Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Liberals with their judges and Laws are destroying America. Where are the “good people” and “Second Amendment People” to make America great again?
No, they're supposed to care about all of the laws. The fact that someone is in the country illegally does not remove their basic human rights. Moreover, racial profiling and arresting people who are in the country legally simply based on the color of their skin violates the Constitution, which the sheriff swore to uphold. Then there's the fact that the sheriff pursued immigration crime to the detriment of other investigations within his jurisdiction. Is immigration crime worse than sexual and violent crimes? Because Sheriff Joe failed to investigate a lot of those properly over the years while he was being "tough on immigration."But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.
But they aren't supposed to care about the law when it comes to being here illegally.
if this case was about illegal immigration you might have a point, unfortunately for Mr Arpaio it didn't.
tulc(is going to need some more coffee soon)
Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.Why unfortunately for Arpaio?
It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.He seems to be doing ok. IMO The case was all about illegal immigration and a judge that was in favor of it looking to find a way to keep a sheriff from being an obstacle to it.
False. The Judge was not in favour of illegal immigration. In the first case he ruled you cannot stop people based solely on the colour of their skin. In the second when Sheriff Arpaio refused to obey the court order he was found guilty of contempt.Why unfortunately for Arpaio? He seems to be doing ok. IMO The case was all about illegal immigration and a judge that was in favor of it looking to find a way to keep a sheriff from being an obstacle to it.
Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.
It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)
Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.
It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)
cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.Because he apparently thought he was above the law, and he wasn't. That's always a little shocking for people like Mr Arpaio.
It doesn't really matter what you or I (or Mr Arpaio for that matter) thought the case was about. He lost.
tulc(wonders when he's going to become part of President Trumps administration?)
False. The Judge was not in favour of illegal immigration. In the first case he ruled you cannot stop people based solely on the colour of their skin. In the second when Sheriff Arpaio refused to obey the court order he was found guilty of contempt.
cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.
cow451 wonders what position tulc would want in the Trump administration.
Ambassador to Hawaii (Trump doesn't know it's a state) Kona coffee must be protected.Something to do with Coffee.
Someone needs to start a poll thread.Revolving door operator?
Fair enough, but the fact is that racial profiling (aka stopping/arresting people simply because they look Mexican) violates the Constitution. A judge found that Arpaio was doing this and ordered him to stop. He didn't, and so was found guilty of contempt of court by a second judge. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the judge had an ulterior motive - your statement that this is what his ruling would sound like if he was trying to show favor to illegal immigration is the equivalent of saying "Well that's exactly what a witch would say!" after someone denies being a witch.I would have to be convinced that my opinion of the judge's motivation was false by something more substantive than a recap of his rulings. If my opinion is correct then his rulings would read exactly the same as if my opinion was incorrect. He is hardly likely to say "I favor illegal immigration and so I'm trying to get the sheriff to stop standing in the way" .If I am correct in my ipinion then He would need aa ruling that sounded at least somewhat legitimate would he not?
Fair enough, but the fact is that racial profiling (aka stopping/arresting people simply because they look Mexican) violates the Constitution. A judge found that Arpaio was doing this and ordered him to stop. He didn't, and so was found guilty of contempt of court by a second judge. There is nothing in any of this to indicate that the judge had an ulterior motive - your statement that this is what his ruling would sound like if he was trying to show favor to illegal immigration is the equivalent of saying "Well that's exactly what a witch would say!" after someone denies being a witch.
Unless you can show actual, concrete, evidence that the judge who ordered Arpaio to stop racial profiling favors illegal immigration, I'm going to assume that he was simply doing his job and upholding the Constitution.
Diversity of opinion is indeed wonderful, but if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously, it helps to have evidence to back them up. I can point to plenty of evidence that racial profiling is against the Constitution, and that Arpaio was engaging in it, and that he defied a judge's order to stop doing it. I've yet to see any evidence that the judge who ordered him to stop in any way favored illegal immigration.I have no problem with you assuming the opposite of what I assume. Diversity of opinion is a wonderful thing.
Diversity of opinion is indeed wonderful, but if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously, it helps to have evidence to back them up. I can point to plenty of evidence that racial profiling is against the Constitution, and that Arpaio was engaging in it, and that he defied a judge's order to stop doing it. I've yet to see any evidence that the judge who ordered him to stop in any way favored illegal immigration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?