The First 100 days
- Thread starter theiioftx
- Start date
I think it is constitutional at least if they limit it to primary elections. However, it's utterly inconsequential. California's electoral votes are in the big for Democrats, so it doesn't matter at all.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Which only further points to their idiocy. Do they not have any better way to spend their time and taxpayer money?
All while trolling the media and Dems with his tweets and focussing attention on rat infested Baltimore, he continues to get things done behind the scenes.
I'm not convinced he's a jerk. The MSM and lib pundits say so. Not the prevailing sentiment from those who do or have worked for him.
To be fair, many CEOs who get things done are considered to be jerks.
It’s called running interference.
There is not a self-earned billionaire alive who doesn’t have fangs.
I think it's a mixed bag. I think some of it is calculated interference, and some of it is being undisciplined when it comes to his Twitter account. I understand why he does some of it, but I'd be concerned about how it'll impact him in suburban districts, which he needs to win in 2020. He can get away with it now, because the news cycle is short. However, if he's doing this sort of thing a year from now, he won't, even if Democrats nominate a crackpot.
I believe you consider it undisciplined because you do not get or agree with why he is doing what he is doing. After 3 years of observation, IDT any of it is haphazard.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I am not sure "jerk" is warranted.
What I am certain of is that the Republicans needed someone with a backbone, a fighter, someone willing to push back, someone who refused to take crap off them as has every other Republican since the death of Lincoln.
Just because you push back against the establishment, the media, Hollywood and PC-Culture generally does not necessarily make you a jerk. It might make you unpopular in those circles and may cause or let them call you names for it, but it does not necessarily mean the names they call you are correct. Maybe deciding who is the "jerk" here is in the eye of the beholder? Maybe "they" are the "jerks?"
What I am certain of is that the Republicans needed someone with a backbone, a fighter, someone willing to push back, someone who refused to take crap off them as has every other Republican since the death of Lincoln.
Just because you push back against the establishment, the media, Hollywood and PC-Culture generally does not necessarily make you a jerk. It might make you unpopular in those circles and may cause or let them call you names for it, but it does not necessarily mean the names they call you are correct. Maybe deciding who is the "jerk" here is in the eye of the beholder? Maybe "they" are the "jerks?"
Well said. My thoughts exactly.
Funny how many people have complained about "politics as usual" for years, if not decades. Now, you have Trump bucking all the trends of politics as usual, and the same people who wanted someone to do that are now crying like little babies because he's just such a meanie.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Remember it wasn't Republicans who were hacked by Russians. It was Democrats.
Remember it wasn't Fox News where Russia trolls were transmitting their message. It was Facebook.
Remember it wasn't George Bush or Donald Trump who manipulated Russian elections in 1999 to ensure that Putin was elected President. It was Clinton.
If you don't want Russian influence in the US. Stay away from Democrats. I think it was Democrats back during the Cold War that were Soviet spies too.
Remember it wasn't Fox News where Russia trolls were transmitting their message. It was Facebook.
Remember it wasn't George Bush or Donald Trump who manipulated Russian elections in 1999 to ensure that Putin was elected President. It was Clinton.
If you don't want Russian influence in the US. Stay away from Democrats. I think it was Democrats back during the Cold War that were Soviet spies too.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Word is the son/successor of Osama bin Laden is dead
updated: Osama bin Laden's son and heir, Hamza, is dead, U.S. officials say
updated: Osama bin Laden's son and heir, Hamza, is dead, U.S. officials say
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I dont think Russians do any more to us than we do to them, or anyone else. When we do it, should it also be illegal?
Also, regarding the poster above's allegation that it is established fact that the Russians hacked the DNC server, this is not exactly true. Or, it has never been proven. The FBI was never allowed access to the server. The conclusion that it was Russians comes from a security firm with a long relationship with Dems and the DNC. Bottom line, we dont really know who did it.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
The Fed cut for the first time since the recession
The Fed cuts interest rates for the first time since the financial recession
The Fed cuts interest rates for the first time since the financial recession
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
For the umpteenth time, judges matter
Two on the panel were Clinton appointees 3rd Circ. Gives Migrants Stopped For Papers A New Hearing - Law360
"The Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania state trooper may have violated the constitutional rights of two unauthorized immigrants by prolonging a traffic stop to ask for their immigration papers."
