Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
No sorry, I don't. And it sounds like Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia also don't see that same connection, or they would have taken one of the "natural born" cases.
Forgive me, but I don't adhere to the notion that "SCOTUS" decides truth. They just decide which way the guns point. *I* am arguing for what is true, not which direction to point the guns.
And that's where wires are getting crossed. In the perfect world where truth always wins out, there would be no abortion, no one could cross the border illegally, there would be no divorce, no homosexuality. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing what the law says, what the Constitution says. And SCOTUS most definitely decides the law, even when they're wrong, corrupt, or just plain stupid about it.
So if you want to discuss that kind of truth, this isn't the thread to do it and you're changing the subject. If you want to discuss whether according to law 0bama would have been deported, this is the place.
Sorry for the double post.
“However, SCOTUS accepted the government case and denied the writ.”
You are doing it again...seems to be a pattern.
It can be said Justices saw nothing wrong with the child being placed on the deportation bus and sent to Mexico. This could be the reason they denied the writ.
You have no proof the SCOTUS accepted the governments case.
NONE.
No man is so insightful that they can see every connection with a cursory, or even often an extensive glance. (Your case stands as an example. :) ) I liken the connection to that of an invention which everyone proclaims as obvious once it has been placed on the market. "Obvious" is not always so Obvious.
And that's where wires are getting crossed. In the perfect world where truth always wins out, there would be no abortion, no one could cross the border illegally, there would be no divorce, no homosexuality. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing what the law says, what the Constitution says. And SCOTUS most definitely decides the law, even when they're wrong, corrupt, or just plain stupid about it.
So if you want to discuss that kind of truth, this isn't the thread to do it and you're changing the subject. If you want to discuss whether according to law 0bama would have been deported, this is the place.
Au Contraire, Mon Frère. A couple of Axiomatic Principles.
1. As a Government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, the Laws will eventually follow the wishes of the people.
2. If the truth is spread widely enough among the people, it will eventually become their wish.
As Franklin said:
"Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.
As my goal is to MAKE the Supreme Court eventually do the right thing (as in MacDonald v Chicago) nothing serves the purpose better than to establish the proof as to what is the truth. These arguments only hone the weapon better.
You are too late for your argument. Had it ever had a chance, that time has passed. As edge919 has already posted, in the 30s,40s, and 50s, deportation of American born Alien Children was routine. Here is a link to the article he posted.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/05/deport-the-children-of-illegal-immigrants/
Once you've had a chance to contemplate that, you should consider Red Steel's comments in post #188.
Also, I think you are neglecting that such a case has to get by a group of judges. Thomas was already heard to say that the court is evading the issue.
That may be a goal, but it isn’t the reality of current law. And that’s what this thread is about. So you’ve succeeded for the last few posts in distracting from the original issue, but I’m returning to the issue at hand.
“So you still haven’t looked at the link to the Supreme Court denial and seen that SCOTUS said the child was not deported? Of course you are more expert on the law than the Supreme Court. Either that, or you refuse to process new information that contradicts your position.”
“Did you bother to follow the link and read? Or are you just claiming something with no real idea of what you are talking about?”
“I am not too pigheaded to admit an error (unlike some). The statement was from the government case for denial, which I did not realize at first.”
We accept you did not understand what you were reading.
Roe v Wade is current law, but it is not legitimate. Do you disagree?
Define “legitimate”. . .do you mean “right” or do you mean “legal.” Do you contend abortions are “wrong” or do you contend they are “illegal.”
So you’ve succeeded for the last few posts in distracting from the original issue, but I’m returning to the issue at hand.
You are trying to change the subject. I answer one question, and then you veer off into more off topic. No more distractions when you get called on your errors.
I acknowledged my error. Will you acknowledge yours? The judge in the original cases said the children were natural born citizens.
The OP does not mind.
Does a fetus have a right to life? Yes or No.
You are posting on the most Pro Life site that exists in the Wide World Web but you refuse to tell us a fetus is a person.
Stop making excuses. Answer the question.
Does a fetus have a right to life?
I mean "Correct" (in the legal theory sense) and also "Moral." (In the Natural law sense.)
Roe v Wade is a nonsensical ruling from a legal standpoint. It is an abomination from a moral standpoint.
OK, you think abortions are wrong. So do I. Now, do you think they are legal??? Under American law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.