Is the West in decline

[Ccb]

My understanding is this: A judge heard evidence and determined who should be detained without bail, detained pending bail, or not detained at all. Is that not the truth?

Whereas a judge didn't make that determination with Garcia. The Executive branch of the government did.

One is an example of due process. The other is not.

An activist judge in DC with a political axe to grind. A lot of these prisoners were held without due process. None of them were convicted of insurrection. Hardly fair to keep someone in the gulag for trespassing while rapists and murderers are let off by these same judges. We have a big problem in our judicial branch.
As far as national security threats go, a judge doesn’t get to make any decisions. That’s on the executive branch to keep the country safe.
If that were the case, why even have an executive branch?
Just let the unelected judges run the country.

 

[Johnny D]

That’s interesting. What is your standard for being a terrorist then?

Well, I don't have a definition right in front of me, but I'm going to say it's something along the lines of, "politically motivated violence committed against non-combatants".

 

[Johnny D]

An activist judge in DC with a political axe to grind. A lot of these prisoners were held without due process. None of them were convicted of insurrection. Hardly fair to keep someone in the gulag for trespassing while rapists and murderers are let off by these same judges. We have a big problem in our judicial branch.
As far as national security threats go, a judge doesn’t get to make any decisions. That’s on the executive branch to keep the country safe.
If that were the case, why even have an executive branch?
Just let the unelected judges run the country.

But the question wasn't whether I agree with the judges decisions. In fact, I side with Chief Justice Roberts in his. The question was whether they received due process, not whether I think justice was fair. I don't know of anyone who didn't have their case heard by a judge. That's due process.

And if you're going to prescribe unilateral authority to the president like that, with no oversight, then you also have to be okay with a decision made by another president you don't agree with. You would have to be okay, for example, with Biden declaring a group such as the Proud Boys as an existential terrorist threat to the country. Then no judge gets to determine any of their fate, they simply get swept up and sent to Gitmo. It's not as simple as just because the President says so. We have three branches of government for very good reason.

 

[not2big]

First, we are discussing serious crimes like rape and murder. Being present in the United States without legal documentation is in itself not a crime. Though some of the ways of entering the US may be considered federal crimes, the act of being here without legal documentation is not considered a federal crime. Being an undocumented person in the US is only punishable legally if someone has already left or been deported and has reentered without permission

i agree MS13 and similar gaNgs are probably terrorists and should be deported; however, to be deported as a terrorist, due process needs to be followed to prove they are members of MS13

 

[Johnny D]

Well, I don't have a definition right in front of me, but I'm going to say it's something along the lines of, "politically motivated violence committed against non-combatants".

I admit to being somewhat impressed with my own self
When I got home I looked up terrorism from the state department.
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism in 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2) as:
“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

 

[not2big]

US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made a cryptic post marking the day of Pope Francis' death on April 21, stating on X "Today, there were major shifts in global leaderships. Evil is being defeated by the hand of God." Green left the Catholic Church several years ago and became an evangelical Protestant after hearing reports of priests abusing children. I happen to be an agnostic and find the comments appalling And unworthy of a Congressional Representative.

 

[Ccb]

But the question wasn't whether I agree with the judges decisions. In fact, I side with Chief Justice Roberts in his. The question was whether they received due process, not whether I think justice was fair. I don't know of anyone who didn't have their case heard by a judge. That's due process.

And if you're going to prescribe unilateral authority to the president like that, with no oversight, then you also have to be okay with a decision made by another president you don't agree with. You would have to be okay, for example, with Biden declaring a group such as the Proud Boys as an existential terrorist threat to the country. Then no judge gets to determine any of their fate, they simply get swept up and sent to Gitmo. It's not as simple as just because the President says so. We have three branches of government for very good

US Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene made a cryptic post marking the day of Pope Francis' death on April 21, stating on X "Today, there were major shifts in global leaderships. Evil is being defeated by the hand of God." Green left the Catholic Church several years ago and became an evangelical Protestant after hearing reports of priests abusing children. I happen to be an agnostic and find the comments appalling And unworthy of a Congressional Representative.

The problem that most people have with Christianity is that they conflate the religion with the institutions. Catholicism has always been more focused on the institution. A person doesn’t need an intermediary to have a relationship with God. This is what the institutions try to insinuate and what gives them power and control of people who don’t know any different.
As far as Francis is concerned, he was not a good person or pope. MTG is well within her right to express as much.

 

[Ccb]

I admit to being somewhat impressed with my own self
When I got home I looked up terrorism from the state department.
The U.S. Department of State defines terrorism in 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2) as:
“Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”

Bravo! But I don’t think it needs to be political. When Muslims behead Christians, it’s not political. But I consider that terrorism.

 

[Pegasus]

Many people regard China as the more reasoned and are rethinking their options.

 

[Johnny D]

Many people regard China as the more reasoned and are rethinking their options.

China has learned from their history of protectionism and isolationism. It was an abject failure and they've seen the benefits of opening their economy to global trade since then.

 

[Johnny D]

Bravo! But I don’t think it needs to be political. When Muslims behead Christians, it’s not political. But I consider that terrorism.

Agreed, and I believe that the UN even expanded the definition to be more generally "ideologically" motivated which would encompass religious and not limited to just political. And US courts have held that religiously motivated violence is just as much terrorism and politically. It's more about the attempt to coerce a civilian population to an ideology, whatever that ideology is. Perhaps the state department will be more clear in their definition. Regardless, that's why I don't consider a gang of thugs terrorists - their violence isn't targeting non-combatants in an attempt to coerce them for ideological purposes.

 

[not2big]

As far as Francis is concerned, he was not a good person or pope. MTG is well within her right to express as much.

from my unreligious, impartial position, I found Pope Francis to be a very good person with strong feelings about the common and underprivileged people. As Pope, he brought the Catholic Church to be more accommodating and attractive to this segment of the church‘s Congregants. As a Congressional Representative, MGT also has the responsibility to remain bipartisan when it comes to religious matters.

 

[Johnny D]

from my unreligious, impartial position, I found Pope Francis to be a very good person with strong feelings about the common and underprivileged people. As Pope, he brought the Catholic Church to be more accommodating and attractive to this segment of the church‘s Congregants.

He was probably the most divisive Pope ever and alienated many Catholics. I don't have a dog in this hunt but think that whether he was good or bad is a decision for Catholics, not the non-religious.

As a Congressional Representative, MGT also has the responsibility to remain bipartisan when it comes to religious matters.

Really? Why? And what partisan about he statement?
I think it's repugnant to celebrate his death, but I think she's pretty repugnant, herself. That aside, why shouldn't she opine on religious matters, despite what we think of her opinion?

 

[akaTrex]

First, we are discussing serious crimes like rape and murder. Being present in the United States without legal documentation is in itself not a crime.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien​

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

[not2big]

He was probably the most divisive Pope ever and alienated many Catholics. I don't have a dog in this hunt but think that whether he was good or bad is a decision for Catholics, not the non-religious.

Really? Why? And what partisan about he statement?
I think it's repugnant to celebrate his death, but I think she's pretty repugnant, herself. That aside, why shouldn't she opine on religious matters, despite what we think of her opinion?

If Catholics are the ones to decide on the Pope’s effectiveness, why do you feel it’s appropriate for MTG, a non-Catholic and a public figure. to comment on the Pope’s character? In my opinion, she is characterizing the Pope’s liberal leadership as evil.

 

[not2big]

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien​

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

I agree with the code. However, I also believe due process is required it show the alien violated the code before imposing a punishment.

 

[Johnny D]

If Catholics are the ones to decide on the Pope’s effectiveness, why do you feel it’s appropriate for MTG, a non-Catholic and a public figure. to comment on the Pope’s character? In my opinion, she is characterizing the Pope’s liberal leadership as evil.

It's not a question of appropriateness. You said that she has a responsibility to remain non-partisan. I asked what about her statement was partisan and why does she have that responsibility?

 

[not2big]

It's not a question of appropriateness. You said that she has a responsibility to remain non-partisan. I asked what about her statement was partisan and why does she have that responsibility?

My interpretation of the Constitution is that the U.S. should not favor or criticize any specific religion and her comment was intended to condemn liberal Catholicism which I believe elected federal politicians should not do.

 

[Johnny D]

Go check out 1A. It's pretty specific about what's not allowed.

It's important to keep in mind that the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Instead, it restricts the governments ability to infringe upon our rights. So there's a presumption or inherent rights that the framers of it understood. This is important. So, for example, with our recent debates around whether illegals can be deported without due process... There is a presumption of a right to due process for all people. That's built into the Constitution and 5A and 14A restrict the government's ability to deny that right.

In the context of MTG's comments... She doesn't have the right to restrict your ability to practice whatever religion you want (the government can't create a law that favors one or denies another, etc...) since you have an inherent right to do so. But nothing prevents her from speaking her mind about her own. Both Obama and Biden have made multiple statements about their preference for religion. Did you call those inappropriate at the time?

 

[akaTrex]

I agree with the code. However, I also believe due process is required it show the alien violated the code before imposing a punishment.

Did every one of the 2.4 million Illegals that President Obama deported get due process?