President Trump- The Implications

[AquaMan]

True enough, but we don't hold their futures in our hands. He really should have a better grasp. Reports are that almost all those who have been refused entry have nothing more than traffic tickets on their records.

[Vashta Nerada]

"They tapped my wires!"
After Trump brought up the claim unprompted, CBS asked him to elaborate. Instead, the president angrily ended the interview.

[Hoss]

"They tapped my wires!"
After Trump brought up the claim unprompted, CBS asked him to elaborate. Instead, the president angrily ended the interview.

What a crybaby.  If Obama had acted like this how would the regular right wing spinsters on this forum reacted?  Trump is a classless rube; proof that money doesn't buy class at all.

[guido911]

I think that applies to a lot of citizens born in the USA.

I think the suggestion that not being able to pass the same citizenship test as naturalized citizens applies to a lot of people in this forum. Okay, just one. And his boyfriend is iffy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think the suggestion that not being able to pass the same citizenship test as naturalized citizens applies to a lot of people in this forum. Okay, just one. And his boyfriend is iffy.

Wow!  The real you coming through...


No matter the real situation of who you are talking about - trying to cast aspersions about being gay.  Yep, that's a Trumpy all right.

So little hope for this state.

[heironymouspasparagus]

His understanding of the world is missing so many paragraphs.

He is not just missing paragraphs - he is missing entire volumes.

What Trump is advocating is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power.  Forcible suppression of opposition (get rid of 1st Amendment).  Control of industry and commerce (for the benefit of the oligarchs).

Look it up....

[Hoss]

Wow!  The real you coming through...


No matter the real situation of who you are talking about - trying to cast aspersions about being gay.  Yep, that's a Trumpy all right.

So little hope for this state.

Doesn't have a real opinion or argument to make so it's the ad-hominem from him.  I'm used to it.  If he wants to waste his energy on that, I'm all for it.  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak (or in this case post) and remove all doubt.  I no longer directly reply to any of his childishness.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This tells the whole story of just how far we have slid as a nation and a people.  From the 50's.  What the thought process behind "compassionate conservatism" used to be!  NOT the abortion it has become since misappropriation of the term by Baby Bush and the Hijacked Republican Party!


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.


Look it up...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Gotta give them credit - The Supreme Court  FINALLY got one right!!

Now, on to civil forfeiture and make that state crime go away!!


https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/05/02/supreme-court-rejects-guilty-until-proven-innocent-says-states-cannot-keep-money-from-the-innocent/#26558af671f6



And just GUESS who the one dissenter was!!   Go on, I dare you.  Hint; Another sexual predator in a high office....

[erfalf]

And just GUESS who the one dissenter was!!   Go on, I dare you.  Hint; Another sexual predator in a high office....

And now for the rest of the story (in my best Paul Harvey impersonation, which really sucks but oh well)...

According to Scotusblog:

In a provocative (and solo) dissent, Thomas suggested that the fundamental flaw in both the majority and concurring opinions was the assumption that defendants in cases like Nelson have a vested property interest in money they pay pursuant to criminal convictions that are vacated or reversed on appeal or through collateral post-conviction proceedings — an assumption Thomas rather vigorously disputed. Instead, Thomas argued, if such an interest comes from state law, then it must come from the Exoneration Act — which, on its terms, imposes conditions on the return of that money.

The more likely source of a substantive right to return of the funds, Thomas continued, was the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — which, in Thomas' long-held view, "confers no substantive rights." Hence, Thomas' perhaps surprising bottom line —"Colorado is therefore not required to provide any process at all for the return of that money."

Fortunately for the petitioners, all of the other participating justices disagreed, even if they only assumed that criminal defendants do indeed have a right to the return of funds they pay pursuant to subsequently invalidated convictions, without explicitly identifying the source of such a right.

So in effect he agreed but disagreed on where the right comes from.

But hey, why let a easy zinger go to waste. Way to play above the fray RIGHT after pointing out guido's "tactics".

[heironymouspasparagus]

And now for the rest of the story (in my best Paul Harvey impersonation, which really sucks but oh well)...

According to Scotusblog:

So in effect he agreed but disagreed on where the right comes from.

But hey, why let a easy zinger go to waste. Way to play above the fray RIGHT after pointing out guido's "tactics".

Wow!   Do you read this after you write it??  You are agreeing with Thomas when he says they do NOT have a vested property right in THEIR money - that was wrongfully taken from them by the state.

