Wow. That's not a ruling. That's A STORY, A NARRATIVE. Shameful abuse of the bench. That judge is a piece of shit. Just making things up. The intent of the original law is on the record. It stands. If the language of the law does not reveal any specific prejudicial motivation, the judge abused his authority. The judge has an opinion. An opinion that reveals A BIAS that can be contested because OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENT. The judge must provide the proof of his statement, otherwise it's just a rule by decree. Any judge, anywhere, can use exactly the same language to disregard laws they happen to disagree with, or compelled to disregard because of social pressures or even bribes. That's bullshit, man. This is exactly the sort of corruption we are witnessing all around the world. In the USA, Mayors and other elected officials are simply manufacturing authority for themselves that does not exist, because reasons...??!! No. This sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable and it is significant abuse of a position. "Make up the rules as we go, whatever...." does not appear in the Constitution or the Charter of a Single city in the United States of America.
Obama Judge Strikes 'Racist' 92-Year Immigration Law. An almost century-old federal law that makes it a crime for deported migrants to re-enter the U.S. was found unconstitutional by a judge who said its passage in 1929 was motivated, in part, by prejudice against Mexicans and other Latinos.
(www.newsmax.com)
Wow. That's not a ruling. That's A STORY, A NARRATIVE. Shameful abuse of the bench. That judge is a piece of shit. Just making things up. The intent of the original law is on the record. It stands. If the language of the law does not reveal any specific prejudicial motivation, the judge abused his authority. The judge has an opinion. An opinion that reveals A BIAS that can be contested because OPINIONS ARE NOT PRECEDENT. The judge must provide the proof of his statement, otherwise it's just a rule by decree. Any judge, anywhere, can use exactly the same language to disregard laws they happen to disagree with, or compelled to disregard because of social pressures or even bribes. That's bullshit, man.
This is exactly the sort of corruption we are witnessing all around the world. In the USA, Mayors and other elected officials are simply manufacturing authority for themselves that does not exist, because reasons...??!! No. This sort of thing is absolutely unacceptable and it is significant abuse of a position. "Make up the rules as we go, whatever...." does not appear in the Constitution or the Charter of a Single city in the United States of America.
fucking insanity
fucking insanity
Are you not entertained?
Honk. Honk.
Are you not entertained?
Honk. Honk.
So they couldn't find a legal reason to strike it down, so its straight to the whitey bad argument.
So they couldn't find a legal reason to strike it down, so its straight to the whitey bad argument.
We are no longer a nation of laws. Welcome to communism.
We are no longer a nation of laws.
Welcome to communism.
Still a nation of laws. Laws to be used against you and yours.
Still a nation of laws. Laws to be used against you and yours.
No, we are not a nation of laws anymore. Google the term and learn what it means.
No, we are not a nation of laws anymore.
Google the term and learn what it means.
I’m well aware of the John Adams quote and its meaning and I stand by what I said because of it.
I’m well aware of the John Adams quote and its meaning and I stand by what I said because of it.
If you have to go outside of the law itself to find some justification for invalidating it, you're literally sidestepping the rule of law. The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the laws are considered on their own merit and applied equally across the board. This judge is an enemy agent to the rule of law and instead wants legal principals applied unequally, depending on the human(s) from which it originated.
I think a good judge could highlight the stupidity of this philosophy by invalidating something like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that many of the people who voted for it at the time were guilty of saying words like "nigger," thus making the law an obvious tool of racists.
If you have to go outside of the law itself to find some justification for invalidating it, you're literally sidestepping the rule of law. The whole point of the "rule of law" is that the laws are considered on their own merit and applied equally across the board. This judge is an enemy agent to the rule of law and instead wants legal principals applied unequally, depending on the human(s) from which it originated.
I think a good judge could highlight the stupidity of this philosophy by invalidating something like the Voting Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that many of the people who voted for it at the time were guilty of saying words like "nigger," thus making the law an obvious tool of racists.
Liberals in office are ALL activists.
Liberals in office are ALL activists.
Enjoy the next South African experience in the United Caliphate States of America. We have 30,000 fighting age Afghan men coming here too. Living in blissful ignorance, and denial only works for so long.
Enjoy the next South African experience in the United Caliphate States of America. We have 30,000 fighting age Afghan men coming here too. Living in blissful ignorance, and denial only works for so long.
(post is archived)