Gerrymander based on ideology instead of race

[David64]

My guess is that doctors know who has the best survival likelihood and therefore prioritize things to ensure that the most likely to survive, does.

But the fittest might still die, or both might die, or neither. Nature has its way, whatever.

Of course, the doctors would deny it.

That's not what i asked. Does that women have the choice to abort or not ?

Do I have the choice to decide what goes in my body ?

Oh, by the way, your claim that 2% of people died of Covid is WAY off. It was 0.09%. But then again, all the fear mongerers said we were all going to die unless we give way to the Fascist demands that EVERYONE had to take the "vaccine" or we couldn't even go out in public.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

What happened to My Body My Choice ? Is it ok for a woman to keep her baby instead of aborting it, even if it puts her life in danger ? Even if they know there is a good chance the child may be born with disabilities ?

Or does that just apply to what you approve of ?

Absolutely.

Part of "pro-choice" is HER right to ignore what prenatal tests say, and proceed with trying to have the trisomy baby. It's HER right to think its more cruel to not give it a chance and try to carry it to full term... WORKS BOTH WAYS.

But now that you mention it, I dont really agree with the logic of the Supreme Court in recent years. The interpretation of the 14th has become inconsistent and based on theology. Just look at Alito's logic for Dobbs and dont apply it to desegregation.

But, what can one do? Wait for a liberal Supreme Court to reverse the Dobbs decison and in the meantime be thankful there is not enough congressional support for a national ban? Thats about it..

The hope being one day, two different women with malformed fetuses can simultaneously decide to keep it and not keep it, and have that be as protected as any other protected class thing...

Really depends on how they want to interpret the due process and equal rights clause to either rule against of for the states...

[Harte]

Wait, so you are saying that and act in 1996 defined how the Immigration Judges answer only to the DHS, an office that was created by George W. Bush after the 911 attacks in 2001? How did they know back in 1996?

Also, the last Amendment to the US Constitution was the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992.

So the Immigration Judges as you describe them now, are both extra-Constitutional, and external to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.


But wait, if they haven't committed a crime, then how could they be illegals? It seems to me that if you want call them illegals, then they must have at least broken a law?

And if they have broken a law, then they do have a right to appear in a Judicial Court, according the clearly stated exception in the statute that you quoted.

And now, apparently, you have a government office (DHS) that is extra to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, who are summarily deporting people (who have, or have not, committed a crime), before they have redress to the process of law? You have a law that says that the law doesn't apply?


And how do they prove anything if they are given no chance to present their case before the law, and are just deported without reasonable due process?


So even if they have a court date set, they can be deported, so they can't attend court, and if they cant attend court, they are immediately 'bad' and it was a damned good idea to deport them pre-emptively.

That is the very cleverest of stupid!

You don't want that bad sort of riff-raff being charged with something (or not) in court of law!!!


And if they can't attend their appeal for asylum, they are obviously bad for wasting the court's time, so it's fair enough to have, once again, completely ignored any legal process and human rights.


Its worse! They have broken the (unwritten) law by crossing the border while being ethnic!

But of course if they had really broken the law, then they have a right (by the quoted statute) to a Judicial trial and since that right is withheld from them, then they have to be guilty of something that isn't breaking the law... they do look... very... 'ethnic', though?


Are you sure that the 'liberal' judges heads aren't exploding at the circular nonsense they must try and decide?

You know, these law abiding illegal people will just keep coming back across the border. If only there was a final solution?



Or, perhaps it is your concepts of what US law is about that is your problem? To me, it seems that what you describe is highly irrational.

Semantic argument.
You ask that we pretend that the INS didn't exist.
That's damn lame.

You go on to create a couple of straw men, because you don't have the means to argue against anything I stated.
What I gave you are facts. You can read them yourself.

Your bogus bullshit is meaningless.

Harte

[David64]

Absolutely.

Part of "pro-choice" is HER right to ignore what prenatal tests say, and proceed with trying to have the trisomy baby. It's HER right to think its more cruel to not give it a chance and try to carry it to full term... WORKS BOTH WAYS.

But now that you mention it, I dont really agree with the logic of the Supreme Court in recent years. The interpretation of the 14th has become inconsistent and based on theology. Just look at Alito's logic for Dobbs and dont apply it to desegregation.

But, what can one do? Wait for a liberal Supreme Court to reverse the Dobbs decison and in the meantime be thankful there is not enough congressional support for a national ban? Thats about it..

The hope being one day, two different women with malformed fetuses can simultaneously decide to keep it and not keep it, and have that be as protected as any other protected class thing...

