Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Brown

I’m at Chicago O’Hare using my iPhone. When I post an emoji does it show up on your devices?

Moscheck baby backs…. Man, I’m gonna drool!  Ignore the noise, my friend. Ignore the noise!  😀

Rod, I’m sure you’re healthy as a stallion. But My goodness, you don’t know what you’re missing!

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

With every post you make you appear smaller and smaller. LOL

This thread is comedy gold Jim.  I’m surprised you have the stamina though.   I love the part where dick claims you are at fault for not correcting his bs claim that you inherited the business “fast enough.”   And he posts this a day after you set him straight! Funny stuff.

Also the bizarre attempt to draw an analogy between you and Trump!   As if buying a business from your parents and then thriving with business was some sort of cataclysmic hypocrisy!   Someone ought mention to dick that how we live our lives is what defines us.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I don't think you're giving due deference to Rich in light of his accomplishments. The list, admitality, is short but impressive. 

In consideration of the man and the legend (in his own mind):

1. Envisioned, created and engineered a structurally advanced mobile support system for an ultrasound, otherwise known as a cart.

2. Envisioned, created and implemented a marketing strategy at the executive level so impressive and successful that the initial beneficiary of the mobile ultrasound delivery system, Hitachi heavy industries, was forced to take notice and developed countermeasures in order to compete.

3. Implemented world-class entrepreneurship, going head to head with Hitachi at every level, from his initial technological achievement of development to sales and support so successful that it remains unrivaled even today and decades after its development.

So, when you have an ultrasound, remember the man who got it there in the first place, RICH DAVIS!...

😀😀😀

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Bump #6 put in to irritate the dumbest man on A-Mart.  Oh wait correction, the dumbest man in Michigan.   Oops correction again, the dumbest man to ever live.  

Gee about 2 1/2 minutes of my life I can never get back.  

Holy smokes, that was so much work that I should probably go take a nap!

Originally Posted by James Lacey

What always amazes me is that Rich's reality is so utterly different from ours.

Let's hope the SCOTUS upholds some of the recent rulings from the lower federal courts, such as the one putting a stop to Trump's illegal tariffs. Until the midterms arrive, the judiciary is our only remaining guardrail.

Do you think the Ds can rise to the occasion?  (question to James, Jim, Rod, David, anyone...) The polling indicates the Ds are continuing to hemorrhage support. Will it matter in 2026?  We'll see.  For 2028, it seems that the D front runners are extreme lefties, or the left's own Trump-style blowhard - Gavin Newsome.   I, for one, am worried the opposition has nothing significant to offer the electorate.  Just like 2024.

FWIW, I am hoping Colorado's governor Jared Polis will run in 2028.  Smart guy, and reasonably moderate.  Unfortunately, Buttigieg seems to have the white, gay, intelligent, democrat "lane" tied up.  Polis has tons more experience than Buttigieg, and is not tainted by a crappy run as transportation secretary under Biden.  I hope Shapiro from PA runs too.  

Of course I would vote for Nikki Haley over any of these guys...  But please Lord, how about a Haley v. Schapiro, or even a Rubio v. Polis race in 2028?  That would be so great.  Between now and then, let's have the D's take the House in 26, assuming they have any political strength and strategy at all... which remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"We might as well put a crown on Trump's head and all go home if that happens."

SCOTUS has pretty much already done that, dude....

Hogwash

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

As usual, SCOTUS today sides yet again with Trump WITHOUT EXPLANATION:

"Supreme Court allows Trump to continue ‘roving’ ICE patrols in California"

"The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s push to allow immigration enforcement officials to continue what critics describe as “roving patrols” in Southern California that lower courts said likely violated the Fourth Amendment."

"The court did not offer an explanation for its decision, which came over a sharp dissent from the three liberal justices."

In a terse statement, the man who has perfected the art of a distinction without a difference, Bret  Kavanaugh, had this to say:

“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’...:"

"The court itself offered only a single paragraph of boilerplate language in siding with Trump."
“The court’s order is troubling for another reason: It is entirely unexplained,” Sotomayor wrote. “In the last eight months, this court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/08/politics/supreme-court-ice-patrols-california

First - "WITHOUT EXPLANATION"  Sorry but CNN lied to you, again.  Kavanaugh explains himself in detail, see pages 1-10 here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

Next, other than the fact that Trump supports the roving patrols, do you have a problem with the policy?  In other words, if ICE can not inquire into the immigration status of Hispanics who are speaking Spanish while hanging out at the Home Depot looking for work (as they do near my Denver home), who can ICE talk to?  Is the answer in your opinion "nobody?"

