9th Circuit Judge: DHS Officers Humiliate Judges by Enforcing Immigration Laws

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

30 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Exactly. Kinda hard to even consider cases in the equation that don't even come up for review in SCOTUS. 

 

They didn't take issue with the graph nor the data, the source for these graphs are not Sean Hannity, they are the American Bar Association.. they merely countered with a point regarding intent of reversal which I've never heard anyone ever argue, and it's completely non sequitur, which makes sense from a garbage site like Snopes. 

 

 

You can do the math yourself.. 140/175=0.8 (80%)

 

80% of cases SCOTUS reviews from the 9th are overturned. As simple as it gets.

 

The study source from the American Bar:

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

 

One can easily understand why Snopes is a crock by analyzing the data themselves, and the source Hannity uses is in fact correct. I don't take any issue with the other claim about SCOTUS taking up cases for reversals because in my life I've never heard this argued once, so I don't even find reason to attempt to debate this.

We have had this discussion with them before. It's like s batting average and theirs is the lowest 

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

We have had this discussion with them before. It's like s batting average and theirs is the lowest 

Yeah. Shouldn't have wasted my time.

[jg121783 3,908]

9 hours ago, IAMX said:

What part about the article wasn't true? 

You won't get a straight answer to that question. They will always attack the source and not even get into the information in the article. Common diversion tactic.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

56 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

You won't get a straight answer to that question. They will always attack the source and not even get into the information in the article. Common diversion tactic.

I gave a straight answer. What was missing was the story of the twenty some years. Of this mans life in America and how that deserves sine consideration,  hence the judges admonushment.

[jg121783 3,908]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I gave a straight answer. What was missing was the story of the twenty some years. Of this mans life in America and how that deserves sine consideration,  hence the judges admonushment.

My point exactly. He didn't ask what was missing but rather what part of the article wasn't true. You side stepped the question.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

15 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

My point exactly. He didn't ask what was missing but rather what part of the article wasn't true. You side stepped the question.

Ok so we grant that the article was a half truth in that it did not fully represent the context of what the judge said.

[jg121783 3,908]

21 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Ok so we grant that the article was a half truth in that it did not fully represent the context of what the judge said.

How was it a half truth? It quoted word for word what the judge said. At best you could maybe argue it didn't analyze in depth enough what the judge said (and that is a bit of a stretch) but you can't argue any part of the article is untrue.

 

47 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I gave a straight answer. What was missing was the story of the twenty some years. Of this mans life in America and how that deserves sine consideration,  hence the judges admonushment.

 

What also deserves consideration is that this man not only broke the law by coming here illegally but he broke the law multiple times after that by engaging in activity that could have killed people. If he was serious about having a life and a family in the US after he came here illegally he could have went back home and applied for a spousal visa as many law abiding immigrants on these forums (my wife included) did. I might actually have some sympathy for the guy despite him coming and staying here illegally if he had not made matters worse by breaking the law multiple times after that in a manner that put public safety at risk. I do have a lot of sympathy for his family for what he probably put them through with his actions. If this guy had simply been deported for nothing more than being here illegally he would still have a decent chance of getting a spousal visa to come back but he probably screwed things up for himself and his family with the DUIs.

[jg121783 3,908]

11 hours ago, IAMX said:

 

 

Even though the judge lamented about having to follow the law, he whines about not being above it. 9th circuit in a nutshell.

Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws, according to a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge’s cry of outrage came when he could not block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children.

“We are unable to prevent [Andres] Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system,” complained Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wishes to extend citizens’ rights to illegal foreign migrants. He said: 

We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz’s request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government’s action in this case fair or just. …

The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not.

The judge, who was appointed — not elected — in 1980 and is married to a former top leader in the ACLU, also lamented the authority of ordinary DHS agents to enforce the law despite protests from well-paid, high-status “civil rights” lawyers:

On January 25, 2017, the President [Donald Trump] signed a series of executive orders dismantling the system of priorities that had previously guided Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol in determining whom to deport. The orders also gave far greater authority to individual agents and officers, who are now removing non-citizens simply because they are here illegally, regardless of whether they have committed any offense. 

So breaking the law by entering the country illegally is no longer considered an offense by liberal logic?

[Dashinka 24,109]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

So breaking the law by entering the country illegally is no longer considered an offense by liberal logic?

That is progress!

 

[IAMX 3,055]

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So breaking the law by entering the country illegally is no longer considered an offense by liberal logic?

 

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is progress!

 

Laws I don't like don't count! --9th circuit judges

Edited June 6, 2017 by IAMX

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

My point exactly. He didn't ask what was missing but rather what part of the article wasn't true. You side stepped the question.

You didn't expect a straight answer did you. Red robin yellow.  See that red robin, Them. - it's yellow.  After a while you just go ok