Free Republic

This is important because everyone needs to understand that it’s perfectly legal to be here illegally as long as you don’t commit a violent crime. You can rob people, sell drugs, steal identities and commit as much fraud as you like and still be here legally as long as you’re here illegally. Yeah, people complain about murders and rapes and wife beating and stuff but none of that is as traumatizing as having a masked ICE agent request verification of your immigration status.

When will America ever learn that compassion requires understanding the horrors of living in a nation where you might get deported for ignoring immigration laws!

Catalina and the Catalina Foothills are two different places. Catalina is a town north of Tucson. The Catalina Foothills are really just the north side of Tucson, in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains.

I can’t figure this one out. Sounds to me that the judge is saying that shooting someone in the back of the head doesn’t meet the statutory requirement for a “crime of violence”. Then again, this is Manhattan and that Hudson River water does some weird stuff to people.

Well, every other headline I read indicates that we’re all gonna die. At some point, I suppose, all of them will be right.

Even in Tucson there are a lot of really good people. Grijalva ain’t one of ‘em.

Looks like Ka$h decided Ross is guilty and he’s going to get the Chauvin treatment. This is insane. There is no way that his action was anything other than justifiable but now they’re raiding his house!?

What the actual....is going on here?

Well, he was close enough, obviously, that she couldn't safely maneuver around him and she did hit him so that pretty much constitutes "ramming" him. She KNEW he was there and still hit him. I'm not sure what else you want to show a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm but this would satisfy that requirement for any reasonable person.

Because a lot of their campaign money originates with gangs like MS-13.

The Alwaki hit was definitely in the same grey area as this was. My concern here isn’t the initial hit on the boat. I’m totally fine with that. My issue is with taking a second shot at survivors, if that’s what happened. Leavitt appeared to confirm the second hit today but, as someone else mentioned, we don’t have all the details so it’s a little early to pass judgement but there definitely seem to be some serious questions that need to be answered.

The ship and the tank, using your example, may still pose a legitimate threat. Two guys bobbing around on wreckage do not. It’s the same principle we use when justifying any use of deadly force.

I'm not so sure that Hegseth wasn't directly involved. What I'm getting is that Hegseth "authorized" the second hit and if that's the case then Bradley either asked for permission to take the second shot or asked for guidance. Either way, taking out a couple of guys clinging to the wreckage of their boat is pretty much contrary to every rule I've ever been exposed to.

There is probably more to this story than we have been given so far but as things stand I'd suggest that Bradley and Hegseth have some rather serious questions to answer.

“Experts” have a way of cherry picking their claims.

The video is not “treasonous” or “seditious” as defined by the respective statutes on those matters but it could well be a “subversive act” covered by 18 USC 2387

Section a clearly states that the AG (Executive Branch) has appointment power. That is the bases upon which all the rest of the statute hangs.

Section b clarifies the one caveat imposed on the Executive with regard to appointments.

Section c places limits on how long a temporary appointment can last. It DOES NOT say that there can't be a subsequent temporary appointment or even that the same person can't be reappointed.

Section d allows the Article III branch to appoint someone to that position (subsequent to the 120 day expiration) if the Article II branch does not. It DOES NOT say that the Article II branch forfeits their appointment authority if the 120 day period runs. It really CAN'T say that because Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution vests appointment authority in the Executive branch. There is no appointment power granted to the Article III branch by the Constitution.

By claiming that the Judicial branch, and ONLY the judicial branch, has authority to appoint someone once the 120 day rule has run would run completely contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional construction.

OK. So you’re fine with judicial activism and [likely] intentional misinterpretation of a given statute because the process is enough to warrant blowing the case. So be it. There are a LOT of people in this country that prefer no justice rather than see a Trump win on anything.

So your reading of 546 is that if the Article II authority doesn’t appoint a replacement within 120 days then they lose the ability to appoint and that authority transfers exclusively to the Article III authority? How is that in any way Constitutional?

In your opinion, is there any way, any possibility whatsoever, that this judge got her interpretation of the statute wrong?

I’ve visited Cyprus a couple of times over the past two years and, yes, there are cats all over in certain areas. I didn’t really see it as a problem and didn’t hear from any locals that it was. They did seem to like to hang out near restaurants and get fed.

One of very few in his line of work that stayed married to the same woman. 57 years of marriage. Very classy!

It’s my sincere opinion that speeding isn’t really the problem. Getting caught is!

46mph OVER the speed limit?

So, like 86 in a 40 or 106 in a 60? What state is this? You damned sure don’t get “deferred deposition” for that in Arizona!

“Hint” at the motivation? Who the heck are these idiots? It was political. A freaking carrot could tell that the motive was political