by "Panther Brown Tdi Volvo Shooting Brake Manual Miata RWD Wagon Stole HondaBro's Accord." (ningaboss)
Published 02/01/2017 at 14:27
by "Panther Brown Tdi Volvo Shooting Brake Manual Miata RWD Wagon Stole HondaBro's Accord." (ningaboss)
Published 02/01/2017 at 14:27
No Tags
STARS: 1
This guy is actually sane.
Holy Shit!
The most sane decision since trump took office.
Which says a lot about the current administration today. (replaces 4 star general with a website editor)
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
02/01/2017 at 14:29, STARS: 2
Um he’s from Colorado so no
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
02/01/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 9
Do not confuse qualification with sanity. I much prefered Hardiman to Gorsuch. I do not think that one’s religious beliefs have anything to do with the Constituion, Interepreting it, or Making fair judgements based on the law.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
02/01/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 5
The most sane decision since trump took office.
Mattis
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 4
He has a lot of admirable qualifications, but he’s still just another Trump yes-man.
"SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie" (sidewaysondirt)
02/01/2017 at 14:33, STARS: 2
I quite like Tillerson, Mattis, and that we started sending APCs to the Kurds. That’s about it so far.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
02/01/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 0
Really all the Senators who voted for Gorsush in 2006 should resign in disgrace.
"Sir Halffast" (Sir_Halffast)
02/01/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 3
We’ll see. I’m skeptical, but judges have a way of not doing what their nominator-in-chief wants them to do. He has strong state-rights credentials, and Trump is all about federal consolidation. I’d bet they start clashing on some issues pretty quickly.
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 1
I hope you’re right.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
02/01/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 0
Hey! That “website editor” was in the Navy for 7 years.
"Nibby" (nibby68)
02/01/2017 at 14:40, STARS: 0
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
02/01/2017 at 14:40, STARS: 0
Who’s this goober? I’m not good with faces lol
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
02/01/2017 at 14:50, STARS: 0
I don’t hate him either. Like the Bush appointee John Roberts, maybe he will just be a good judge and not have a political agenda.
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 14:51, STARS: 0
Mattis is a good pick.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
02/01/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 3
IF he is a strict textualist as Scalia was, no he will not be. Scalia believed very much in the separation of powers and if he turns out to be a jurist in the same vane, he will cause the Trump administration fits.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
02/01/2017 at 14:53, STARS: 1
Still very on the fence about Tillerson, but I do like Mattis, I feel that Mattis and I have similar beliefs on war. That war is to be avoided at all costs, because it is barbaric, but if you find yourself in a war, be the strongest barbarian.
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 14:55, STARS: 1
He’s already pledged to support the immigration ban. After that I’m unsure, but it’s not a good precedent for the next thirty-or-so years.
"Tapas" (tapas)
02/01/2017 at 14:59, STARS: 5
...as sane as you can be, while holding the views he holds at the same time.
It’s almost as if “just what the founders intended” sounds backwards when you consider that they also intended to participate in slavery, incest, slander and so on...
Green lighting arcane positions, policies and laws based on how the country would be run by people from a different century is dumb as rocks.
"Sweet Trav" (thespunbearing)
02/01/2017 at 15:00, STARS: 2
I’m going to need to see a citation for that. My understanding of the travel ban is that it is unconstitutional because it bars green card holders as well as imigrants. To be clear on this issue, the President does have the power to pause imigration, what he does not have the right to do is to infringe upon the rights of green card holders which have all the constititional rights of a naturalized citizen. It would also be very poor judicial ettiqute to decide a case before hearing the facts of the case.
"Tapas" (tapas)
02/01/2017 at 15:01, STARS: 2
So much this.
That Carson fellow - Benny boy - was allowed to operate on brains! Human ones too, at that!
Have you heard what goes inside that man’s mind, even after his response is restrained and crafted by a team of staff? Yikes!
"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
02/01/2017 at 15:02, STARS: 0
45's SC pick, Gorsuch.
"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
02/01/2017 at 15:04, STARS: 1
He is indeed actually qualified, which a low bar given the hilarious lack of qualification among 45's other appointees.
However, I am still fearful that he is merely a theocrat in waiting and the SC bench will give him ample opportunity to impose his religious views upon the rest of us.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
02/01/2017 at 15:09, STARS: 0
Eww...This is the guy who says he’s going to interpret the Constitution as its writers would have 200+ years ago as opposed to how the Constitution was actually designed (ie: It’s designed to change as culture changes).