To be sure, probable cause and the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion are deep and difficult subjects.  If you want to carve out and defend the position that ICE can not make any immigration status inquiries whatsoever unless, (for example) the suspect is caught committing an unrelated crime, then go for it.  I think that is a defensible, although incorrect, position.   I am quite certain that there exist activists out there do not want ICE to have the authority to question or arrest anyone.  I am not lumping you into that group, and indeed, I think that extreme is a legally indefensible position.

On the procedure, I hope you realize that this was a preliminary hearing on an emergency docket.  These are the steps that have happened so far:

1.  Trump institutes a policy
2.  A District Court in California enjoins enforcement of the policy.
3.   The Supreme Court basically says "No an injunction is not appropriate", and then they offer a detailed explanation of why not.  

I do not think it is reasonable to fault Kavanaugh or the majority for issuing a short (10 page) ruling in a very preliminary/emergency matter.  10 pages of detailed explanation is more than customary at this stage in a litigation.  Sotomayor is being very political.  A full opinion will follow when the actual factual issues are resolved and when the legal issues are fully briefed.  Once again, the only thing that has happened so far is that the District Court entered an injunction and the Supreme Court lifted it.   No one has ruled on whether or not the government's policy violates the 4th Amendment.  No one.

Even so, you and CNN reflexively act like a final determination has been made.   No final determination has been made.  None.  You understand this right?  It makes a big difference and is why the Supreme Court issues short rulings, or no rulings in this type of emergency hearing.

Even though Justice Kavanaugh did not need to say anything in support of this decision, I agree with what he said!  Please read pages 1-10 of this opinion, and let me know if you disagree with objectively disagree with Kavanaugh.  ("No explanation..."  BS, the decision is very well explained.) 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

I am curious if anyone here reads pages 1-10 and objectively disagrees with Kavanaugh on this one.

Originally Posted by James Brown

First - "WITHOUT EXPLANATION"  Sorry but CNN lied to you, again.  Kavanaugh explains himself in detail, see pages 1-10 here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

An important part of Kavanaugh's detailed explanation for this order is completely left out of CNNs reporting.  I am sure it is left out of everyone's reporting.  Maybe the public just does not care.  Maybe journalists are just stupid partisan hacks.  Anyway, the role of the Court is important here, check out the brilliant parallel Kavanaugh makes with Court's position during the Biden administration.  This is at pages 9-10:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also
important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The
Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide
enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that
some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in
enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations
more strict. Article III judges may have views on which
policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not
appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure, in
justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the
confines of the Constitution and federal statutes. 

Just as this Court a few years ago declined to step outside our 
constitutionally assigned role to improperly compel greater
Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws, see
United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670; Biden v. Texas, 597
U. S. 785, we now likewise must decline to step outside our
constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict
reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the
immigration laws. Consistency and neutrality are
hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by
those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the
stay.

Originally Posted by James Brown

An important part of Kavanaugh's detailed explanation for this order is completely left out of CNNs reporting.  

Thanks for throwing me this softball Rod.  I enjoy reading a concise explanation of the law like that set out in Kavanaugh's detailed exposition.  I enjoy sharing it with you guys, even though I doubt many people care.  For most folks it is obviously so much easier and maybe more emotionally satisfying to just get spun up by shoddy reporting from CNN.  For you and the rest of the forum, I hope you will take some time to consider Kavanaugh's detailed opinion in view of the spin CNN put on it.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Thanks for throwing me this softball Rod.  I enjoy reading a concise explanation of the law like that set out in Kavanaugh's detailed exposition.  I enjoy sharing it with you guys, even though I doubt many people care.  For most folks it is obviously so much easier and maybe more emotionally satisfying to just get spun up by shoddy reporting from CNN.  For you and the rest of the forum, I hope you will take some time to consider Kavanaugh's detailed opinion in view of the spin CNN put on it.

Last comment - Sotomayor makes good points too.  She assumes that California will be able to prove that the ICE agents are simply grabbing and arresting Hispanics in LA without even checking to see if they are citizens or not.  If those are indeed the facts (after a factual hearing is held) then I expect that Kavanaugh will join a majority ruling that this policy as implemented is unconstitutional.  

Rod, I'd guess you assume bad actions and bad intent by ICE too.  Assumptions are not enough in court, thank goodness.