So, you and Thomas are saying people have no right to their own stuff unless that right comes from some state law, such as Exoneration Act.  Or worse, yet - the 14th Amendment which HE says "confers no substantive rights"  -  TO  YOUR  OWN   STUFF !!   But yeah, I can see that - since our law is derived from old English and European law where you start out with, and as, nothing - except for what the state (King, etc) decides to give you!  That sounds just exactly like the RWRE spewing that I have ranted against for decades.  It's a real shame that pesky US Constitution interferes with all that stuff...according to Trump, Thomas, et al.



14th, section 1, would seem to be pretty clear to all except the RWRE - "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".  There was no due process of law providing conviction, since there was no conviction - therefore grounds to keep the property.  But hey, I am sure someone can twist it around.  And may well do...

Would love to see you right now and the pretzel shape you are maintaining for that one....

As for the source of those rights - I submit they come from the "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" thing.  From our first declaration of war.  



As for playing above the fray - ok, if you think calling someone out on homophobic comments is getting down in the "fray" - I can live with that!  In fact, will revel in it!  



Thomas himself - well, this is not his worst example of bad behavior, but it is another one, so deserves to be noted for and added to the catalog.   Goes to his general state of mind and poor judgement and thought processes.

[erfalf]

Nelson was convicted, and so was Madden. But that aside, I guess that would be a compelling argument otherwise. These two were convicted and upon review were discharged. The DA did not press charge again (which they could have done, and potentially convicted at least Madden again). Nelson, turns out was acquitted the second time around.

Due process was served, they lost. But due to a technicality they are freed. Don't pretend they were never offered due process. At what point was the restitution someone else's property. You know the victim, the assault victims.

[erfalf]

What if the evidence amply establishes that the defendant injured the victims to whom restitution was paid but the defendant's conviction is reversed on a ground that would be inapplicable in a civil suit? In that situation, is it true, as the Court proclaims, that the State would have "no interest" in withholding a refund? Would the Court reach that conclusion if state law mandated a refund from the recipients of the restitution? And if the States and the Federal Government are always required to foot the bill themselves, would that risk discourage them from seeking restitution—or at least from providing funds to victims until the conclusion of appellate review?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nelson was convicted, and so was Madden. But that aside, I guess that would be a compelling argument otherwise. These two were convicted and upon review were discharged. The DA did not press charge again (which they could have done, and potentially convicted at least Madden again). Nelson, turns out was acquitted the second time around.

Due process was served, they lost. But due to a technicality they are freed. Don't pretend they were never offered due process. At what point was the restitution someone else's property. You know the victim, the assault victims.

The due process - the ENTIRE due process - provided NO conviction.  Intermediate steps along the way are just that - incomplete intermediate steps.  There was no due process providing conviction.  It provided acquittal.  Read the entire sentence - not just the sound bite part you want to think I said...


Wow!  Again!   After all the dust settles - you STILL "say" - at least imply, but for a travesty of justice - they are guilty!  Even though after all the commotion dies down they are found somewhere along the line to be not guilty.  Short diversion:  Your derisive tone about "technicalities" just shows how far removed you are from the reality of how the courts and judicial system can be.  One does not have to be guilty.  One does not even have to be within dozens - even hundreds - of miles of a crime event to be convicted of it.  Conversely, if one is of a "special class" - no act is too egregious to make one have to pay a penalty.




Well, how do you reconcile that whole "guilty no matter what the courts say" attitude with your fan club's adoration and adulation of Oliver North??   Convicted twice!  And if there ever was a case of getting off on technicalities gone horribly wrong - it would be his!   And yet, he is still trotted out of those dark catacombs he dwells in between times and put on the screen at Fake Faux News as a "Great American Hero"...  one of Hannity's favorite terms for the guy.  But that tiny little inconsistency/hypocrisy really wouldn't matter much to the RWRE world now, would it?   Not only did he get all his property back, but thousands of times more in rewards for committing heinous acts that enabled the murder of priests, nuns, civilians.  If only there weren't "technicalities"....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Trump has failed again!!  Auto sales continue downward trend - lowest since 2009, when Obama was getting his stimulus in place to help the industry!  He isn't protecting American autoworkers from layoffs - on the way soon to a factory near you!

GM alone is getting rid of more than 4,000 this month!!


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/business/auto-sales-decline.html?_r=0