redczar

Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.

Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.

And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.

What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?

This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.

An injunction is not a judgment. It is temporary. A new rule or law is passed. It might be unconstitutional or otherwise not enforceable. Until this can be sorted out sometimes the law/rule is blocked until it is sorted out. Since the law/rule was not in place before the suit it is sometimes ok to temporarily block the rule until it’s legality can be determined. One goes by the principle of causing least harm.

It causes the least harm to block the birthright executive order until it’s legality can be determined. Therefore it should be blocked nationwide.

We’ve exploited the resources of other nations and caused great pollution in other nationw. It’s time that we do it to ourselves.

The vast majority of the world’s population can’t afford to fly. The relatively poor part of your comment is weird. Flying is still for the rich.

Thanks for the clarification.

You think it was a bad decision to increase NIH budget?

Will the authors propose banning sports?

That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.

I’ve been on HN since the beginning. I’m on my 12th or so username. Like you I don’t have a Reddit, Facebook, etc. account. Social Media is a plague on society.

As with all things Trump it over promises and will under deliver.

Martyrdom? I’m not important enough or self centered enough to have any feelings of martyrdom with regard to this site. I was just letting you know that I don’t agree with you and I’m not going to stop. As such the only option is for me to be banned. Pointing out this fact does not qualify as martyrdom.

I disagree.

In general I agree. But not in this case. In the “polite” approach what happens is that obviously bad assertions are made and one politely engages but the starting point is such that you are engaged in an attempt to just get to a reasonable place. It’s sort like how combatting a lie is much more effort than spreading one.

My comment above was not for the person who made. I don’t engage with such people. It was for the people who stumbled upon it. I want them to know that there are people who think the comment is ridiculously bad.

Israelis have a right to live peacefully. Unfortunately they are not peaceful toward Palestinians. They continually encroach and annex Palestinian land in the West Bank oppress Palestinians. Palestinians fight back but it’s a hopeless cause for them.

From my understanding Israel tried to make peace by exchanging land for peace treaties. Only the Egyptians took them up on that. I think Israel is done seeking a moral solution and are now slowly annexing all of the West Bank and now Gaza. Palestinians should be given land somewhere and/or forced to emigrate. They’ve clung to what was once theirs but the reality is they are never getting it back.

But Israel is being immoral and their treatment of Palestinians is deplorable.

When a person writes something that is obviously nonsensical it should be called out as such. This is especially so when the topic is about ongoing acts of war.

He did not get promoted later. I was wrong. But he wasn’t fired, relieved of command or put in jail. He later received an award for his naval service. But all of this irrelevant to the point I made.

When a Soviet fighter pilot shot down a Korean jetliner the U.S. reaction to that was quite a bit different than our reaction to the Vincennes shooting down the Iranian jetliner.

When a people are oppressed and suppressed enough they fight back. People fight back using methods that are available to them. Palestinians have been systematically oppressed by Israel. Gaza is basically a giant prison. The people there have no navy, tanks, helicopters, or air force. They did inflict some damage. The response has been so disproportionate that it is rightfully viewed as immoral. Palestinians deserve peace and pursuit of happiness too. So do Israelis. One side has that much greater than the other and one side has been denying the other side those things for decades.

Yes.

The U.S. shot down a civilian Iranian airplane and killed around 200 people. The commander of the ship that did this later got promoted. This does not mean the U.S. wants to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Your points are not valid.

I’m not claiming it was a good deal. I’m claiming that since he walked away from the deal Israel has decided that it will slowly consume all of the West Bank and make living there and in Gaza a hell for Palestinians. It’s a slow genocide. Though now in Gaza it’s been sped up.

It is quite clear that ever since Yassar Arafat walked away from a deal with Israel during Clinton’s Presidency Israel has deliberately made Gaza and most of the West Bank a giant prison. Over the last 50 years far more Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Israelis killed by Palestinians. Palestinians have no navy, air force, tanks, or helicopters. The power differential between the two sides is vastly in Israel’s favor.

Your reasoning is quite. That the U.S. has committed atrocities is not pertinant to whether or not it is becoming an authoritarian state. Please try to stay on point and not bring up irrelevant facts.

Due process is the wrong term. What you describe is called immigration. Sometimes immigration is illegal.

Someday right leaning white men will finally live in a country where they can be elected President and no one will think this unusual. Until then the struggle continues.

By similizing the American electoral system to those in authoritarian countries, you trivialize the suffering of people oppressed and often physically exterminated by authoritarian regimes around the world. Millions? Seriously?

There’s a spectrum of authoritarianism. Not all instantiations involve mass murder or other forms of mass suffering.

Your argument boils down to: others have it worse therefore you have no right to complain.

Consider that if we don’t stand up now and complain now that the foundation will be set for the infliction of mass suffering. Your reasoning is quite bad.

Authoritarianism means oppressing the masses, having an undemocratic government and acting against the will of the people. It happens in Venezuela. It happens in Turkey. It happens in Hungary. It doesn't happen in the US.

We have an undemocrstic government. Thousands of polling stations have shut down since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Voter rolls have been purged in key swing states. As a result of these things millions of people were unable to vote. Trump has unilaterally rescinded monies appropriated by Congress and duly signed into law. That alone is authoritarian.

…therefore a representative of the oppressed majority, is waging a war against their oppression (as masses seems it) by the authoritarian deep state.

Only a delusional person can possibly believe this. There is no oppressed majority in the U.S.

Go to a bar and try to get a beer to go.

The U.S. has effectively made walking illegal or unpalatable in most places.

https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...