Two on the panel were Clinton appointees 3rd Circ. Gives Migrants Stopped For Papers A New Hearing - Law360
I couldn't read the whole article. Would like to know how much longer than an ordinary traffic stop where we are asked for ID and sometimes have to shuffle through the glove box the trooper kept the people.
Could it be the person did not have a driver's license and therefore further ID was asked for?
Could it be the person did not have a driver's license and therefore further ID was asked for?
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I'll pull it and stick in in a spoiler
3rd Circ. Gives Migrants Stopped For Papers A New Hearing
Law360 (July 31, 2019, 8:01 PM EDT) -- The Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania state trooper may have violated the constitutional rights of two unauthorized immigrants by prolonging a traffic stop to ask for their immigration papers, remanding the case for an additional evidentiary hearing.
A three-judge panel determined that the state trooper may have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure, to obtain information about their immigration status, warranting an additional hearing to determine whether that evidence should be suppressed in their removal proceedings. The evidence could be suppressed under the so-called exclusion rule, which prevents the government from using evidence obtained unconstitutionally, the panel said.
"[Q]uestioning about an individual's immigration status does not violate the Fourth Amendment where the initial seizure of the individual is lawful and the questioning does not prolong the seizure," the decision states. "However, officers may not stop an individual only to inquire about their immigration status, nor may they extend a stop for such an inquiry."
Erick Geovany Yoc-Us and Luis Calel-Espantzay, both unauthorized immigrants from Guatemala, had been sleeping in the backseat of a van with eight other men when state trooper Luke Macke pulled over the vehicle for speeding. Macke requested the driver's license and registration and, rather than going back to his car to check their validity, he approached the passengers and asked them for immigration papers, work permits, visas, passports and ID.
The passengers said that they did not have documents on them and claimed in court documents that they offered no further information. But according to Macke's account of their interaction, the passengers claimed that they were citizens of Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador and Ecuador.
While waiting for ICE to pick them up, the immigrants claimed that Macke refused to allow them to leave their van to use the bathroom, have food or water, or turn on the air conditioning. ICE agents showed up and claimed that the immigrants "freely stated" that they were noncitizens and did not have immigration papers.
The immigrants were briefly held at an immigration office before being transferred to a local county prison and put in removal proceedings.
Yoc-Us and Calel-Espantzay, however, moved to suppress evidence of their immigration status on the basis that Macke had obtained that information by conducting an unlawful search. They requested an evidentiary hearing and invoked the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule that prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. They also petitioned to terminate their removal proceedings.
An immigration judge, however, ordered them deported and rejected their theory that Macke had stopped them on the basis of their Hispanic appearance. That decision was later affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule "only applies to removal proceedings where 'there are egregious Fourth Amendment violations that transgress Fifth Amendment notions of fundamental fairness, undermining the probative value of the evidence.'"
The Third Circuit found Wednesday that the immigrants had, in fact, described what could be a "potentially egregious" Fourth Amendment violation that would merit an evidentiary hearing.
The panel noted that Macke has extended the traffic stop beyond what would be considered reasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The immigrants' claim that Macke had stopped them because they looked Hispanic, if true, may also constitute an egregious Fourth Amendment violation that would require that evidence of their immigration status excluded, the panel said.
"Because petitioners have identified a possible egregious Fourth Amendment violation, we conclude that the [immigration judge] erred in not granting their motion for a hearing to provide them with an opportunity to put forth evidence in support of their claim," the decision states.
Rosina Stambaugh, counsel for the immigrants, said Wednesday that the case was important in light of recent trends in deportation cases, where suppression of evidence has been an overarching issue.
"This decision will now give immigration judges more guidelines on how to approach these cases in which there is a potential Fourth Amendment violation," she said. "We now look forward to presenting our case in front of the immigration court."
A representative for the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Judges Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica and Midge Rendell sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.
The government is represented by Jennifer Bowen and Dana Camilleri of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.
The immigrants are represented by Joanna Cline, Anthony Vale and Andrew Rogoff of Pepper Hamilton LLP, David Fine of K&L Gates, and Rosina Stambaugh.
