Apparently these lawyers missed the hierarchy and separation lecture in law school. But nothing would surprise me with Massachusetts we need to be more left than California.

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne..._immigration_arrests

More of the "Stupid-on-Steroids" approach toward the law. I hope these scumbag, ambulance chasing, bottom feeders lose, and lose big.

quote:

want states highest court to order Federal Law Enforcement to not arrest people on Federal crimes

I don't think they understand how this all is supposed to work...

By any means necessary.
Shit don't mean shit.

Why not order the President to wear a big red nose and floppy feet, and find out if he has to.



Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Apparently these lawyers missed the hierarchy and separation lecture in law school. But nothing would surprise me with Massachusetts we need to be more left than California.

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne..._immigration_arrests

Mr Spunk, I have a serious question, prompted by your commentary.

Do you think a single comet could wipe out both Massachusetts AND California at the same time? Or might the comet have to hop and skip to hit both tartets? Or would it take two comets?

(And I have a question for my doctor. How many times can my head explode and still stay intact?)

CA just appointed their first illegal alien to s government position. Turns out illegals are under represented. What's next, affirmative action for illegals?

at least ICE now knows where to find the criminal - easy to find and arrest

That's ok we have them beat in Cali.
We have undocumented illegal, but legal lawyers.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018...t-in-california.html

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
Apparently these lawyers missed the hierarchy and separation lecture in law school. But nothing would surprise me with Massachusetts we need to be more left than California.

http://www.bostonherald.com/ne..._immigration_arrests

Mr Spunk, I have a serious question, prompted by your commentary.

Do you think a single comet could wipe out both Massachusetts AND California at the same time? Or might the comet have to hop and skip to hit both tartets? Or would it take two comets?

(And I have a question for my doctor. How many times can my head explode and still stay intact?)

I think a single comet breaking into two sections would be better.

They must have done very poorly when studying ConLaw.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

" . . . This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. . . "

I would love to see Massacheusetts lose this one, particularly since I can't see where one would draw logical limits to this rule. An illegal could argue that it doesn't matter whether they're physically at the courthouse or not. Fear of deportation could keep them from going outside, holding down a job, or anything else that could conceivably hinder their access to justice in a Massacheusetts court. Since what actually hinders illegals from going to court is the fear of deportation, then by liberal logic the only way to ensure that illegals receive justice in state courts is for the federal government to promise to not deport that illegal for so long as the state court case may last.

If an illegal can get themselves sued or sue someone, and then slow-walk the case through court, aren't they essentially buying a get out of deportation free card at the expense of the courts? Are ICE agents supposed to keep up-to-date computerized lists of which illegals are involved in court cases, and wouldn't that requirement be tantamount to self-incrimination? Would the courts really want to invite people to file enough slow-walking cases to choke the court system anyway just so people could avoid visa requirements?

The courts are carrying out a state governmental function, though, and its one of fundamental functions of state government. I think these chumps may actually be able to pull a Tenth Amendment argument out of their butts. I don't know how far it will go or how far it will take them - the courthouse steps, maybe, or perhaps sixty feet from the courthouse building? But federal courts are bound to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument that the operation of state courts is being impeded.

Right now I'm hoping the federal courts remember a few critical things.

- If being involved in a state court case is a "get out of deportation free" card, then there's no logical reason why being involved in a federal case should not be a "get out of deportation free" card.

- Not only would illegals be able to use the federal courts to avoid deportation, but many of the illegals in state court might be able to piece together federal appeals from those state cases. After all, many state judges would be willing to help out in the name of politically correct humanitarianism, and interlocutory appeals (where possible) would allow the state courts to get the case out of their hair and let someone else babysit it for a while!

- The federal courts themselves have complained about their backlog of cases for at least the past few decades, and they still do despite habitually shoveling as much authority (and therefore work) as they decently can to Masters, mediators and arbitrators. This is one case where backing the state courts cannot possibly reduce the federal courts' workload, and will quite probably add to it.

While it's hard to be sure based on a news article alone, I think k you may be misinterpreting the argument. They are not claiming that anyone who is party to a civil suit be protected. Rather, they are saying those that are "unlawfully present," in the US should be protected,because those are civil, not criminal cases.

Being "unlawfully present" does allow for detention, and removal, but is a civil matter. "Illegal entry," is a criminal matter, although it's a misdemeanor. "Illegal re-entry" is a criminal matter, but is a felony. I can't recall which statutes cover the first two, and I'm too lazy to look, but illegal re-entry is in 8USC1326.

So again, from my read of the article (despite its incorrect terminolgy), it appears they want to bar detention of people who are subject to "removal" through the civil court process.

quote:

Rather, they are saying those that are "unlawfully present," in the US should be protected,because those are civil, not criminal cases.

Are the "unlawfully present" not illegal aliens?

Does that bit of semantics change what the article claims about the argument presented by those attorneys, regarding persons subject to civil proceedings?

Regardless, illegal entry/re-entry is a crime. Unlawful presence is not. The former being handled through criminal court, and the latter through civil court.

Have you ever read question 12.c. on an ATF Form 4473? Ever wondered why they make the same distinction, or more importantly why 18USC922(g)(5) makes that same distinction?

"When people fear our judicial system, that undermines the very fabric of our society and weakens communities," said Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal.

Committing crimes undermines our society and communities. Enough of the BS selective enforcement and prosecution. If they don't want to "live in fear", then they need to do what is necessary to become legal.

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
... But nothing would surprise me with Massachusetts we need to be more left than California.

Having lived there for a while in my younger days, I have to agree that California has nothing on the Boston area with regard to liberal insanity.



.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
Does that bit of semantics change what the article claims about the argument presented by those attorneys, regarding persons subject to civil proceedings

I think that's the point I was trying to make. If they don't face sanctions, then they're not deterred from going to court.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
Does that bit of semantics change what the article claims about the argument presented by those attorneys, regarding persons subject to civil proceedings

I think that's the point I was trying to make. If they don't face sanctions, then they're not deterred from going to court.

They do face sanctions. Despite it being a civil matter aliens who are unlawfully present may be detained pending removal.