Agree Agree:  1,043
Likes Likes:  1,191
Page 983 of 983 FirstFirst ... 733883933958973979980981982983
Results 14,731 to 14,745 of 14745
  1. #14731

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    "Two days later, according to the federal case, FBI agents searched Wilson's home in Missouri and found a hidden compartment with a handmade shield, as well as: "a tactical vest, 11 AR-15 (rifle) ammunition magazines with approximately 190 rounds of .223 ammunition, one drum-style ammunition magazine for a rifle, firearms tactical accessories (lights), 100 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, approximately 840 rounds of 5.45x39 rifle ammunition, white supremacy documents and paperwork, several additional handgun and rifle magazines, gunpowder, ammunition-reloading supplies, and a pressure plate."

    ---0---
    So, basically, this nutso had the entire firepower of, like, Belize, at his disposal.
    It is insane.
    Starry starry night

  2. #14732

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    ...."the entire firepower of, like, Belize..." OR the average arsenal of a rural Southerner in this country. GH

  3. #14733

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    There is something I don't understand.

    It was announced a few days ago that the Dotard was going to the College Football Championship game in Atlanta. After all the noise from him and his sycophants against the players who knelt to protest African American's being gunned down in the streets you'd think someone might have asked, since he is the Dotard, if he knew the words of the Star Spangled Banner especially given his lack of knowledge in most areas. Instead, he goes on national TV and obviously doesn't know the words to the National Anthem!

    I'm not and never have been in PR but isn't part of preparing someone to be seen/heard in public to review just what is going to happen?
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth (paraphrased)


  4. #14734

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Texas’s More Honest Take On Garza v. Hargan

    Leah Litman // 1/11/18 // In-Depth Analysis

    Texas has a knack for writing amicus briefs that offer some of the more outlandish justifications for some of the federal government’s more outlandish policies. Texas did it in the entry ban litigation, arguing, against logic and doctrine, that the Youngstown framework somehow resolves the constitutional challenges to the President’s entry ban/suspension on refugees. Texas is doing it again in Garza v. Hargan, the case in which the Trump administration is attempting to impede undocumented young women’s access to abortion by refusing to release the women from its custody so that they can obtain abortions.

    The United States’ arguments in Garza have, at times, been somewhat hard to pin down. Marty Lederman has helpfully and extensively documented the United States’ shifting positions (as well as some more general shiftiness on its part). The United States’ arguments include, or have included, that:

    (1) The United States does not want to be “complicit” in an abortion by “affirmatively facilitating” one.

    (2) The United States has the authority to determine that it is not in these women’s best interests to have the abortion even though they have decided otherwise. (This argument was made in the district court, and not pursued thereafter.)

    (3) The young women could leave the United States (for countries where they may be at risk of violence or persecution, and where abortions are not permitted).

    Texas somehow managed to take this flimsy argumentation and make it even worse in an amicus brief it filed in the district court. (Texas’s brief is cosigned by Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. If you live in any of these states and do not know who your governor or state attorney general is, I would encourage you to learn that information, as well as the other activities your attorney general may have been undertaking. If you live in Michigan, see, for example, this article about AG Bill Schuette.)

    In the brief, Texas went all in on the argument that undocumented young women have no Fifth Amendment rights at all (or at least no substantive due process rights—more on that in a bit). (See pg. 3 (“[D]o the Fifth Amendment’s substantive due process guarantees apply to unlawfully-present aliens with no connection to this country who were apprehended while attempting to cross the border? The answer is no.”).)


    The Fifth Amendment reads, in relevant part:

    No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    The amendment thus clearly protects persons, not citizens. And Texas acknowledges that “the Supreme Court has held that unlawfully-present aliens are ‘persons’ protected by the Fifth Amendment.” (page 4)

    But, Texas continues, “the full scope of the Fifth Amendment’s protections that apply to citizens do not cover everyone who merely attempts to enter this country …. ‘[A]liens receive constitutional protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed substantial connections with this country.’” (id.) For that proposition, Texas cites United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case about whether the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied to a search of a foreign national in Mexico. (The Court said it does not.) From a case about whether the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applies to a search of a foreign national’s residence outside the United States, Texas concludes that some foreign nationals who are undocumented while in the United States have no Fifth Amendment rights at all.*

    Voila!