The cases are Yoc-Us v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1520, and Calel-Espantzay v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1521, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
Law360 (July 31, 2019, 8:01 PM EDT) -- The Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania state trooper may have violated the constitutional rights of two unauthorized immigrants by prolonging a traffic stop to ask for their immigration papers, remanding the case for an additional evidentiary hearing.
A three-judge panel determined that the state trooper may have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure, to obtain information about their immigration status, warranting an additional hearing to determine whether that evidence should be suppressed in their removal proceedings. The evidence could be suppressed under the so-called exclusion rule, which prevents the government from using evidence obtained unconstitutionally, the panel said.
"[Q]uestioning about an individual's immigration status does not violate the Fourth Amendment where the initial seizure of the individual is lawful and the questioning does not prolong the seizure," the decision states. "However, officers may not stop an individual only to inquire about their immigration status, nor may they extend a stop for such an inquiry."
Erick Geovany Yoc-Us and Luis Calel-Espantzay, both unauthorized immigrants from Guatemala, had been sleeping in the backseat of a van with eight other men when state trooper Luke Macke pulled over the vehicle for speeding. Macke requested the driver's license and registration and, rather than going back to his car to check their validity, he approached the passengers and asked them for immigration papers, work permits, visas, passports and ID.
The passengers said that they did not have documents on them and claimed in court documents that they offered no further information. But according to Macke's account of their interaction, the passengers claimed that they were citizens of Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador and Ecuador.
While waiting for ICE to pick them up, the immigrants claimed that Macke refused to allow them to leave their van to use the bathroom, have food or water, or turn on the air conditioning. ICE agents showed up and claimed that the immigrants "freely stated" that they were noncitizens and did not have immigration papers.
The immigrants were briefly held at an immigration office before being transferred to a local county prison and put in removal proceedings.
Yoc-Us and Calel-Espantzay, however, moved to suppress evidence of their immigration status on the basis that Macke had obtained that information by conducting an unlawful search. They requested an evidentiary hearing and invoked the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule that prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. They also petitioned to terminate their removal proceedings.
An immigration judge, however, ordered them deported and rejected their theory that Macke had stopped them on the basis of their Hispanic appearance. That decision was later affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule "only applies to removal proceedings where 'there are egregious Fourth Amendment violations that transgress Fifth Amendment notions of fundamental fairness, undermining the probative value of the evidence.'"
The Third Circuit found Wednesday that the immigrants had, in fact, described what could be a "potentially egregious" Fourth Amendment violation that would merit an evidentiary hearing.
The panel noted that Macke has extended the traffic stop beyond what would be considered reasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The immigrants' claim that Macke had stopped them because they looked Hispanic, if true, may also constitute an egregious Fourth Amendment violation that would require that evidence of their immigration status excluded, the panel said.
"Because petitioners have identified a possible egregious Fourth Amendment violation, we conclude that the [immigration judge] erred in not granting their motion for a hearing to provide them with an opportunity to put forth evidence in support of their claim," the decision states.
Rosina Stambaugh, counsel for the immigrants, said Wednesday that the case was important in light of recent trends in deportation cases, where suppression of evidence has been an overarching issue.
"This decision will now give immigration judges more guidelines on how to approach these cases in which there is a potential Fourth Amendment violation," she said. "We now look forward to presenting our case in front of the immigration court."
A representative for the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Judges Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica and Midge Rendell sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.
The government is represented by Jennifer Bowen and Dana Camilleri of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.
The immigrants are represented by Joanna Cline, Anthony Vale and Andrew Rogoff of Pepper Hamilton LLP, David Fine of K&L Gates, and Rosina Stambaugh.
The cases are Yoc-Us v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1520, and Calel-Espantzay v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1521, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
Thanks Joe
So the trooper stopped the van for speeding. Must have been going really slow for the Trooper to see they were looked Hispanic.
when caught always use the xenophobic card.
However it worked didn't it?
btw I wonder how big the van was. If I read it right there were at least 11 men in there.
So the trooper stopped the van for speeding. Must have been going really slow for the Trooper to see they were looked Hispanic.
when caught always use the xenophobic card.However it worked didn't it?
btw I wonder how big the van was. If I read it right there were at least 11 men in there.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
