Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

For starters, no one is whittling away at SS.  The tariffs are killing the market and trouncing 401k accounts, but that was not clear on election day.   You'll have to explain to me how Trump or R policies are affecting the working class's health.  R's have compelling arguments that their policies are better for the safety of the working class than the alternative.  You recall "defund the police" right?  And the R's are killing the D's on immigration policy, whether the elites like it or not.   

So, I would call the vast majority of working class people who migrated R, or migrated to Trump in 2024 rational voters given the economic and social context of last year's elections and especially given the choices presented to the voters and the campaigns those choices ran.  

I nagged a lot about this in mid-November 2024, but I am not going to sit by when my friends and associates reduce the motivations of 77 million voters to mere "stupidity" (or "racism" or "sexism" just because my friends and associates disagree with Trump voters on policy.  Think about it, that is what you are doing.  You are saying that 77 million people, or at least a lot of them, are "stupid"  because they have different circumstances, values, and policy preferences than you do.  This is a perfect example of James' original point.

Sorry about the odd wink emoticon, that was supposed to be a bracket.

Hi Dave, I can't quote your quote of my post.   

You are confident that Trump and R policies will hurt the working class voters who voted for Trump.  You could be right.  But the working class voters who moved to Trump were obviously not that impressed with their lot under the Biden/Harris administration and rationally did not vote for "more of the same."  So, I continue to object to you labeling these voters "stupid."  

I suspect these voters have vastly different values than you do.  These voters looked at the choices before them and made a rational decision based upon their situation and their values.  There is no guarantee that the R or Trump vote works out really well for them, and likely enough, if it does not work out, many of these new (and old) Trump voters can make the Republicans pay at the ballot box next time.

Bottom line, it is as old as politics that those who vote opposite ourselves can easily be viewed as "stupid" because these benighted opposite voters do not see the ramifications of their wasted vote with the perfect moral clarity we are sure we possess.  This is one of Richard's calling cards of course.  In his opinion, anyone who does not agree with him is a moron at best.  You are doing the same thing, but in a kinder and I think sincerely concerned way.  Lack of ill intent does not make you right though.   Go find some Trump voters, or conservatives in Canada, and get to know what makes them tick.  I doubt it is simply stupidity.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

I'll take Hugh Hewitt's statement on the issue, and he said that it is without question NOT settled law. 

Difference between You and he:

He teaches Constitutional Law and has for more than 3 decades.  

He's a conservative, not a RINO.  

He practiced actual law, litigating cases for more than 30 years.  

Now having said that, he also states that he thinks that the 14th amendment does apply to everyone here in the country, however he stated over and over on his radio show, that just because some claim it is settled law, doesn't mean it IS Settled Law. 

On May 15th or 13th or whatever day that is set, they will start hearing the arguments. 

I am looking forward to seeing how Barrett and Roberts side. 

We already know how the 3 liberals will vote.  The 2 radical leftists Jackson and Sotomayor will vote against Trump no matter what the issue, and I'm guessing that Kagan will vote against it.

Also, I'm guessing that Roberts will side with Kagan, and Barrett will join as well.

Well the "settled law" thing is an unimportant sidebar in any event.  There is no legal standard for "settled law."  And of course, the Court can grant cert and hear the issues whether me, you, Rod, Hugh Hewitt, or anyone else thinks this is "settled law."  Like you, I think that Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Roberts will vote that Trump's order is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.  I also think Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and maybe even Thomas will side with them.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

You could be correct there.  Honestly, I would not be shocked if that ends up being the outcome.  I hope that it goes the other way, because I think that if someone breaks the law to get here, they should not be rewarded for their lawbreaking.

I could get into a whole discussion with you about it, but what would be the point?

Civil and interesting discussion is precisely the point here!  Usually... I'll admit that mud wrestling can be fun occasionally.  

I think there are two completely separate issues that could be discussed.  The first is a legal issue, whether Trump's executive order is constitutional under the 14th Amendment.  I laid out my thoughts on this issue in my first two replies above.  I think's Trump's executive order is unconstitutional under the language and history of the 14th Amendment.  Obviously that is a debatable point.

The second issue is philosophical - should the babies of illegal aliens automatically be made citizens?  I'm not sure where I stand on that one.   There is huge benefit to the country to having a steady influx of immigrants, but I (like many people) think immigration ought to be orderly and regulated.  Even though I favor orderly regulated immigration, it is not like the babies themselves are doing anything wrong, and since we want to remain a vibrant country, we will need immigrant babies of all sorts to grow up as Americans as the birth rates of pre-existing citizens decline.   

If the birthright citizenship aspect of the 14th Amendment were to be revoked by a new Amendment, I would certainly hope that Congress and the Executive branch would craft a speedy, efficient, and widely used path for law-abiding immigrants presently in the country, or allowed into the country, to become naturalized citizens.  Something like the Dreamers Act.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Ok great.  Let's talk about this in the aspect and realm of original intent of the Constitution OR the Amendments TO the US Constitution.