    What, you’re not persuaded?

    In the arguments in the district court during the first round of this litigation, the United States avoided taking the position that the undocumented young women involved in the case have no rights under the Fifth Amendment. But when the United States merely refused to concede that these women had constitutional rights, the district court was still taken aback: “That is remarkable,” the court told the government.

    Texas’s position is indeed remarkable—it does not account for the text; it dismisses precedent; it has untenable implications; and it makes a mockery of the English language. It does, however, have one thing going for it: Texas’s position is a better reflection of how the Office of Refugee Resettlement views these young women—as something less than autonomous human beings.

    (...)

    So let’s consider some implications of Texas’s position. When I initially wrote about this case, I highlighted two exchanges between Justice Kagan and the lawyer representing the United States in Rodriguez that were potentially relevant to Garza:

    JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Stewart, is – is your argument about the new admits, the people who are coming to the border, premised on the idea that they simply have no constitutional rights at all?

    MR. STEWART: It is premised on that….

    JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. If it is premised on that, I mean, Justice Scalia in one of his opinions talked about, surely, that -*that can't be right; could we torture those people, could we put those people into forced labor? Surely, the answer to that is no. Is that right?

    MR. STEWART: Yeah, I should have been more precise in saying they have no constitutional rights with respect to the determination whether they will be allowed to enter the country.

    JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So -- but they do have some constitutional rights, not to be tortured, not to be placed in hard labor...

    And the other exchange:

    JUSTICE KAGAN: But if I could just push on Justice Kennedy's question a bit, I mean, for those -- that class of aliens, we are talking about people who have been in this country, who clearly do have various constitutional rights. And are you suggesting that if the backlog is five years, it's okay to keep them there for five years …?

    MR. STEWART: I would say that is not unconstitutional….… Let me give you my most extreme answer, and then let me give you a – a backup answer. The most extreme answer is the criminal alien who is detained for more than six months, unlike every other form of detention that are -- is discussed in the briefs, that alien always has the option of terminating the detention by accepting a final order of removal and returning home.

    JUSTICE KAGAN: I take it that that's your most extreme answer because it doesn't sound all that good.

    (Laughter.)

    The idea that persons who lack substantial connections to the United States have no rights under the due process clause is, indeed, laughable. Could the United States forcibly sterilize those persons if it apprehends them at the border? Could the United States take their organs and donate them to citizens? Could the United States conduct medical experiments on the noncitizen children who were detained in Flores, or keep them in “shackles, chains, [and] barred cells”? Could the United States force women apprehended at the border to have abortions?

    Texas would have to say yes, I think, because Texas thinks that the “‘initial inquiry’ in assessing any due process claim” is whether the Fifth Amendment applies to the prospective plaintiff, and the rights the plaintiff is asserting. According to Texas, “the Court should begin with a threshold question: do the Fifth Amendment’s substantive due process guarantees apply….” And Texas confidently and definitively answers “no” to that question: It maintains that the Fifth Amendment does not “apply to unlawfully-present aliens with no connection to this country who were apprehended while attempting to cross the border.”

    On page 3, Texas presents its argument as limited to “the Fifth Amendment’s substantive due process guarantee.” But why would that be the case? The Fifth Amendment protects one group—“persons”; it does not extend one set of protections (those that are procedural in nature) to one group, and another set of protections (those that are substantive in nature) to a different group. It does not extend full-blown substantive protections to one group, and watered-down or laughable versions of substantive protections to a different group. The text refers to “persons” full stop; all of the Fifth Amendment’s protections apply to those persons. If persons without substantial connections to the United States don’t have rights the Fifth Amendment, they don’t have rights under the Fifth Amendment. In any case, the prohibitions on torture and medical experimentation are derived from the *substantive* guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, which are the ones that Texas says do not extend to persons without substantial connections to the United States.

    Texas’s argument on the Second Amendment also belies its suggestion that its position about the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s protections is somehow limited to the Fifth Amendment’s substantive guarantees, rather than its procedural ones: If the word “persons” in the Fifth Amendment has to be construed to mean the same thing as the phrase “the people” in the Second Amendment, then surely “persons” under the Fifth Amendment has to be construed to mean the same thing as, well, itself.

