SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the what-separation-of-powers department:
The Department of Homeland Security has an update on the entry ban:
The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump's Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump's Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump's Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.
The NY Post adds:
The ACLU is getting "multiple reports" that federal customs agents are siding with President Trump — and willfully ignoring a Brooklyn federal judge's demand that travelers from seven Muslim countries not be deported from the nation's airports.
(Score: 0, Troll) by garrulus on Monday January 30 2017, @11:34PM
http://voxday.blogspot.nl/2017/01/the-order-is-illegal.html [blogspot.nl]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:37PM
On top of that the *best* he could have done is for the people already in transit.
It was pretty much the same order as Obama did last July plus syria. So it was cool then but not now. That is more telling than anything.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:57PM
That is a lie.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/30/1627417/-Media-not-talking-about-President-Obama-s-ban-on-Iraqi-immigration-because-it-s-another-Trump-lie [dailykos.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:02AM
Here is one of the actual orders:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fse_eo.pdf [treasury.gov]
So Obama targeted individuals not entire countries. Quite a massive difference there, but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative. I had a much longer post that was asking you for details because I was concerned that such a ban was implemented and I did not hear about it. Turns out to be more FUD from the Trump fanbois.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:57AM
Obama also claimed to have deported more people than all other administrations combined, remember?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:38PM
People are upset the president even has such powers. They think it shouldn't be legal for this to happen.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50AM
Which is all fine and good for them to think. Unfortunately it is legal for him to do. That judge was letting his ideals outweigh the law [cornell.edu].
He's explicitly given carte blanche on this issue. The judge was wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:04AM
Ok, I said people think it shouldn't legal. Not that it isn't legal.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:23AM
Fair nuff. I even agree. Judges should not be making illegal rulings that they know will be overturned to allow people back in in the mean time though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:12AM
In which case the proper course of action is to go to a higher court and get the stay reversed, rather then ignore the Judge.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
Normally I'd agree but these judges made this ruling with every intention of it being overturned. They're simply trying to buy time for immigrants to return because when they do the order and the law it's based on no longer apply. They knowingly made illegal rulings for strategic reasons and such rulings should be ignored.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:31AM
All the judges are a bunch of SJWs. ::rolleyes::
And this from the guy who claims you gotta have "world class critical thinking skills" [theregister.co.uk] if you are a conservative on teh internets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:54AM
Four out of how many? Yeah, they're wrong and they knew they were wrong when they handed down the decisions. They didn't do it because they were right but to allow those outside of the country time to return.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:19PM
Echo... Echo... Echo...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @08:07PM
Good question, how many Judges refused to grant a stay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM
zero
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:27PM
Are you sure that there are no conflicting laws, treaties, or something in the Constitution? Even if what you say is true, America is a common law jurisdiction, which means Judges interpret the law and can even make law at times. The way it works is the Judges decision stands unless a higher Judge overrides or the Legislature (Congress) overrides or in the most extreme case, the Constitution is amended.
Just because some petty cop for hire doesn't agree with the Judge(s), doesn't mean that they're free to interpret the law and ignore it, at least if America is a country of law.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:16AM
ok, now prove that 100% of the immigrants from country X will do us harm.
I'll wait....
if you have a list of individuals, FINE.
but that is NOT what is going on, here.
that's the issue. devil is in the details, which you seem to enjoy ignoring.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:24AM
You're trying to shift the argument. This argument is whether Trump's order is legal and whether the judges' orders should be obeyed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:25AM
Argument hasn't shifted, the president must act on the belief that they will cause harm. Trump's order is legally questionable based on mildly conflicting sections of 1182 and the Constitution, thus it is up to the judiciary to sort out. The POTUS can not act solely on personal opinion, there must be a reason that matches up with the law. In this case it is quite a fuzzy area.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:59AM
Those two statements do not jive. Beliefs are personal opinions and it is explicitly specified that this is the criteria for any such action to be taken.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:20PM
As the POTUS the "belief" must be backed by some sort of evidence, he can't just wake up and ban people from the UK because a british comedian made fun of him. Probably part of why such an order is subject to judicial oversight, to keep such crazy actions like I made up from being enacted.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:00AM
No proof needed. Printed on every visa, printed on every application for an entry, the US has a statement that you may be denied entry for any reason. It's written so broadly, you may even be denied entry for no reason. Basically, "We'll welcome you if we feel like welcoming you."
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:33AM
As with others, you are confusing a VISA with USCIS form I-551 (‘green card’); a permanent resident has to be given notice (quoting from the law) “The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”
As you are too lazy to at least look up the law but feel entitled to voice an opinion, I will not tell you what the name of the law is. (Hint: LOOK IT UP, READ IT AND THEN VOICE YOUR OPINION)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:39AM
Those persons held out as poster children to prove how unjust Trump is have had visas or entry permits. I've not yet seen a documented case of a green card holder being denied permission to enter the country.
