"Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ immigration policy is effectively dead
‘It’s going to be “catch and release” because they don’t have the detention beds,’ a formal DHS official said.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/ ... ase-646956
"Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ immigration policy is effectively dead
‘It’s going to be “catch and release” because they don’t have the detention beds,’ a formal DHS official said.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
toomanyhatz wrote:Also, this won't likely go very far, but it's at least nice to see:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/19/17479232/ ... ns-migrant
The United Methodist Church is often split on political issues, having a very strong liberal AND a very strong conservative contingency - the marriage equality issue is still a big one for them, and still hasn't been settled, for example. But I think the consensus among most of the church, at least in the US, is that Sessions is clearly on the wrong side of scripture.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Britain in panic as Trump-Putin summit looms
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
LeBaron wrote:SCOTUS says President had authority to enact the travel ban.
Read all about it
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 5_h315.pdf
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
LeBaron wrote:What a fucking depressing day. SCOTUS gets a chance to do the right thing and hides behind judicial minimalism and conservative orthodoxy. Reading the majority opinion, as a matter of law and analysis, it is entirely defensible. The President unquestionably has authority to do this---it's open and shut in a lot of ways and in a slightly different situation, I would probably defending the opinion on legalistic terms. But Justice Sotomayor is right. The Court allowed the President and his lawyers (who he probably hasn't listened to since) effectively launder his hate and bare animus with lawyer paper and get away with it. Roberts and Kennedy could have stepped up and said "we're not buying it," but they backed away. I often respect their restraint, but not today. They whiffed. This will be another Dred Scott, or Korematsu.
It depresses me to acknowledge judicial decisionmaking as an act of raw partisan politics, because it's not that simple. Except when it is.
And in the meantime, the President stacks the federal courts with judges far more radical than Kennedy and Roberts, so if and when all of the liberals wet dreams of majority governance come true, the federal courts will say, "not so fast." When the time comes to strike down universal healthcare or to overturn Roe v. Wade or ditch the exclusionary rule or declare the EPA unconstitutional, they won't strike out.
LeBaron wrote:What a fucking depressing day. SCOTUS gets a chance to do the right thing and hides behind judicial minimalism and conservative orthodoxy. Reading the majority opinion, as a matter of law and analysis, it is entirely defensible. The President unquestionably has authority to do this---it's open and shut in a lot of ways and in a slightly different situation, I would probably defending the opinion on legalistic terms. But Justice Sotomayor is right. The Court allowed the President and his lawyers (who he probably hasn't listened to since) effectively launder his hate and bare animus with lawyer paper and get away with it. Roberts and Kennedy could have stepped up and said "we're not buying it," but they backed away. I often respect their restraint, but not today. They whiffed. This will be another Dred Scott, or Korematsu.
It depresses me to acknowledge judicial decisionmaking as an act of raw partisan politics, because it's not that simple. Except when it is.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
LeBaron wrote:Yes, the Court is happy to smack down a low level bureaucrat, but loathe to second guess the President on claimed matters of “national security,” so long as his advisors have cobbled together some paperwork to make it look legalish.
sloopjohnc wrote:LeBaron wrote:Yes, the Court is happy to smack down a low level bureaucrat, but loathe to second guess the President on claimed matters of “national security,” so long as his advisors have cobbled together some paperwork to make it look legalish.
This morning, I heard Justice Sotomayor's dissent. I thought it was pretty scathing.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
LeBaron wrote:Of course, since DJT is a one term President, and we’re about to have mid terms, Mitch McConnell will probably put off any nominations until 2019.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.