mspart

It is when there is no remedy readily available. This was timed such there is very little time to get this reversed. There is no time for the people to have a say in this. That is demonstrably not democratic. mspart

So you would be happy if a court keeps Biden off the ballot for corruption. There is ample evidence of it but no case has been made about it. But any court can just say it because that is sound legal reasoning? mspart

So based on zero evidence, zero judicial review, and zero convictions, a court can legally say anyone did anything they want to. That does not sound like perfectly sound legal reasoning. That sounds like an authoritative and statist kind of thing. We definitely need more of this sound legal reasoning in our courts today. This is why the optics look terrible on this. It is a case where a court can say a person did something with no evidence, or judicial cases making that claim. They just came up with it out of thin air. Sound legal reasoning? Yeah right. mspart

Trump has not be charged with insurrection other than the rushed impeachment in 2021. The Senate acquitted him of that. In no other place has he been anything other than charged or opined to have been a part of an insurrection. The High court in CO decided that he was part of an insurrection and therefore disqualified. I think SCOTUS gets this and asks this very question and and votes to disallow the CO courts ruling. The optics of this look bad because it is a brazen attempt to keep someone off the ballot and using any explanation for it. The ruling should hold no water at SCOTUS. The reasoning is suspect and not legal. If SCOTUS allows this then it will be a real problem. mspart

That's an insurrectionist!!! Look at the weapon he is wielding. And look at the other hoodlums with guns galore. Yep, this was an insurrection. msaprt

As you noted, it is a few people that did this. That is not democracy, that is judicial rule. Democracy is people voting. Did the people of CO vote to keep Trump off the ballot? The answer to that is NO. But that would be democracy. mspart

Thanks, the flow article is what I was looking for. mspart

I've been looking. Maybe not hard enough. mspart

There is that, but the Feds do not enforce it, so on it goes. In my mind, sanctuary entities need to not receive any federal funds of any kind. But there is not a chance that would pass right now. But that is what is needed. WA is a sanctuary state and actively tries to subvert federal attempts to capture illegals. mspart

I need to amend what I said and I can't edit it. It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch in the first instance, it is that he allowed it to continue by taking no action. The underlined items are the changes. mspart

Someone(s) already died and he did nothing to stop more from being killed. It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch, it is that he allowed it to happen by taking no action. I don't think that is an insane precedent. mspart

DOJ will try to strike it down. It will be up to the courts to do so. No doubt DOJ will sue to get this stopped like they did last time. mspart

https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/ Illegals in the states: AZ 275,000 TX 1,600,000 FL 775,000 CA 2,200,000 NY 725,000 So TX, FL, and CA have more than all of NY. AZ has less. So technically you are correct. mspart

If the state law is equal to the fed law, then there is no problem. I believe that is how the laws are written. It's just that the executive branch has decided not to enforce the law. And that is creating all this mess. This is a new problem, not something we've had a lot problem with except in the recent past to now. And that is because of a decision not to enforce federal law. mspart

Can we agree he had no obligation to serve and protect the people inside the school? mspart

Exactly. mspart

For me it is if the Fed abdicate their lawful responsibility as in this case. Then the state can act and I think TX is well within their rights to do so. How does the law cover work visas? I don't know. mspart

TX, AZ, FL, and CA are housing many times more than that. TX and FL only send a small portion of what they receive everyday. What does the federal law say about giving immigrants work visas? What does federal law say about allowing everyone that wants across the border to come across the border? I don't know about the visa deal but the law on immigration has a certain amount of qualified people that can come into the country. That has been abdicated. If everyone that comes into the country per the law gets a visa, then I suppose the city could give them a visa. But now you have too many workers and wages will go down and this will be a huge economic issue everywhere, which is why we have immigration law in the first place. There are intended and unintended consequences to abdicating responsibility at the border. mspart

So this is why I am not sure I believe you when you say in your opinion, it is not good to have tens of thousands crossing the border daily. You say it is not good. Yet TX is doing something about it and you are now questioning their authority to do so. So do you really think it is a bad thing for so many people to come over? If you do, but don't think a state has the authority to stop it, then what are you doing to get the Federal government to stop it? From what I have seen, you are pretty much a rah rah for the feds and what they are doing. As far as I am concerned, the Federal government has abdicated their duty. By doing so they authorize the states to do it for them. Period. mspart

What are they there for if not to serve and protect? That is the job of a police officer. mspart

Then it should be stopped. TX is making that attempt at least along their border. This would not be felt necessary (and never was) except the Federal Government has abdicated their responsibility to control immigration. mspart

Slow thinking and smart are not necessarily related. mspart

Why is having tens of thousands daily crossing the border a good thing? mspart

The Jazzy theme holds up but the story does too. The animation is not the greatest I'll give you. But the Peanuts Christmas show is an all time classic. The music makes it happen. mspart

It is really a shame. But on the other hand, typically there is just a world of difference between D1 and the others. Now maybe that is because of the rule change. There was a guy in MN named Marcus Lavasser (I think that is how it is spelled) and he could have been a D1 champ, but chose DIII instead. He was undefeated and a 4 time DIII champ. Apparently couldn't hack the academic side of U of MN. mspart