Looking at your own quote - it's pretty obvious that the green card can be revoked. Allow me to quote your quote:
“The director shall send a formal written notice to the conditional permanent resident of the termination of the alien's conditional permanent resident status […]”
"conditional permenent resident"
Interesting that. You attempt to use legal weasel words to imply some guarantee to the holder of the card? Good luck with that.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:01AM
Of course it is conditional, otherwise it would be called citizenship. However, they can't be deported for any reason that doesn't violate US law. Being Muslim is protected by the 1st amendment.
You call the Constitution and laws of the US "legal weasel words"? C'mon Runaway, where is your reason? Are you so easily tripped up by emotional reactions?
I only got here by searching for jelizondo's reference to his own post somewhere in the thread, he was replying to TMB and got tired of repeating himself. The conservative arguments are crumbling as evidenced by the increase in ad hominem attacks. Why no more quoting of the law?
All that said, of COURSE some people should be denied entry!!! And 1182 clearly defines the terms. You'd think the all knowing NSA could provide some detailed evidence on who to admit and who to deny. Again, based on evidence and not irrational fear.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:15AM
"legal weasel words" was used in reference to a very specific quote, printed onto the green cards, that you mentioned yourself. The government has left itself an out, big enough to drive an entire brigade of Abrams tanks through. Legal weasel words, that mean, you've been promised nothing, and we can change our minds at any time, for any reason, with or without explanation.
It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:51AM
It all boils down to the fact that green card holders have no more rights than a visa holder.
Which is farcical, why have two different documents if they are functionally identical? Why do foreigners jump through hoops (marriages of convenience etc) to get a green card if a visa is just as good? Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. I think you are talking shit again. Besides, I can already see a significant difference just from the quotes in this thread: Visa holders can be denied at any time. Green card holders (AKA "legal permanent residents") must be given written notice - that's a huge difference. It means a green card holder can show up at the airport and (as long as they haven't received their written notice) be confident they will be admitted. Not so for visa holders.
However Trump has made the distinction less clear in his hasty, ill-considered, poorly-implemented, irrational and bigoted decision.
Oh, as for green card holders not being affected? Green card and visa holders were being blocked from boarding US-bound flights within hours of Donald Trump issuing an executive order [independent.co.uk]
Green card holders were originally part of the ban and many were turned away at the airports. The White house have apparently U-turned on that after about a day of chaos, (although they were somewhat confused about it: Reince Priebus said the order "doesn't affect" green card holders, then {minutes} later said "of course" it affects green card holders [cnn.com] ). No Green card holders have been turned away since then, but green card holders from the 7 countries are likely to be subjected to extra "discretionary" scrutiny at the airport. Whether that involves a few extra background checks or a rigorous anal probing I don't know, but I do know if it was me I'd be very nervous about passing through a US airport.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:40PM
I'm losing so badly here, I'm switching sides. I'm going to start arguing Bill Clinton's side of this thing. I'm tired of Trumping here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:17PM
Lol I was expecting something better. Podium rhetoric is not the best stuff to compare, gotta compare the actions. No one here is against immigration control as a thing, just the manner in which we go about it. You conservatives really need to stop acting like liberals hate everything you stand for, because most of the time there is middle ground to be had.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @09:25PM
But for you there are no sides, there is only "Runaway". You are like Trump in that regard, an ego so big and so unselfconscious that there is no room for anything else, let alone "sides".
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:08AM
Oh, gee! I’m quoting CNN [cnn.com] for you, as probably it is a trusted source in your view: “Senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security initially interpreted Trump's order to not apply to green card holders from the seven banned countries. Trump White House overruled that reading, however, meaning those green card holders were initially barred.” (I bolded the relevant phrases.)
Can an executive order send all those people out of the U.S.? Of course! But with due process of law, not just throw them out like they were illegally entering the country. Which is why they backtracked, quoting from the same source: " 'This is our message to them: get on a plane. Come back to the US. You will be subject to secondary screening, but everything else will be normal,' the Homeland Security official told CNN. A White House official said Sunday more than 170 green card holders had been waived in as of 3 p.m.”
And not weasel words, just quoting the FUCKING LAW which you don't appear to hold dear. YES, they can be deported BUT following the law. No explanation needed, just an administrative resolution telling them to get the hell out. Yes, they can appeal the deportation order. And yes, they can be denied on appeal. But according to the law. Anyone not a citizen is a 'conditional resident' meaning they can be thrown out, even if they are married to a citizen; but they have a larger legal protection.
