Judge Miranda Du ruled that a nearly 70-year old law that makes it a felony to reenter the US after deportation is unconstitutional because it was enacted with discriminatory intent. [TNI]
Federal courts impose new Covid restrictions amid surge. [Las Vegas Sun]
Du is a reminder why I avoid Federal Court like the plague. I'll take almost any state court judge over these Article III clowns.
However, I must give credit where it is due (or Du): very, very creative and bold decision. If upheld this will indeed revolutionize immigration policy. Open borders!
What borders? US borders, for all practical purposes, don't exist. The Border Patrol is essentially a concierge service for food, lodging and a bus ticket to the interior.
Navarro is as big of a system pawn as anyone over there. Gordon is good. Mahan was good but is declining. But Du has gone downhill a great deal.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2021 6:17 pm
Is it because it was a felony, or that it was a crime at all? Of course it is discriminatory, that's its purpose. It keeps non-US citizens from coming into the USA illegally. EU citizens & Canadians(who make up the majority of the "white" population outside of the U.S.A.) don't need to enter the U.S. illegally, they get a passport and there are agreements in place, and they come here legally then leave. People from Latin America and other "connected by landmass to the U.S.A." countries are obviously the targets of such a law because they're the ones that enter the U.S.A. illegally, get deported, and find a way to re-enter again. If a non-LatinX country with a horrible economy and country-wide gang crime were physically attached to the U.S. borders then the law would also impact them because they would be in the group of people who constantly illegally entered the U.S. after being deported.
Did you read the decision? There are several prongs to the test. Mexico's proximity to the the U.S. means that the law has a disparate impact because–as you indicated in your comment–naturally, Mexican persons can cross through the border on land. But that only answers one part of the test.
I haven't read the decision, but if 11:17 thinks EU citizens leave when they're supposed to, they clearly haven't been to Boston. There are plenty of undocumented Irish citizens in the NE.
@1:16p – I'm the OP. Living in Las Vegas & California, my experience with undocumented individuals has been almost exclusively the LatinX persuasion with fruit/vegetable farms in California, so honestly that surprises me that there are illegal Irish immigrants in the U.S. I'm having to assume that they overstayed their visa. I didn't think they could get on the plane to the U.S. without a valid visa? Regardless, if there are undocumented Irish citizens in the NE USA then they should be treated the same way any other undocumented immigrant in the U.S.A. are treated.
There are tons of undocumented people in this country from countries where they just overstay their visas. Even LatinX undocumented immigrants usually come here with a valid visa. The story of people sneaking through the desert is overblown and exaggerated.
@1:46, you are correct many illegal aliens do in fact overstay a valid visa. But if you really think coyotes are not herding thousands of people across the southern border and through the deserts of CA, NM, AZ and TX then you are either an eejit, willfully ignorant or a lying shill for open boarders. It is neither overblown or exagerated and is a real problem for the landowners affected by it, not to mention dangerous for the folks who attempt it.
Please do not use the term "Latinx" it is ridiculous. I am latino and know of no other latinos who use this term. Where do wokesters get the cajones to step into someone else's language and culture and declare it improper and come up with their own substitute? It is absolute bullshit and you should be embarrassed if you use the term.
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2021 9:14 pm
If you were going to run for a judicial office, who would you use as your campaign manager and why?
Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you
Having run for office and gotten crushed (70-30), I would strongly recommend Tom pr Dave, They told me early in the process what would happen, I should have listened.
It's a good thing we let "Tom and Dave" decide who can be a judge as opposed to the Missouri system. I'm also grateful that if we decide we don't like how "Tom and Dave" pick judges, we can vote "Tom and Dave" out. I'd hate to have something as corrupt and unaccountable nominations from the Governor and confirmation by the State Senate. #Democracy. #IndependentJudiciary
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 12:00 am
As to that GoFundMe article, my two cents is that no one should ever get involved with contributing to something like that unless they personally know the people and the situation, or if it is something with such extensive news coverage that the true facts seem to be pretty well known(and even that can be highly debatable based on how deep the media bothers to digs, and what they choose to report).
But other than those two narrow exceptions,, there are thousands of far more reliable and legitimate ways of giving away your money, rather than a GoFundMe, if you feel so inclined.
A huge percentage of these GoFundMe projects are simply blatant fraud.