Which funny enough, he’s probably going to piss off Trump & Co by being literal with the Constitution...so, he’s both good and bad?
"jimz" (jimz)
02/01/2017 at 15:12, STARS: 0
David Souter (appointed by H-Dub) ended up being far more liberal than people expected.
"Jonee" (Jonee)
02/01/2017 at 15:14, STARS: 2
He sided with Hobby Lobby on that absurd birth control lawsuit. Not that sane. I object to anyone who describes themselves as a Constitutional “constructionist.” The Constitution was set up the be adjusted and reinterpreted as times change.
"ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable)" (adabofoppo)
02/01/2017 at 15:14, STARS: 0
Yup. Because the Bible should be interpreted literally as well.
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 15:16, STARS: 0
If it truly is unconstitutional, then I should have nothing to worry about. I was back and forth with that argument myself, since the ban favors Christians over Muslims, but then I remembered that the Constitution only applies to US citizens, and was unsure if it had any effect on immigrants.
All I hope is that he won’t help push us back to the 1800's.
"Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle" (1500sand535)
02/01/2017 at 15:28, STARS: 0
I don’t know much about gorsuch but I do know Garland was about as qualified as a person can be and pretty moderate and I think it’s a real shame he didn’t get a hearing and confirmation.
"Sir Halffast" (Sir_Halffast)
02/01/2017 at 15:36, STARS: 3
Except that the Constitution DOESN’T only apply to U.S. citizens. It applies to anyone who is here legally. Including green card holders, and even tourist visa holders, at least as far as basic rights and dignities. Obviously all of the above are subject to deportation if they break the law (which you can’t do to a citizen, of course), and they can’t vote, etc. but the basic protections the Constitution absolutely apply. The trick is that for most classes of immigrant (and I mean B, H, J, etc. not race/religion/gender), those rights don’t usually take effect until AFTER they’ve cleared customs.
"yamahog" (yamahog)
02/01/2017 at 15:41, STARS: 0
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-many-dangers-of-donald-trumps-executive-order
"TheHondaBro" (wwaveform)
02/01/2017 at 16:44, STARS: 0
So since these people can’t immigrate because they’re Muslim, would the constitution protect them because they’d otherwise be able to immigrate? If so, that’s definitely a violation of the first amendment. Not trying to argue, just trying to learn.
"Sir Halffast" (Sir_Halffast)
02/01/2017 at 17:43, STARS: 1
This is different, first they have to get here. However, their getting here is also protected under other law. Namely, portions of the US Code which were instituted in order to comply with the Geneva Convention on Refugees. Basically, if someone arrives at the border and says that they are seeking asylum, and they fit a few basic criteria (war torn country, persecuted group/sect, etc.) then you CANNOT turn them away. You HAVE to let them in, at least long enough to do the investigation.
Tourist visas and business (temporary) visas (A and B visas) are a different story, and can basically be turned away if the CBP officer has a bad feeling. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, with this EO. The problem with the EO is that it: 1) singles out a handful of countries with little discernible criteria, other than that they are Muslim nations; 2) is overbroad, not just putting a moratorium on new visas, but an outright ban on ALL visa holders from those countries, including those already in transit (which is CRAZY); and 3) does not distinguish between classes of visa holders. For instance, Green Card holders, H1-B work visas, and other long-term (both permanent and non-permanent) visas go through EXTENSIVE screening already. They are NOT issued on the spot (unlike regular tourist/business visas).
Therefore, the people that are primarily hurt, i.e. those who already have established a long-term permanent or “temporary” presence in the US, have some measure of vested constitutional rights already, even though they’ve left the country temporarily.
Hope that helps a bit? Source: My J.D. + 10 years of work in international relations + married to a naturalized citizen...
" The Compromiser" (charger)
02/01/2017 at 17:44, STARS: 0
Say what you want, but his wife is hot.
"mtdrift" (mtdrift)
02/01/2017 at 17:52, STARS: 0
Colo-what?
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
02/01/2017 at 17:58, STARS: 0
That place where it’s so pretty. Everyone should move there.
"mtdrift" (mtdrift)
02/01/2017 at 18:23, STARS: 0
Who hasn’t?
"Jonee" (Jonee)
02/02/2017 at 03:12, STARS: 0
The Equal Protection Clause only states “person,” so the “legality” of why they’re here shouldn’t matter. Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
"Sir Halffast" (Sir_Halffast)
02/02/2017 at 08:55, STARS: 0
Read my other comment. I explain in more detail...