Really depends on how they want to interpret the due process and equal rights clause to either rule against of for the states...

I don't think abortion should be banned anywhere. Not my body, so I really don't care and I don't think I have the right to say what others do with theirs'. I absolutely DO NOT think I should have to pay for it through Federal funds. My Cancer surgery and treatment wasn't, and I didn't get prostate cancer through a careless one night stand.
If we're going to use the My Body My Choice to defend aborting babies, then I have every right refuse any and all vaccines that the Stasi says I have to have to step outside my house. Remember..these are the same people who said I didn't deserve healthcare or sympathy if I refused to take part in The Grand Experiment.

When, not if, the next one comes around, they'll be the first ones to be in line for the "gotta have jab" and insisting everyone else has to comply, still screaming My Body My Choice.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Southwest Land Border Encounters - US Customs and Border Protection

Look at recent numbers from the 2nd Trump administration. There are hardly any encounters. If there aren't many encounters, how could USC&BP be stopping anyone much?

There were 10 million encounters during Biden's administration. So the USC&BP must have been stopping lots of them (it is after all the job USC&BP exists for).

Which ever way you like to interpret the data, it doesn't conform to the idea that Trump has closed the border or that Biden opened it.

By your thinking, when police are not making arrest they are not working. You would then reduce the police force as being not needed. Then there is a crime wave. The motivation to not commit crime was reduced. Some people need that motivation. 

The reason there are less encounters is because the possible outcome has changed not because the border partol is not doing their job. Sometimes the most important part of a job in law enforcement is to be seen as available.

[govshill2]

Southwest Land Border Encounters - US Customs and Border Protection

Look at recent numbers from the 2nd Trump administration. There are hardly any encounters. If there aren't many encounters, how could USC&BP be stopping anyone much?

There were 10 million encounters during Biden's administration. So the USC&BP must have been stopping lots of them (it is after all the job USC&BP exists for).

Which ever way you like to interpret the data, it doesn't conform to the idea that Trump has closed the border or that Biden opened it.

What they call "encounters" were different under Biden Admin. Most "Encounters" were organized mass transports by paid NGOs under Democrat supervision and instruction and paid by U.S. Government.  Remember The U.S. Military is now at The Southern Border. 

[govshill2]

Wait, so you are saying that and act in 1996 defined how the Immigration Judges answer only to the DHS, an office that was created by George W. Bush after the 911 attacks in 2001? How did they know back in 1996?

Also, the last Amendment to the US Constitution was the 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992.

So the Immigration Judges as you describe them now, are both extra-Constitutional, and external to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.


But wait, if they haven't committed a crime, then how could they be illegals? It seems to me that if you want call them illegals, then they must have at least broken a law?

And if they have broken a law, then they do have a right to appear in a Judicial Court, according the clearly stated exception in the statute that you quoted.

And now, apparently, you have a government office (DHS) that is extra to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, who are summarily deporting people (who have, or have not, committed a crime), before they have redress to the process of law? You have a law that says that the law doesn't apply?


And how do they prove anything if they are given no chance to present their case before the law, and are just deported without reasonable due process?


So even if they have a court date set, they can be deported, so they can't attend court, and if they cant attend court, they are immediately 'bad' and it was a damned good idea to deport them pre-emptively.

That is the very cleverest of stupid!

You don't want that bad sort of riff-raff being charged with something (or not) in court of law!!!


And if they can't attend their appeal for asylum, they are obviously bad for wasting the court's time, so it's fair enough to have, once again, completely ignored any legal process and human rights.


Its worse! They have broken the (unwritten) law by crossing the border while being ethnic!

But of course if they had really broken the law, then they have a right (by the quoted statute) to a Judicial trial and since that right is withheld from them, then they have to be guilty of something that isn't breaking the law... they do look... very... 'ethnic', though?


Are you sure that the 'liberal' judges heads aren't exploding at the circular nonsense they must try and decide?

You know, these law abiding illegal people will just keep coming back across the border. If only there was a final solution?



Or, perhaps it is your concepts of what US law is about that is your problem? To me, it seems that what you describe is highly irrational.

Regular Immigration Courts and Judges are not part of the Judicial Branch. It's part of The DOJ. 

[govshill2]

I directly linked to the US Customs and Border protection reporting site.


So, the billions being paid to ICE and Border Patrol (8 times what he paid them in his first term), is all for nothing, and there is no border crisis.

Face it, he made it up during his first term (which got all the racists on side). He amped up the rhetoric saying the USA was being invaded, and they were almost all bad rapists and drug dealers.