Visa holders are a quite different case, they can be denied entry on just not looking good enough to the agent at the airport and no appeal is available.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:19AM
Bottom line: The president has the legal authority to shut down immigration, at this point in time. You can appeal, which gains you a few weeks or months in detention, while waiting for your appeal to go through. And at the end of the process, if you haven't performed enough deviant sex acts for the right people, out you go.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @08:40PM
Real bottom line: the president issue an illegal order, has had to fire people that tell him it is illegal, four judges ruled it is illegal, annnd to top it off green card holders don't quite fit into "immigration" like you're imagining.
Deviant sex acts? Seems like the massive push back against this stupid order is pushing your personal limits of criticism. The strong man act doesn't work so well anymore, too many people are educated enough that you can't just intimidate them with strong phrases like "Bottom line".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 02 2017, @01:39AM
On the contrary, the push back is against the liberals, who want to redefine common words, so that they can confuse issues.
You don't get to decide that the United States isn't the United States anymore, just because you have been brainwashed into thinking that you are a "citizen of the world". Nations and nationalism are still a thing.
Trump has issued no illegal orders. He has acted within his legal authorities. You don't like that, so you want to change definitions. Doesn't work, Bubba.
(Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:31PM
This is about changing an INDIVIDUAL's status after due process, just like suspending a driver's license. It is not about blanket changes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @11:42PM
Yeah Vox Day is where I go when I need me some legal advice.
That guy is widely known for his principled support for the institution of law.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:25AM
OMG, a blog posting saying that the judge is wrong!!!!!!
My whole world view just pivoted 180 degrees. Wow. How can an anonymous blog poster possibly be wrong?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:52AM
US Code 1182 also says he is wrong. There are no restrictions put on this presidential power. Trump has absolute free reign and both he and the judge know it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:09AM
trump is a PRESIDENT, not a KING.
no such thing as abs free reign in the US.
trump will get punished. you wait and see. judges do not like being told 'no' when they make their decision and they are not under the president's control. that's why there is an exec branch sep from the others.
pres != king
PERIOD!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:21AM
Read the law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:02AM
neither you (I assume) nor I are lawyers.
asking laymen to 'read the law' is like asking the milkman to read my python code....
I admit I don't know how to parse laws and legal documents. do you have such powers? somehow, I seriously doubt it.
(hint: even lawyers with decades of experience disagree about matters of law. why you think its simple: that tells us a lot about how your mind works, I guess. nothing in 'law' is simple. nothing!)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:15AM
Seriously, read it. It is quite simple. (f) is the bit you're looking for. Barring some case law between when Clinton did the exact same thing and now, there's not a chance in hell those judges' rulings will stand. And they knew it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Desler on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:23PM
Since when have laws been absolute and above judicial review? Oh right, never.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:51PM
Never said they were. A judge ruling on the law rather than ideals would have granted an immediate stay on their order though. These rulings were directly counter to both book and case law and thus illegal. Unfortunately you don't get to throw judges off the bench for that. Or do anything else to them. They are above the law. So you do the only thing you can and ignore their rulings until the appellate courts slap them down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:03AM
Nobody likes being told "no". You don't either. Unless you happen to be a petty tyrant, sometimes you have to suck it up, and stop acting like a special snowflake. Them's the facts of life.
Now, go read the law. It's been posted multiple times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:22AM
No vontrary to what you and Herr Trump think he is not an absolute monarch.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:27AM
Never said he was. But read the law. He does explicitly have this power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:19PM
And the judiciary has the power to overturn it. It's called checks and balances.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:47PM
And what happens when the judiciary makes a ruling it knows is illegal and will be overturned simply to buy time enough that those currently outside the country can return? Where's the check on that power? No, you do not follow illegal orders.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:10AM
So I read the law and I don't see any clause that allows for the President to unilaterally deny entry to people holding valid visas, unless they fit into a defined category. Do you perhaps think that they are all doctors planning to practice medicine when they arrive?
It's possible that I missed something, so I would appreciate you directing my attention to the specific relevant clause.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23AM
You're confusing my position that Trump is allowed to do what he does with the position that he should be doing it. As for him being allowed, he is allowed to deny entry to any alien or group of aliens, regardless of classification, for any reason he thinks justifies doing so. Search for:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:35AM
You could have said 1182(f) if you wanted to be constructive, rather than a douche.
1182(f) is a very broad delegation of authority, to be sure, but:
(1) There are limits on what authority Congress is allowed to delegate.
(2) Congress can't delegate authority it doesn't have.
I'll focus on (2) since I know more about it. Both religion and national origin are recognized as suspect classes by the Supreme Court: the executive order directly discriminates based on the latter and is discriminating based on the former through a transparent pretense. That's certainly enough for a reasonable case to be made for unconstitutionality.
