would be more efficient at removing dissent, then when there's no way to speak out, they'll go after transgender, socialists, eventually gay/lesbian, anyone who's not white.
aka the Nazi's list of enemies
Don't the US already hold people indefinatly in Guantanamo Bay?
Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were "combatants" from a "war" and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references "under the jurisdiction of the United States" so if they do rule that these people aren't entitled to Constitutional rights, I'm curious how that doesn't also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
And Republicans have already tried calling this a "war" on illegal immigration so that we can treat them as enemy combatants.
Thats only temporarily indefinitely
It's OK! The CONSTITUTION is CLEAR that this is Illegal and the Robert's Republican Supreme Court is KNOWN to UPHOLD the Constitution and NOT whoever gives them the BEST Vacation!
Your account on the other instance (world?) was wittier, it seems.
I'm thinking we should start banning yahoo.com from this commag. All that site does is copy from another site and attribute it so that we can't see what the actual publisher is from the domain. (You can see at the top here that the OG source is Slate.)
yeah Im not a fan.
Sometimes it's useful because the original is paywalled.
Such Democracy!
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.