Then he said that Biden was letting them all flood in (while USC&BP were saying they were being intercepted far more efficiently than when Trump was first in office).

And now Trump is saying that they have just stopped, and there is video footage that appears to show no-one crossing the border. But Trump is bankrupting the country, and doing stupid stuff like sending ICE into Minnesota of all places, to fight a crime wave there that no-one agrees is, or was, happening, to remove the criminal immigrants, of which there has always been almost none.


They have been since 2016. There are multiple news outlets that have put together lists of his obvious publicly broadcast lies. There were apparently 30,573 lies by Trump in his first term. His lies even get a Wikipedia page of their own:

False or misleading statements by Donald Trump

Trump Lies Scorecard (2015–2025): A Pretty Comprehensive Fact-Checked Report

Donald Trump’s Top 25 Lies of the Year

Why does Donald Trump tell such blatant lies?

What are the most egregious lies told by Donald Trump during his presidency?

50 lies Donald Trump told in his unhinged 18 minute address to the nation - one every 22 seconds

Top 10 Lies President Donald Trump Has Told Since Taking Office

CNN humiliates Donald Trump as host lists 13 lies president made in just one meeting

Trump's 'lifetime of lies' laid bare in damning 4 minute video

Fact check: Debunking 100 Trump false claims from his first 100 days

In four years, President Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims

T r u m p ’ s L i e s

Trump versus the truth: The most outrageous falsehoods of his presidency

162 lies and distortions in a news conference. NPR fact-checks former President Trump

Trump’s drumbeat of lies about the 2020 election keeps getting louder. Here are the facts

The first 5,276 false things Donald Trump said as U.S. president

... and so on...

I.C.E. and Border Patrol have many cases and warrants to fill far away from The Border.  
BP has been assisting ICE in serving warrants in many areas.  

[chr0naut]

Semantic argument.

Logical Argument vs. Semantic Argument

I did not argue about the meaning of individual words. I pointed out that the logical consequence of the statute you quoted, were contradictory.

I also pointed out that the alleged 'sole legal authority to prosecute' was poorly defined at the time of ratification of those laws, and so the inferred "sole authority" is extra-legal - meaning there is actually no statute that grants them sole legal authority.

The gap between the ratification of the laws, and the assumption of sole legal authority is decades.

The existing statute excluded Judicial Courts from trying immigration cases, but did not define who does have the authority to try or prosecute the cases. That's just lazy.

You ask that we pretend that the INS didn't exist.

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ceased to exist on March 1, 2003 and is not mentioned as having authority in the statute you quoted. No-one is granted authority in the quoted statute, but the Judicial Courts are excluded except where the immigrants have criminal charges. The law was poorly framed.

That's damn lame.

You go on to create a couple of straw men, because you don't have the means to argue against anything I stated.
What I gave you are facts. You can read them yourself.

But I did read them?

Your bogus bullshit is meaningless.

Harte

The statute you quoted was very poorly written.

Perhaps it was submitted by someone who just wanted to make a name for themselves, and was signed-off by people who couldn't be bothered to read or consider what it implied, because they didn't think it would be that important, anyway?

This is why Congressional representatives all need to be qualified in law, as their primary roles encompass the initiation and ratification of bills to be passed into law.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Absolutely.

Part of "pro-choice" is HER right to ignore what prenatal tests say, and proceed with trying to have the trisomy baby. It's HER right to think its more cruel to not give it a chance and try to carry it to full term... WORKS BOTH WAYS.

But now that you mention it, I dont really agree with the logic of the Supreme Court in recent years. The interpretation of the 14th has become inconsistent and based on theology. Just look at Alito's logic for Dobbs and dont apply it to desegregation.

But, what can one do? Wait for a liberal Supreme Court to reverse the Dobbs decison and in the meantime be thankful there is not enough congressional support for a national ban? Thats about it..

The hope being one day, two different women with malformed fetuses can simultaneously decide to keep it and not keep it, and have that be as protected as any other protected class thing...

Really depends on how they want to interpret the due process and equal rights clause to either rule against of for the states...

So I had an idea on reading your post and I wanted to bounce it off of you to see what you thought because I think you may be pro choice didnt really dig into it just read it and Im wondering if this idea would work as a compromise.

What if .... it is your right to have an abortion but its not covered under insurance or social programs like medicaid/medicare and you have to fully pay for it upfront the exception being insane circumstances such as it is killing you or you were assaulted? Does that sound reasonable?