What will the ultimate appellate ruling be? No clue. I suspect this will be the first of many Supreme Court case which come into being over the next four years because no one was stupid or spiteful enough to do something before. But calling the judge a hack or fraud or whatever is absurd.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:50AM
Sure they can, just say it falls under the Commerce Clause like everything else they want to do but don't have the authority to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:53PM
Well not like everything else. Sometimes it is considered a tax and not a tax so that it can wriggle in and out of the taxing authority of congress as needed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:52PM
Heh, good one. +1 for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @12:58AM
Don’t go for legal advise to an anonymous sources pal, you’ll get your ass in jail.
The travel ban included ‘permanent residents’ which does away with the opinion that the judges (four as of now) had no legal standing because visa-holders are not guaranteed entry into the US.
Quoting the BBC [bbc.com]: “[…] Department of Homeland Security officials had revealed that the executive order would extend to permanent residents of the US coming from the seven banned countries.”
You should have been suspicious when four different federal judges granted motions of stay against the travel ban for different people. One judge? Maybe she’s wrong, four? Don’t think so.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:57AM
Read then [cornell.edu]. The bit you're wanting is "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President". There is no gray area there. Trump can do what he thinks he can. The judges are wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:14AM
are you a lawyer?
you seem pretty sure of yourself...
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:18AM
Read the law. It's quite explicit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:55AM
The problem is everything else that you don't know.
The law does not exist in a vacuum.
Its modified by other laws.
And since you didn't even find that statute yourself, I'm pretty sure you have zero idea what other laws apply.
But you know who probably does know? A judge. Or maybe 2 judges. Or even 4 of them.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:15AM
Is it? Show me where. I provided a citation for my claim, can you do the same?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:35AM
Ah, you're so cute. I literally just said I'm deferring to the experts, you stomp your little princess foot and demand that I not.
Tell you what, I'll play chicken with you. You go find the rulings from those four judges and tell us all what's wrong their legal determinations.
Not just blindly cite a single statute that you don't really understand, read the rulings and tell us how they fall short.
Once you've actually put the work in that you demand of me, then I'll do the same for you.
Of course you won't, because your an idjit whose only skill is motivated reasoning.
But maybe I'm wrong. If I am, its easy enough for you make me look like a fool.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:57AM
You're doing that fine by yourself. I cite very definitive supporting law and you back your position up with... what? Rhetoric?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:10PM
Surprise, ya wussed out.
So what if you cited something?
Its not applicable to arguments presented in those courts.
I may be an anonymous coward, you are an intellectual coward.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @04:44PM
Name calling now? How juvenile can you get in an effort to not have to back up your assertions?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:07PM
You have yet to address any of the points raised in the FOUR rulings, but I'm the one not backing my assertions.
That kind of intellectual dishonesty invites name calling.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:12AM
I happen to be a LAWYER while you are not; so don't try to teach your grandma how to suck an egg.
You are confusing a VISA which is issued to a student, tourist or other aliens for temporary admission to the U.S. with a ‘green card’ which is issued to a person granting them a right to reside permanently in the U.S.
Most VISA holders are forbidden from working in the U.S., for example, while residents can and mostly do have a job or own a business, probably have bought a home and other stuff.
So don’t read any law, read the applicable law. (You seem so sure, so go on a dig a bit more.)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:21AM
No, Mr. LAWYER, I was not. I said nothing about status whatsoever. Any alien of any status falls under that law unless you can point out somewhere else, because the quoted law does not, that says otherwise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jelizondo on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:40AM
I just replied to another doofus, so go read that comment where I do quote the law, but since you too are lazy and feel entitled to an opinion in a field where you have no experience, I will leave you the task of looking up the appropriate law.
What would you say to someone who knew nothing about something but decides to give you an argument? I quote from your own journal: “Most days it's fun smacking down the willfully ignorant but sometimes outside forces conspire to make me too tired to bother.”
So I'll go pop me another beer and ignore you...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:52AM
Darlin, I can read code. Laws are easy. Cite your argument or STFU.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:49PM
Wow. You're actually as dense as your comments make you appear! Bravo!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @10:32PM
Are you also an Attorney?
Anybody can be a Lawyer, being an Attorney is a little bit more involved.
(Score: 2) by Desler on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:44AM
What authority! A random blogspot posting!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:50AM
From your link
It's more serious than it looks at first glance, and confirms my opinion that Trump needs to crush this attempt to delegitimize his authority.
A sentiment that would make Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin and Mao quite proud. Yes, we need to crush check-and-balances so Glorious Leader Trump can rule as a true dictator.