The ones that are not necessarily blatant fraud, and may be actual people facing actual serious financial problems, a cursory review of the info. provided(if reliable)reveals that these are people who simply make a lot of bad financial decisions and simply live well beyond their means and their income. That applies to a huge percentage of people. That does not make them a legitimate charity case simply because the matter is not blatant fraud and the people are truly in financial hardship.
Again, a huge percentage of people are in real financial dire straits simply because they are ultimate consumers, make bad decisions, and live well beyond their income.
And sometime those people will add some heart-tugging info. which may be true, but is really not the main motivation behind the GoFundMe.
For example, many people will say something like my daughter needs an operation, without mentioning that their employment insurance policy will pay most of the operation, and that the GoFundMe funds will not be used to cover medical costs for the operation not covered by insurance, but instead will be used for the people's gambling, gross consumer over-spending, or whatever their habits are.
I don't recall seeing GoFundMes wherein you are invited to donate directly to the source that is the issue of the financial challenge–such as donate directly to the medical providers and/or insurance carrier as to costs of the operation or significant heath challenge, or directly to the summer camp the child has been dreaming about, or directly to the drug rehab facility that is supposedly so desperately needed, etc.
5:00 true. Part of the problem is that they are often started by people outside the situation. I have seen a few situations where someone starts one for a family member/friend/neighbor etc, and the recipient is deeply embarrassed when they find out about it. They didn't need it and did not ask for it.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 12:25 am
5:00-your post got me thinking of a situation involving a colleague, and this demonstrates your point that even the ones that are not blatant fraud, and are so-called legitimate in that it is actual people with actual serious financial challenges, are still situations that no one should be inclined to contribute to.
When we see human interest stories about GoFundMe nightmares, it is always the blatant fraud and con men and woman pretending to be something they are not, creating false and heart-breaking back stories, etc.
We never see stories concentrating on the far greater problem–the so-called "semi-legitimate" ones where people do not hide who they are, and correctly identify their situation and correctly identify how in the hole they are financially, but they essentially ignore the dynamic that got them there in the first place–i.e. that they are simply like millions of other irresponsible consumers who live well beyond their means.
My colleague's situation is that he has five grown children. Three are in college(two in law school, and one in undergrad). The other two grown children, and their spouses, operate these so-called "businesses" which are nothing more than useless financial drains with huge overhead and almost no income received, and after more than seven or eight years my colleague keeps supporting these two grown children because they both assure him that the businesses will eventually turn the corner and be profitable.
So, when Covid hit, and (supposedly) affected his practice, he created a GoFundMe(or, to be more accurate, his grown children arranged it). Did pretty well today. It helped that he is quite likeable, and attorneys generally really enjoy working with him as opposing counsel
On the GoFundMe, he did emphasize the tuition of his three children, but appeared to make only passing and vague refence to the failing non-business he had been floating for the other two children, and wisely omitted that he drives a Tesla and his stay-at-home wife drives a BMW.
He also omitted that he belongs to a very expensive Golf/Country Club, that his hose(i.e. virtual mansion) is worth well in excess of a cool million(or, probably more like 1.6 million), with a mortgage of thousands and thousands per month.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 12:37 am
5:00, 5:16, those ones you emphasize as "legitimate" are, strictly speaking, anything but.
However, I understand your broader point in that by calling them "legitimate" you simply mean they are actual people who are in actual serious financial messes, as opposed to the blatant fraud cases wherein people assume false identities, create totally false and heart-breaking family situations, etc.
And, yes, those ones that are so-called "legitimate" in that they are actual people who truly are experiencing the specific financial challenges they discuss, are far more in number, and far more problematic, than the blatant fraud cases.
From a law of averages standpoint, people are far more likely to get manipulated into a situation wherein they simply contribute to some irresponsible person who can't and won't pay their bills, than they are likely to run into a situation where they contribute because some fraudster couple claims to have conjoined twins, but the operation to separate them costs over a million dollars, or whatever.
So, yes, in that sense, the so-called "legitimate" ones are the far greater problem.
