Thread: Just wondering ???

Bearflag and Sandra...

The cases I'm talking about are not immigration/deportation cases, which are federal but instead the District court and appeals of local and state legislation. Like Farmers Branch, Arizona, Oklahoma... All of them have been challenged to determine if they are Constitutional. The cases that were lost, were before Clinton appointed/nominated judges. Party Hacks.

Also, it doesn't really matter which administration the cases were tired under because the nominated federal judges do not change when the president changes. Many are long term and lifetime appointments, like the Supreme Court. Therefore, you have Clinton judges handing down decisions on laws passed during the Bush administration and so on and so on. The judicial branch of the government is very extensive. Maybe I can find a list of who does what and how they get into office and the terms they serve. FYI judicial review, is not Constitutional.

Think about this, the enforcement actually comes from the executive office (president) and DHS (cabinet position). They enforce the laws congress passes, which was the Immigration Control Act. The current administration (Bush) has control over that. Where the judges come into play is a little different game.

During the Clinton Administration... remember the rolling amnesty? Congress passed a tougher amendment to the Immigration Control Act but also during Clinton's Admin, they passed another Amnesty. It was a across the isle trade off. The Democrats gave some kicked up enforcement thru the executive branch but they traded for Amnesty.

Also, during the Clinton administration, DHS was not a cabinet position and directly under the President's control, therefore, INS was enforcing the laws congress passed during the Regan Administration and the revisions under the Clinton tradeoff.

What do you think they are trying right now with the "Secure our Border FIRST" talking point? They are going to say, look we gave you this and now we want a path to citizenship for our new voters.

The Democrats will try this same thing again but we are not going to accept it. NO MORE AMNESTY. NO MORE COMPROMISE. I've already heard them talking up the "registration" for the illegals that are here so they can stay but "not citizenship" and "family reunification". Right, adjust their status and they can apply for citizenship in 5 years. WE ARE NOT STUPID!

They will give us a fence and border patrol agents, then turn around and make the same old tired mistake again and hand out citizenship. They will mask it like they have tried with the Dream Act. Watch out for adjusted status conditions, which is really a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

I want to say something about judges and how they can effect your life. In the USSR under the reign of Lennin, the judges persecuted the people, not the government. The judges are the ones that convicted them of crimes during the purges and who installed those judges? The Communist or the Socialist that could be arm twisted or executed. The citizens would not have been put to death, if it had not been for the party loyal judges that handed down convictions and party puppet rulings. World history tells you we should be aware of who is nominating our judges. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a good example of what we don't want more of.

Here are a few of the deeds of the Clinton appointed judges:

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... ic&t=64545

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... c&p=463287

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-132780.html

Bush Sr. appointed her but she’s the most Liberal judge in the west.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-118066.html

I hope I explained that so y'all can follow. Sometimes you can understand something but not be able to explain it.

Gee, I really got going on this one.

Dixie

Excellent Dixie. We have a CHANCE with McCain NO CHANCE with Obama. That's just facts.

The problem with "the lesser of 2 evils" idea is that
1- You're voting for evil. (Never a good idea)
2- We keep getting 2 evils every time.

Sooner or later we have to make a stand. It may take a few elections, and as you say a few "wasted votes", but sooner rather than later the message will begin to emerge that the 2 parties are not going to be able to continue to give us crap as candidates.

UB

UB we are all entitled to our own opinions. Most people have thought through why they will vote or not vote. No problem. At this point in time there is probably no way you will change someone's mind if that is the purpose of the thread.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Also, it doesn't really matter which administration the cases were tired under because the nominated federal judges do not change when the president changes. Many are long term and lifetime appointments, like the Supreme Court. Therefore, you have Clinton judges handing down decisions on laws passed during the Bush administration and so on and so on.

Of course I know that, Dixie. My only question about which administration was in power, related to which types and how many enforcement measures they ruled over. The Bush appointees weren't even around in the 90s, so their case load is smaller than the Clinton appointees that were there for both administrations. If you are only talking recent cases (within the decade), then yes, it does not matter. If the Bush appointees are ruling better on local ordinances I think that is great, but has little to do with who appointed them. I see no correlation between the enforcement views of the president and the enforcement rulings of the judges they appoint. If anything, their is an inverse relationship.

Or, perhaps because Bush cut back interior enforcement so greatly at the federal level, the states and cities were forced into taking up more of the burdon, which in turn brought the court battles. Perhaps if Bush would have done a better job enforcing the law in the first place, we would not even need these local ordinances and court battles.

At any rate, I see no relationship between the enforcement views of the past two presidents, and the enforcement rulings of who they appointed. I don't think immigration was a consideration for either Bush nor Clinton when choosing Supreme Court justices. Probably because immigration was not yet a huge national issue. It will be for the next administration. Barack will choose open borders multiculturalists, like he is. McCain will choose globalist corporatists, like he is.

Originally Posted by UB

The problem with "the lesser of 2 evils" idea...
Sooner or later we have to make a stand....

UB

I agree UB. I'm tired of not voting for a candidate that is appealing to me. I don't think the nation has had enough of the two parties yet. There is going to have to be major attrition of both parties and the formation of a strong third party before that happens.

That's going to be very difficult because you are either for or against something and both parties have that covered. Also, a third party that is split between them, and plays the middle where there is nothing solid to stand on except to say, but we aren't them or them. Third parties are still easily absorbed by the Republicans or Democrats, once they feel threatened with extinction.

Dixie

I did have fun voting today. One of the senate races is a very 'liberal' "republican" who voted for the bail out. Instead of voting for the worthless republican running again, I did the following:

write in: NO BAIL OUT!!

At least I am making a point at home and chose NOT to vote for a bad republican senator. That part felt good!!

Originally Posted by alisab

I did have fun voting today. One of the senate races is a very 'liberal' "republican" who voted for the bail out. Instead of voting for the worthless republican running again, I did the following:

write in: NO BAIL OUT!!

At least I am making a point at home and chose NOT to vote for a bad republican senator. That part felt good!!

Would you like to reveal the state you are in? No need to just thought we might be interested.

Well, I expect to get some flack over this, but here goes. I will not be voting for any Presidential candidate this time. Instead I will vote for Congress on down. Idaho is definitely Republican and will vote for McCain, anyway, but I don't want to be a party to that. I'm leaving the Presidential section on my ballot blank to make a point. That I have no one to vote for. It certainly isn't going to upset the balance here in Idaho by doing that.

Originally Posted by tinybobidaho

Well, I expect to get some flack over this, but here goes. I will not be voting for any Presidential candidate this time. Instead I will vote for Congress on down. Idaho is definitely Republican and will vote for McCain, anyway, but I don't want to be a party to that. I'm leaving the Presidential section on my ballot blank to make a point. That I have no one to vote for. It certainly isn't going to upset the balance here in Idaho by doing that.

That's how it feels in CA too, but I hear of more and more people who were for Obama saying NO to him now.