Being a smart guy as you obviously are, considering the ORIGINAL INTENT of the US Constitution, can you seriously put forth an argument to argue for the USE of the 14th amendment FOR keeping ILLEGAL aliens in the country?

Do you believe that those who wrote and offered up the 14th amendment to counter the VETO by President Johnson of the Civil rights act FOR Blacks at the time, had an INTENT to believe that down the road 100 years later, this amendment would be used or should I say "bastardized" by the left to keep a wife beating thug and Proven MS13 Gang Member in this nation?

Think about that please and if you have the inclination to answer, we can take it from there.  

I don’t think the left is arguing that the 14th Amendment requires a criminal illegal alien gang member be kept in the US.   I certainly wouldn’t argue that.

Even so, the 14th Amendment, and other Amendments, plus some statutes, clearly require some due process before even an illegal alien criminal wife beating MS 13 gangster is arrested and deported to a Salvadoran prison.   So I would argue that the 14th Amendment requires Abrego García be returned and then subjected to due process.   The law is clear that his due process rights are not the same as a citizen’s due process rights, but his rights are not “nothing.”   So, the US should firmly ask El Salvador to return this alien, where he can be subjected to the proper hearings, with notice and counsel, and then deported to anywhere but El Salvador if he loses because of gang ties or any other reason.   Heck, if the government can get the 2019 order vacated, and maybe they can if they have the facts, then they can return him to El Salvador.

Bottom line, the 14th Amendment does not require the US to keep this alien.   It, and other laws, do require us to provide him, and all illegals with proper process before deporting them to a foreign prison.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It seems the Supreme Court agrees.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-trump-administration-not-deport-venezuelans-now-rcna201949


Supreme Court orders Trump administration not to deport Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act for now


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court in the early hours of Saturday told the Trump administration not to take any action to deport Venezuelan men based in Texas it alleges are gang members.

In a statement, Lee Gelernt, the lead ACLU attorney in the case, praised the Supreme Court's decision, saying, “These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court. We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month.”

Seems like a reasonable SC decision to me. 

I want to semantically nit-pick my own post, just in case it is confusing.  When I said the 14th Amendment etc. does not require the US to "keep" an alien in the US, I meant there is no requirement  to keep him indefinitely, or forever.  Hopefully, it is obvious from context that I think the Constitution does require us to keep him in the US until the alien's due process rights are observed.   This is what the Supremes are saying with the "pause" order.

It is important to note the due process rights of an illegal are not the same as the due process rights of a citizen.  If I recall correctly, an alien is entitled to at least a hearing with notice and counsel where the government must prove whether or not the alien is here illegally before deportation.  I imagine, but I do not know for sure, that the government's due process proof burdens would be greater if the alien is to be deported directly to a foreign prison the US is paying for.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Of course, Alito and Thomas dissented. They'd decide to invalidate the emancipation proclamation if they could...

That would be a bad idea for Clarence.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It seems the Supreme Court agrees.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-orders-trump-administration-not-deport-venezuelans-now-rcna201949

It is interesting that the Supreme Court issued this as a very rare "overnight order" on Saturday morning.  My guess is that the Court is reasonably worried Trump's people would whisk some or all of the alleged gangsters off to El Salvador between the hearing and the written order.

I am frustrated, because Supreme Court involvement would be so easy for the administration to avoid - in both the Tren de Aragua and Abrego Garcia cases.   Just have a proper hearing for each person alleged to be a MS13, Tren de Aragua gangster, or other type of criminal!  Win the hearing with a proper showing of criminality and deport them to jail.  Or at least prove that the alleged gangsters are here illegally, which should be easy to do, and deport them elsewhere!!   

Yes, this is time consuming, and yes this might result in some gangsters being deported, but not to prison.  So what!  Freedom reigns here and some level of civil liberty is granted under the Constitution to everyone on our soil, even illegal gangster criminals.

Before anyone accuses me of not caring about the women raped and murdered by illegal gangster criminals, let me note the following: 

1.  Biden or any other president should be remembered poorly by history if he let criminal illegals into the US through negligence or malfeasance.  

2.  If an illegal is afforded due process and is proved to have committed rape or murder in the US, I am perfectly happy to see him executed, incarcerated forever, or shipped off to El Salvador where hopefully his stay will be short and unpleasant.

3.  I hate to say this, but it must be said.  The fact that illegals will rape, murder, and otherwise commit crimes in the US does not justify rounding up alleged gangsters and deporting them without some sort of due process.  This is one of the high costs of liberty.  

4.  So, I support Trump's efforts to round up and deport illegal aliens with gang ties or histories of criminality.  At the same time, I demand that these aliens, who may indeed be scum, get proper due process under the circumstances before the government deports or incarcerates them.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Not really, he sold himself to the conservative elitists who run him long ago...

Ouch!  

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

so long as they don’t screw with the 21st amendment, I’m good.

You made me look!  😉. 

Happy Easter!