Reply With Quote
What point is that?
No.
You're the one who said it's ambivalent then immediately folded when asked to explain.
So explain how it's ambivalent or fold again.
What point is that?
It's ambivalent b/c you can ascribe whatever convenient meaning you want to it. But if you say it's the same, then explicitly confirm. You won't b/c you revel in ambivalence I.E. wriggle room.
That it all means the same thing and muh demands are just a stalling tactic.
lol derp
What meaning other than ICE is cons utional could I ascribe to it?
They cannot be compelled to do the federal governments bidding. They can do so voluntarily. North Carolina doesn’t want to spend State and local resources to do the federal governments job. That’s their prerogative.Enforcing the law withstanding.
God help the citizen that hires lawyer21.
There is is no way they can be mandated to do so. That’s federalism aka states rights.
No. My argument is that states have no obligation to carry out the federal governments agenda.So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law
the feds can still bust illegal immigrants in North Carolina.
Looks like obstruction of justice.
It's not.
Sorry.
Pretty spurious stuff, tbh.
OK, what is your legal argument that local law enforcement has the obligation to do the bidding of ICE?
nah, just looks like federalism
An Obama-appointed federal judge is forcing Wisconsin taxpayers to provide costly sex reassignment surgery and hormonal procedures for low-income transgender residents who get free medical care from the government. In a recently issued ruling U.S. District Judge William M. Conley writes that Medicaid, the publicly funded insurance that covers 65.7 million poor people, cannot deny the medical treatment needs of those suffering from “gender dysphoria.” Officials estimate it will cost up to $1.2 million annually to provide transgender Medicaid recipients in the Badger State with treatments such as “gender confirmation” surgery, including elective mastectomies, hysterectomies, genital reconstruction and breast augmentation. The intricate operations are typically done by plastic surgeons.
The ruling culminates a lawsuit filed more than a year ago by two transgender Wisconsinites, who accuse the federal and state-funded insurance program of providing them with disparate and inferior health care on the basis of sex. Cody Flack of Green Bay and Sara Makenzie of Baraboo say they suffer from severe gender dysphoria that requires costly surgery. Flack, a woman, claims to be ashamed of her breasts and wants to have them surgically removed as she transitions into a man’s body. To make a case for the government to pay for her surgery, she claims that she engages in “binding,” which flattens her breasts and causes sores, skin irritation and respiratory distress. Flack also has difficulty binding her breasts due to a disability, according to court do ents. Makenzie, a man who legally changed his name to Sara and wears women’s clothing, says his “male-appearing genitalia” causes him “great distress” and negatively affects his sexuality and social life. Showering and seeing his body in a mirror is “painful,” court records state, and Makenzie fears someone will be able to see his “male genitals” through his clothing.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrup...nment-surgery/
take it up with the supreme court, not me
it was scalia, thomas, rehnquist, o'connor, kennedy for that ruling
stevens, souter, ginsburg, breyer against
Surprisingly small about of money tbh.
I'm not disputing the ruling, though I'll acknowledge it's dicey. I'm saying your interpretation regarding the application(s) thereof is spurious.take it up with the supreme court, not me
it was scalia, thomas, rehnquist, o'connor, kennedy for that ruling
stevens, souter, ginsburg, breyer against
OK, what is your legal argument saying states and local law enforcement are required to cooperate with ICE?
Muh kiddies' table
derp folds a tenth time
lol derp
how else could it be applied?
you seem like you share the position of stevens' dissenting opinion (joined by ginsburg):
Moreover, the text of the Cons ution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."
Spurious use of the word spurious. It's more accurate to say sr21's take is the orthodox reading of the case.
Just say you disagree, Spurtacular, there's no need to hokey it up with pompous phraseology. Makes your case look siller, not stronger.
This may be another case of political realignment
The conservative majority may have conceived itself then as raising a federalistic bulwark against a burgeoning liberal adminstrative state; conservatives now, firmly in control of that adminstrative state, want to bully states and localities into doing their bidding vis-a-vis immigration policy.
It doesn't pass the sniff test.
States may take rulings like this and be more audacious in flouting federal authority; but there's going to be limits to how much of it they can do.
States rights bad now
Lol sniff test
so you agree with stevens and Ginsburg
I don't recall all the specifics off the top of my head; but wasn't Sherrif Joe prosecuted for not doing King Barry's bidding?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
