GrumpyCatFace wrote:We're no more in danger than we've been for 200 years.
Trolling?
Not at all. There's always been an outside chance of Indian raid on your homestead, or random foreigner blowing up a building. Explosives weren't invented yesterday.
I guess you could say the chance of dying by terrorist has gone from .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% to .000000000000000000000000002 or something, but it's not a threat, compared to lightning strike or shark attack. You'll never see a terrorist, unless you're overseas fighting for cheap oil. You will almost certainly die of a clogged artery or car accident - with an unassigned probability of nuclear war (no way to predict those odds).
All that's changed is the media and fear-mongering reaching insane levels across the planet.
You make sure you have that speech ready when it's your turn. When we round you up, we're gonna let the loved ones of the victims be the ones to pull the trigger. We're generous like that.
/edit alright, i'll clarify before someone gets their panties in a wad. I'm kidding.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
1. goes after Trans-National Crime - Drug Cartels
2. a Crime Task Force to restore Public Safety - Chicago
3. Blue Lives Matter - got a problem with this one.
Blue Lives Matter is as bad as Black Lives Matter. I'm not for special protections on groups. Hate crimes laws are stupid and so is this. People should be equally punished under the law. It shouldn't matter if I kill a middle ages electrician, a laino transgender goat loving freak or a cop. Whoever it is, there dead. I think we really take a detour when we say some people are more valuable to have a alive than others.
Plus, most the time, if you kill a cop. Cops are going to hunt you down and get some extra judicial revenge. Your wrong on this one Donald.
"She had yellow hair and she walked funny and she made a noise like... O my God, please don't kill me! "
Although the 9th Circuit decision was a blow to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, several avenues remain open to the Justice Department . . . to salvage the ban. ...
1. Request an en banc rehearing from the 9th Circuit.
...The DOJ has the right to ... get a hearing before a court of 11 judges. . . . If the 9th Circuit agrees, it will vacate Thursday’s decision and fully reconsider the government’s request to lift the lower court’s injunction.
A request for en banc rehearing has one plus for the government: It delays the speed with which this case careens toward the Supreme Court. If the government thinks Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch may provide a fifth vote to lift the injunction, it should attempt to delay proceedings until Gorsuch is seated. An en banc rehearing is probably the best way to do that.
On the other hand, a rehearing would likely end in immediate defeat for the DOJ. The 9th Circuit is quite liberal and the odds of an en banc court lifting the injunction are quite slim. ...
Ultimately, petitioning for a rehearing en banc feels like a waste of time. . . .
2. Appeal to the Supreme Court.
The government could also ask the Supreme Court to intervene, reverse the 9th Circuit, and lift the injunction. Taking this case to the justices now feels like a mistake, though. The court is now evenly divided along ideological lines: If all four liberal justices vote to maintain the injunction and all four conservatives vote to lift it, the court will deadlock 4–4. A tie would simply affirm the 9th Circuit decision . . . .
...
... For all we know, the court could unanimously reverse the 9th Circuit and lift the injunction. But it’s fair to say that the odds do not favor the government. The liberal justices do not like government actions that abridge the liberties of thousands based on some arguably arbitrary classification. And Kennedy does not like being told that it isn’t his job to say what the law is.
3. Re-litigate the case in another circuit.
On CNN, Alan Dershowitz advised the government to re-litigate this case in a different circuit, perhaps the more conservative 5th Circuit .... at best, this strategy would lead to a circuit split with dueling and contrary decisions out of two different federal circuits. That would lead to Supreme Court review . . . .
4. Withdraw the executive order and issue a new one.
This option makes the most sense for the government, and the White House is reportedly considering it. . . . [H]e’ll have to craft an order that includes due process protections, excludes questionable language about religion, and acknowledges that it does not apply to lawful permanent residents. ...
Such an order may not be what Trump wants but it could be written to pass constitutional muster. ...
Postby Alexander PhiAlipson » Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:46 pm
I'd have my boys and girls rewrite the order directly quoting that bit of US code which basically says:
"The president can ban entry to the US any alien at anytime for any reason."
Maybe add a little tongue sticking out emoji by his signature.
United States Code: Title 8: Chapter 12: Subchapter 2: Part 2: § 1182
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