    (...)

    To sum things up: Texas’s argument has little to recommend it—not the text, not existing precedent, and not the implications of its position. Texas’s argument, however, has managed to attract one vote thus far—Judge Henderson adopted it when the D.C. Circuit decided not to stay an order of the district court. The other dissenting judges, Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Griffith, wisely chose not to do so. It's not hard to understand why.

    https://takecareblog.com/blog/texas-...garza-v-hargan
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth (paraphrased)


  5. #14735
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    James7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    5,742
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    The flu seems fairly severe this year. There are shortages in being able to treat some (sidenote, did you know Puerto Rico is a major supplier of IV bags typically?).

    A coworker lost a 38 year old friend this week. There are news stories with flu deaths but it's not getting much attention this year for whatever reason.
    I disapprove of this message

  6. #14736
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    24,265

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    It's getting a lot of attention in Dallas. High number of flu related deaths in the county.

    Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

  7. #14737

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    We don't have a thread dedicated to art and architecture (arcane subjects I know) but I thought I'd post the link to this Twitter moment so that we can see the new US embassy in London. I believe it's in Battersea.

    I think that Orange is upset because he and his cronies were not allowed in on the deal when the original building was sold.

    I'm not a big fan of modern architecture but it looks very nice to me.

    https://twitter.com/i/moments/951803...=244+273027088
    Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth (paraphrased)


  8. #14738
    Everyday Warrior MJ2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,867

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    The one year I skip the flu shot. There's gotta be some residual immunity left over from past years, right?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #14739

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ2004 View Post
    The one year I skip the flu shot. There's gotta be some residual immunity left over from past years, right?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You can still get a flu shot, FYI. Even though this year's shot is not holding up well to this year's strain, it's still worth getting if you can.


    @James7, the flu has been covered most days in the last week or so when I've watched the evening news. Covering multiple aspects of it, including the dangers and deaths that have occurred recently. It's also being covered locally in PA regularly, since it's among the states with a higher incidence of it.

  10. #14740

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Building itself is fine, but the location of the old one was much better. In NYC terms it would be something like moving from the Upper East Side to Bronx...
    Roger forever

  11. #14741
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    James7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    5,742
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    It's not really getting local coverage here. I was a bit surprised by the degree of impact. Being near DC I guess you can imagine what's getting the most news here.
    I disapprove of this message

  12. #14742

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    A neat tool to see what kind of immigrants are coming to US and more interestingly how it has been changing during the last five decades. Those numbers include everyone born abroad no matter what their status is.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/prog...50&iframe=true

    As you might imagine the number of Indians and Venezuelans is booming there as that of Germans and Italians declining.
    Roger forever

  13. #14743
    Everyday Warrior MJ2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,867

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Yeah, I missed flu clinic at my doc's office and this year they implemented a new policy where if you miss it they won't schedule you individually, but send you to CVS instead. That's not happening, so no shot for me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #14744

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Folks, Given the virulence of this year's flu bug, I would strongly encourage any of you who haven't gotten a flu shot to do so. The immunity starts to builds up from the time you receive the shot, reaching its maximum at about 2 weeks. So in about 2 weeks, you would in fact be as protected as those of us who got it much earlier. And if going to your local pharmacy is what you must do, I would strongly recommend that you do that. Retail pharmacists are quite well-trained in giving the injections. I really feel the risks of not getting the shot strongly outweigh the minor risks of getting it.

    GH

  15. #14745

    Re: National, Regional and Local News

    Quote Originally Posted by MJ2004 View Post
    Yeah, I missed flu clinic at my doc's office and this year they implemented a new policy where if you miss it they won't schedule you individually, but send you to CVS instead. That's not happening, so no shot for me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I've gotten it at a CVS before, one year when it was going to take me over a month to get an appointment at my doctor's office even though I'm high risk. It's not bad or painful or anything, if that's your concern. Just the regular pinch and it's done. They can bill your insurance if you're covered, and it's about $25-35 if you're not. Another option is your county's health department, which typically has stock of the vaccine longer than other places and at least near me, they don't charge you for it as they have flu clinics throughout the fall as a public service.

Page 983 of 983 FirstFirst ... 733883933958973979980981982983

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •