OP here. It's the AMERICAN civil liberties union, not the ILLEGAL ALIENS civil liberties union. And no, non-citizens don't have civil liberties. They aren't even supposed to be here.
10:37 – I don't need a cite. It's common sense. They came here illegally. A nation without borders is no nation at all. A poll came out yesterday stating 5 out of 6 Americans don't want immigration from Mexico any longer, let alone illegal immigration. So, you're clearly in the minority here. Trump 2020! America First! KAG! MAGA!
10:56 AM, the discussions on this blog probably are not for you. There are plenty of subreddits and news comment sections out there for people like you.
I'm not 10:58, but I think I can safely say "people like you" = "people who say, on a friggin law blog, that I don't need a legal citation because it's common sense." That said, I'm sure 10:58 is also racist.
I don't view this ass some philosophical debate narrowly limited to whether the ACLU should only support U.S. Citizen minorities, and never the rights of non-citizen minorities.
I understand the point of those who insist the ACLU should concentrate their efforts on our citizens and not others, even though that ignores the fact that there are certain rights which flow to people regardless of their immigration status. Nonresidents may not have the right to certain pubic benefits, nor the right to vote,they encounter real employment restrictions, and many other matters. But they have the right, for example, to expect that police will protect by responding to crime reports if they are attacked, just as if they were a citizen.
So, it has never been accurate to suggest non-citizens have traditionally had no codified rights and that the progression of rights they have obtained over the last few decades is a perversion of the system and contra to the written law.
And it is likewise simplistic to insist the ACLU only should take up for citizens and not other people, when we consider the ACLU is concept-related, not personal-related. The people are simply the mechanisms used to advance certain concepts. So, from the ACLU perspective it has always been concept related, and not focused on the individual and whether that individual is worth fighting for and protecting.
For example, when the ACLU fought for the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, I sincerely doubt that there were any ACLU leaders who were closet Nazi sympathizers. Instead, they recognized that the concept of free assembly and freedom of speech were constitutional scared cows, and their view is that it would be a slippery slope to make value judgments on the merits of people, before they are afforded their basic rights. That all said, I found it appalling beyond measure that they fought that particular cause, but I recognize it was the ultimate test of the concept that those who are most vile in viewpoint and philosophy, are still entitled to basic constitutional rights.
And I also think, that as to the current issue the ACLU, rather than being primarily motivated with protecting those who entered illegally, I think they recognize the great heath problem with having all these people in close proximity at a processing center. But those public health concerns are not really in the ACLU wing span, so would have been better left to other agencies.
So, I don't disagree with either side that is posting here, and I think it is critical that we protect our boarders, but I wish we would all pause, dial down the emotions, and recognize the issue may be more complex and multi-layered than it initially appears.
I don't necessarily agree with much of what 12:20 says, but I agree with the undercurrent of the remarks that we should approach this issue in an analytical manner.
I agree that it is not simply a question of whether the ACLU should come to the aid of non-citizens.
@12:09
So 12:09 thinks civil liberties are only for non-whites. Whose a racist?
Guest
Anonymous
April 1, 2020 4:41 pm
I agree – I saw in yesterday's news that they filed suit to stop a law that protected biological females from biological males (claiming transgenderhood) in sports. If that is not the world turned upside down, not sure what is.
Guest
Anonymous
April 1, 2020 5:51 pm
Surprised to not see a comment on the Executive Order 009 which appears to suspend all statutes of limitation and court deadlines. While its the right call, always curious when the Chief Executive is ordering how a separate branch of government will conduct its affairs.
Yeeaaaaahhh, he may have the all of the executive authority.. but all of the judicial authority rests with the court system. See Art. 6, Section 1, of NV Const. The CJ of the NSC is the administrative head of the court system, not the Governor, even if he fancies himself the Dude in Charge of Everything.
Sisolak sucks. He guts the nonessential business order with businesses can stay open if it is not open to the public. You are endangering my husband, Sisolak. Fuck you.
12:00 – agree. Fuck you Sisolak. But also fuck you to any lawfirms who are forcing people to work in the office if you have "work from home" capabilities. I understand any firm without those capabilities but I know of larger firms and mid size firms forcing their staff and attorneys to work in the office rotating days – and i'm not talking about having one or two people in the office to answer phones – I'm talking about well known firms having their attorneys and staff in the office. It's irresponsible, arrogant and fucked up. Do better jackasses.
11:41, it is not a "formality." I read about this supposed order in the paper, but I have not found it on the governor's website. There has been a "stay-at-home" recommendation in effect for about two weeks, but Mein Fuhrer Sisolak can suck my ___ with his recommendations. I have not seen a "stay-at-home" ORDER yet, and a tweet does not count.
I don't mind the ACLU working for illegal aliens, who do have civil rights — but the ACLU needs to represent us as well, and a stay-at-home ORDER would be a violation of our rights.
@1:05 pm Do not promote Sisolak. While he is high up in the chain of command he is only a Obergruppenführer. The Mein Fuhrer is Trump and he shall be respected at all costs.
Okay, let's break down the Governator's source of power for all of these declarations: primarily NRS 414.060. 414.060 provides that he has the authority to direct or control "(5) The conduct of the general public and the movement and cessation of movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic during, before and after exercises or an emergency or disaster," and "(6) Public meetings or gatherings."
I don't believe any reasonable interpretation of that statue allows him to order every citizen of the entire fucking state to do, or not do, jack shit. Control traffic during a natural disaster, in the area of the disaster? Sure. Evacuate residents from the area of a disaster, and arrange for the reception of those evacuated? Absolutely. Proclaim the entire state is a disaster and thus every person in the state is subject to his direction and control? Abso-fucking-lutely not.
1:46: Thanks for the link. I wonder why this Directive is not to be found on the Gov'r's website? If Directive 9 was not also missing, I'd read sinister purpose in the omission of Directive 10.
I thought "laws" had to be promulgated. This must be something else I don't remember correctly from law school.
As the OP that spawned the "2020 McFarling Decision" that we cannot mention others by name, I request that you remove any comments about our Governor. They cannot be more bullyish or ill-tempered. I know the Governor in passing and am truly shocked this language is allowed. I have abided by the McFarling Decision and ask others to do the same. Thank you.
Oh you have attempted to cleverly mention her name 2 more times in an effort to circumvent the ban to which I both give kudos for circumventing the rules but also some degree of amazement at the level of animus.
3:19 – I for one think its time for you to get a life. Or at least use your obvious down-time to reassess your life and start trying to focus on things that truly matter.
In defense of the BlogMaster, I think there is a big difference between discussing and criticizing very public politicians by name and their policies vs. attacking private attorneys by individual name, venting a personal grudge, and making specific representations about such attorney's ethical and honesty short comings, none of which can be established as true.
The poster in question has a very unhealthy obsession with the attorney they attacked, which apparently resulted in the comments being deleted. The poster is back, again mentioning the attorney by name, and insisting that if this attorney cannot be attacked and eviscerated by name on this blog, that the blog should not even allow the name of individual politicians to be discussed. Obviously a sarcastic suggestion, but also one which betrays faulty reasoning.
It is faulty reasoning to compare two things which are not nearly as closely linked as the poster believes them to be. The poster's right to free speech does not extend to forcing the owner of a private blog to allow the poster to engage in anonymous character assassination, and directly attack the reputation and ethics, of a private attorney.
If I controlled the blog I would have deleted that crud as well. I would not let myself be placed in a precarious, vulnerable positon by allowing someone to vent such venom based on a personal grudge.
I suggest the poster makes friends with someone who equally detests the attorney in question, and then the two new friends can spend hours each day droning on about what a horrific human being they think such attorney is. Or, a far better suggestion is for the poster to move on with their life, waste no more energy fixating on the attorney in question, and avoid accepting any cases where such attorney is on the other side.
Obviously, accepting cases where such attorney is in the other side is quite injurious to the poster's physical and mental well-being.
Guest
Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross
April 1, 2020 10:28 pm
April 1, 2020 at 2:42 PM: Parse this as far as authority to direct and control: (5) The conduct of the general public and (6) Public… gatherings. I really don't see how those citations will fail to support the Governor's Orders. Obviously there are some lines not to be crossed and that's what we have a legal profession ans system for.
And there is also some room to argue necessity. You don't prosecute the man who takes his neighbors garden house to put out a house fire. I fully understand and support protection of constitutional rights, but I have a very vulnerable constituency at high risk and I don't want philosophical games played with their health.
Time and again I hear arguments about constitutional rights, on both sides of the aisle, that are simplistically absolute. Any decent judge will tell you that one person's rights end where an other's begin.
If I may plagiarize a Wikipedia quote:
Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote the court's opinion in the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. While the court ultimately determined that laws permitting stripping draft evaders of their citizenship on the basis of a perceived existential threat to the nation were unconstitutional, Goldberg acknowledged the "not a suicide pact" argument, writing: "The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."
Constable Ross: Thank you for participating. And for your level of discourse.
I was taught that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (Technically, tied with treaties, but that is a different kettle of fish.)
NRS Chapter 414 does NOT supersede the US Constitution and its guarantees of rights. Sisolak placing me under house arrest without due process is a clear violation of my right to liberty and to my right to peacefully assemble.
Those who fear contamination are free to self-isolate. Sisolak is NOT free to order me to stay in my house because of the fears of others.
We need not discuss whether the mass panic is reasonable or not. Some of us see the media's stoking the flames of panic as a political tool, part of their Trump derangement syndrome. Others see me and others taking this position as deniers of some sort. But first and foremost, I am a libertarian who finds our civil liberties far too precious to give up to Sisolak, Trump or any other tyrant.
I wish health and safety to you and your officers.
April 1, 2020 at 5:38 PM – While I do fundamentally disagree with your position, and do not feel that either the statute or the order violate the constitution for the reasons I outlined above, I thank you for your civil reply
Tip of the hat to 5:38. Panic and fear have no place in problem solving. There has been a lot of "what if" and "worse case scenario" talk by the president, his team, and echoed by the governors and mayors. But if one listens closely, there is always and equal and opposite good outcome scenario to every bad one offered up by those that are giving us the information, primarily Fauci and Berx. I am beginning to think that we have been unwittingly pulled into the whipsaw world of bioscience where the more questions and concerns a scientist can conjure up, the more grant money they can attract to their cause, or perhaps the more respect that they can gain from their colleagues. I don't care to be looking through the window into that world. It seems taboo for these folks to refer to the actual death count, which still appears to be rather low both worldwide and nationally. It does not support their panic mongering scenarios. If it gets worse, then it gets worse, I understand that and I'm complying with the cautions, but enough already with the "hang on tight for Mr. Toad's wild death ride" that is rapidly approaching (or not, because it could be much less, or more, or somewhere in between).
it is well established precedent that the government can restrict fundamental liberties during times of crisis. While I don't agree with it, we see this restriction going back well over 100 years. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). IE in Debs v. US the Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for anti-war speech.
So sad. The ACLU used to stand for something. Now they care more about the rights of non-citizens than U.S. citizens.
Yes, truly terrible when the ACLU cares about people. Just the worst.
Wait does 9:35 think noncitizens don't have civil liberties?
OP here. It's the AMERICAN civil liberties union, not the ILLEGAL ALIENS civil liberties union. And no, non-citizens don't have civil liberties. They aren't even supposed to be here.
"And no, non-citizens don't have civil liberties." Cite?
Reading this thread I can only picture the Dr. Evil air quotes meme. "law blog"
10:37 – I don't need a cite. It's common sense. They came here illegally. A nation without borders is no nation at all. A poll came out yesterday stating 5 out of 6 Americans don't want immigration from Mexico any longer, let alone illegal immigration. So, you're clearly in the minority here. Trump 2020! America First! KAG! MAGA!
10:56 AM, the discussions on this blog probably are not for you. There are plenty of subreddits and news comment sections out there for people like you.
@10:58 AM – "people like you"???? That sounds racist. Typical tolerant and accepting Leftist.
I'm not 10:58, but I think I can safely say "people like you" = "people who say, on a friggin law blog, that I don't need a legal citation because it's common sense." That said, I'm sure 10:58 is also racist.
I say we round up every MAGA-spouting sub-moron and assign them a "white only" parking space to sleep in for the duration of the COVID crisis.
I don't view this ass some philosophical debate narrowly limited to whether the ACLU should only support U.S. Citizen minorities, and never the rights of non-citizen minorities.
I understand the point of those who insist the ACLU should concentrate their efforts on our citizens and not others, even though that ignores the fact that there are certain rights which flow to people regardless of their immigration status. Nonresidents may not have the right to certain pubic benefits, nor the right to vote,they encounter real employment restrictions, and many other matters. But they have the right, for example, to expect that police will protect by responding to crime reports if they are attacked, just as if they were a citizen.
So, it has never been accurate to suggest non-citizens have traditionally had no codified rights and that the progression of rights they have obtained over the last few decades is a perversion of the system and contra to the written law.
And it is likewise simplistic to insist the ACLU only should take up for citizens and not other people, when we consider the ACLU is concept-related, not personal-related. The people are simply the mechanisms used to advance certain concepts. So, from the ACLU perspective it has always been concept related, and not focused on the individual and whether that individual is worth fighting for and protecting.
For example, when the ACLU fought for the right of Neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, I sincerely doubt that there were any ACLU leaders who were closet Nazi sympathizers. Instead, they recognized that the concept of free assembly and freedom of speech were constitutional scared cows, and their view is that it would be a slippery slope to make value judgments on the merits of people, before they are afforded their basic rights. That all said, I found it appalling beyond measure that they fought that particular cause, but I recognize it was the ultimate test of the concept that those who are most vile in viewpoint and philosophy, are still entitled to basic constitutional rights.
And I also think, that as to the current issue the ACLU, rather than being primarily motivated with protecting those who entered illegally, I think they recognize the great heath problem with having all these people in close proximity at a processing center. But those public health concerns are not really in the ACLU wing span, so would have been better left to other agencies.
So, I don't disagree with either side that is posting here, and I think it is critical that we protect our boarders, but I wish we would all pause, dial down the emotions, and recognize the issue may be more complex and multi-layered than it initially appears.
I don't necessarily agree with much of what 12:20 says, but I agree with the undercurrent of the remarks that we should approach this issue in an analytical manner.
I agree that it is not simply a question of whether the ACLU should come to the aid of non-citizens.
12:09 – sounds like you would be okay with rounding up all Chinese and putting them in internment camps.
@12:09
So 12:09 thinks civil liberties are only for non-whites. Whose a racist?
I agree – I saw in yesterday's news that they filed suit to stop a law that protected biological females from biological males (claiming transgenderhood) in sports. If that is not the world turned upside down, not sure what is.
Surprised to not see a comment on the Executive Order 009 which appears to suspend all statutes of limitation and court deadlines. While its the right call, always curious when the Chief Executive is ordering how a separate branch of government will conduct its affairs.
Any link to this? It is not on the Governor's page with the other eight emergency directives.
https://www.scribd.com/document/454278929/Directive-009
https://nvhealthresponse.nv.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Directive-009.pdf
Yeeaaaaahhh, he may have the all of the executive authority.. but all of the judicial authority rests with the court system. See Art. 6, Section 1, of NV Const. The CJ of the NSC is the administrative head of the court system, not the Governor, even if he fancies himself the Dude in Charge of Everything.
Why did he scapegoat landlords? Why has he favored certain businesses over others? Donations and votes. Power is intoxicating.
Sisolak sucks. He guts the nonessential business order with businesses can stay open if it is not open to the public. You are endangering my husband, Sisolak. Fuck you.
12:00 – agree. Fuck you Sisolak. But also fuck you to any lawfirms who are forcing people to work in the office if you have "work from home" capabilities. I understand any firm without those capabilities but I know of larger firms and mid size firms forcing their staff and attorneys to work in the office rotating days – and i'm not talking about having one or two people in the office to answer phones – I'm talking about well known firms having their attorneys and staff in the office. It's irresponsible, arrogant and fucked up. Do better jackasses.
@10:51. Who do you think establishes those statutes of limitations? It's not the courts.
Formality at this point, but Governor extended stay at home order until April 30 today. https://twitter.com/GovSisolak/status/1245400468999700480
11:41, it is not a "formality." I read about this supposed order in the paper, but I have not found it on the governor's website. There has been a "stay-at-home" recommendation in effect for about two weeks, but Mein Fuhrer Sisolak can suck my ___ with his recommendations. I have not seen a "stay-at-home" ORDER yet, and a tweet does not count.
I don't mind the ACLU working for illegal aliens, who do have civil rights — but the ACLU needs to represent us as well, and a stay-at-home ORDER would be a violation of our rights.
The order is at the bottom of this article: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/sisolak-issues-stay-at-home-order-1996415/
@1:05 pm Do not promote Sisolak. While he is high up in the chain of command he is only a Obergruppenführer. The Mein Fuhrer is Trump and he shall be respected at all costs.
Okay, let's break down the Governator's source of power for all of these declarations: primarily NRS 414.060. 414.060 provides that he has the authority to direct or control "(5) The conduct of the general public and the movement and cessation of movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic during, before and after exercises or an emergency or disaster," and "(6) Public meetings or gatherings."
I don't believe any reasonable interpretation of that statue allows him to order every citizen of the entire fucking state to do, or not do, jack shit. Control traffic during a natural disaster, in the area of the disaster? Sure. Evacuate residents from the area of a disaster, and arrange for the reception of those evacuated? Absolutely. Proclaim the entire state is a disaster and thus every person in the state is subject to his direction and control? Abso-fucking-lutely not.
1:46: Thanks for the link. I wonder why this Directive is not to be found on the Gov'r's website? If Directive 9 was not also missing, I'd read sinister purpose in the omission of Directive 10.
I thought "laws" had to be promulgated. This must be something else I don't remember correctly from law school.
Sandoval leaves MGM for UNR – https://tinyurl.com/ssyhptu
Well, this blog has become unreadable the last few days.
I agree. Should be in German!
Ja!
Dear BlogMaster,
As the OP that spawned the "2020 McFarling Decision" that we cannot mention others by name, I request that you remove any comments about our Governor. They cannot be more bullyish or ill-tempered. I know the Governor in passing and am truly shocked this language is allowed. I have abided by the McFarling Decision and ask others to do the same. Thank you.
You must not be a lawyer– or fi you are, you clearly didn't study defamation.
Oh you have attempted to cleverly mention her name 2 more times in an effort to circumvent the ban to which I both give kudos for circumventing the rules but also some degree of amazement at the level of animus.
3:19 – I for one think its time for you to get a life. Or at least use your obvious down-time to reassess your life and start trying to focus on things that truly matter.
Who defends Sisolak? He sucks.
In defense of the BlogMaster, I think there is a big difference between discussing and criticizing very public politicians by name and their policies vs. attacking private attorneys by individual name, venting a personal grudge, and making specific representations about such attorney's ethical and honesty short comings, none of which can be established as true.
The poster in question has a very unhealthy obsession with the attorney they attacked, which apparently resulted in the comments being deleted. The poster is back, again mentioning the attorney by name, and insisting that if this attorney cannot be attacked and eviscerated by name on this blog, that the blog should not even allow the name of individual politicians to be discussed. Obviously a sarcastic suggestion, but also one which betrays faulty reasoning.
It is faulty reasoning to compare two things which are not nearly as closely linked as the poster believes them to be. The poster's right to free speech does not extend to forcing the owner of a private blog to allow the poster to engage in anonymous character assassination, and directly attack the reputation and ethics, of a private attorney.
If I controlled the blog I would have deleted that crud as well. I would not let myself be placed in a precarious, vulnerable positon by allowing someone to vent such venom based on a personal grudge.
I suggest the poster makes friends with someone who equally detests the attorney in question, and then the two new friends can spend hours each day droning on about what a horrific human being they think such attorney is. Or, a far better suggestion is for the poster to move on with their life, waste no more energy fixating on the attorney in question, and avoid accepting any cases where such attorney is on the other side.
Obviously, accepting cases where such attorney is in the other side is quite injurious to the poster's physical and mental well-being.
April 1, 2020 at 2:42 PM: Parse this as far as authority to direct and control: (5) The conduct of the general public and (6) Public… gatherings. I really don't see how those citations will fail to support the Governor's Orders. Obviously there are some lines not to be crossed and that's what we have a legal profession ans system for.
And there is also some room to argue necessity. You don't prosecute the man who takes his neighbors garden house to put out a house fire. I fully understand and support protection of constitutional rights, but I have a very vulnerable constituency at high risk and I don't want philosophical games played with their health.
Time and again I hear arguments about constitutional rights, on both sides of the aisle, that are simplistically absolute. Any decent judge will tell you that one person's rights end where an other's begin.
If I may plagiarize a Wikipedia quote:
Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote the court's opinion in the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez. While the court ultimately determined that laws permitting stripping draft evaders of their citizenship on the basis of a perceived existential threat to the nation were unconstitutional, Goldberg acknowledged the "not a suicide pact" argument, writing: "The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."
Constable Ross: Thank you for participating. And for your level of discourse.
I was taught that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (Technically, tied with treaties, but that is a different kettle of fish.)
NRS Chapter 414 does NOT supersede the US Constitution and its guarantees of rights. Sisolak placing me under house arrest without due process is a clear violation of my right to liberty and to my right to peacefully assemble.
Those who fear contamination are free to self-isolate. Sisolak is NOT free to order me to stay in my house because of the fears of others.
We need not discuss whether the mass panic is reasonable or not. Some of us see the media's stoking the flames of panic as a political tool, part of their Trump derangement syndrome. Others see me and others taking this position as deniers of some sort. But first and foremost, I am a libertarian who finds our civil liberties far too precious to give up to Sisolak, Trump or any other tyrant.
I wish health and safety to you and your officers.
April 1, 2020 at 5:38 PM – While I do fundamentally disagree with your position, and do not feel that either the statute or the order violate the constitution for the reasons I outlined above, I thank you for your civil reply
Tip of the hat to 5:38. Panic and fear have no place in problem solving. There has been a lot of "what if" and "worse case scenario" talk by the president, his team, and echoed by the governors and mayors. But if one listens closely, there is always and equal and opposite good outcome scenario to every bad one offered up by those that are giving us the information, primarily Fauci and Berx. I am beginning to think that we have been unwittingly pulled into the whipsaw world of bioscience where the more questions and concerns a scientist can conjure up, the more grant money they can attract to their cause, or perhaps the more respect that they can gain from their colleagues. I don't care to be looking through the window into that world. It seems taboo for these folks to refer to the actual death count, which still appears to be rather low both worldwide and nationally. It does not support their panic mongering scenarios. If it gets worse, then it gets worse, I understand that and I'm complying with the cautions, but enough already with the "hang on tight for Mr. Toad's wild death ride" that is rapidly approaching (or not, because it could be much less, or more, or somewhere in between).
it is well established precedent that the government can restrict fundamental liberties during times of crisis. While I don't agree with it, we see this restriction going back well over 100 years. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). IE in Debs v. US the Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for anti-war speech.