The only legitimate ones are fundraising by innocent indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford the large amount of money necessary to defend against a political DA who is throwing all the state's money again him, like Kyle Rittenhouse.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 1:14 am
I'm glad this topic has been raised. I've long held the unpopular opinion that GoFundMe campaigns are mostly the result of poor financial decisions. I'm still bitter I for a time I strong-armed by my firm to contribute to one such campaign for a local attorney. An attorney (and, more broadly, anyone with a family) should know better than to not have life and disability insurance in place. I also resent being pressured into donating more recently to another campaign for an attorney (2 of them, actually; an attorney couple) raising money for extravagant home renovations (yes!) because their child was diagnosed with cancer. I'm not apathetic. But two seemingly successful attorneys should be able to financially support their family. For example, there was zero mention that the child's medical treatments were not covered by insurance, which would have earned my sympathy. Just my two long-rambling cents.
If the couple who you are speaking of is whom I think you are speaking of…you are a callous jerk.The home renovations were necessary for the health of that child and were modifications that were necessary to protect her in her own home from outside environmental factors that could be tracked in since her immune system was shot due to the chemotherapy she underwent. Get a life you pathetic piece of pond scum
I'm a single parent of 2 kids, one with substantial medical issues, I didn't know either of them, my firm never helped me with my child's medical issues or finances, and I have little to no extra income. It rubbed me the wrong way.
@8:26 did you ask your firm for help? Did your child go from healthy to beyond critical overnight? Maybe learn the facts before making comments that made it appear like they were having non essential home renovations with the money they got.
My deepest condolences to Dan's family and friends.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 2:09 am
Mandatory CRT for law schools?
The American Bar Association, which accredits nearly every law school in the United States, is mulling a plan that would require schools to "provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism," including a mandatory ethics course instructing students that they have an obligation to fight "racism in the law." Schools would also be required to "take effective actions" to "diversify" their student bodies—even when doing so risks violating a law that "purports to prohibit consideration of" race or ethnicity.
The proposal has sparked fierce blowback from legal scholars across the country, including 10 emeritus professors at Yale Law School, who called it a "problematic" and "disturbing" attempt to "institutionalize dogma" through the accreditation process. Violating federal law is "not legally defensible conduct for any institution," they wrote in a public comment on the plan in June, nor is it "a legally defensible requirement by an organization certifying law schools."
Those arguments have so far fallen on deaf ears: When the plan was submitted for final review on Aug. 16, it contained all of the provisions to which the Yale professors had objected.
Nothing new here – Boyd basically implemented mandatory CRT for its students last year when it started requiring all incoming 1Ls to take their new "Policing, Protest, & Reform" course… the class is nothing more than a massive gripe session about about the police and the criminal "INjustice" system.
It is so out of line with the other required courses it is ridiculous — Civ. pro, Con Law, Contracts, Evidence, 3 legal writing classes, Professional Responsibility, Property, Torts, and now this woke crying symposium…
Ryan Fischer, Lady Gaga's dog walker who was shot has a Go Fund Me page and is homeless. Gaga should be ashamed of herself for not supporting that poor guy.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2021 6:21 am
Eglet Adams had an employee suffering from terminal cancer whose family posted on Go Fund Me. I always wondered about why that would be necessary.
Du is a reminder why I avoid Federal Court like the plague. I'll take almost any state court judge over these Article III clowns.
However, I must give credit where it is due (or Du): very, very creative and bold decision. If upheld this will indeed revolutionize immigration policy. Open borders!
What borders? US borders, for all practical purposes, don't exist. The Border Patrol is essentially a concierge service for food, lodging and a bus ticket to the interior.
UC Davis and UC Berkeley, of course. Had to research that to isolate which Cal schools for sure. The Obama appointee thing goes without saying.
Du is not good. I, too, avoid federal court, because it is a joke, except Navarro.
Navarro is as big of a system pawn as anyone over there. Gordon is good. Mahan was good but is declining. But Du has gone downhill a great deal.
Is it because it was a felony, or that it was a crime at all? Of course it is discriminatory, that's its purpose. It keeps non-US citizens from coming into the USA illegally. EU citizens & Canadians(who make up the majority of the "white" population outside of the U.S.A.) don't need to enter the U.S. illegally, they get a passport and there are agreements in place, and they come here legally then leave. People from Latin America and other "connected by landmass to the U.S.A." countries are obviously the targets of such a law because they're the ones that enter the U.S.A. illegally, get deported, and find a way to re-enter again. If a non-LatinX country with a horrible economy and country-wide gang crime were physically attached to the U.S. borders then the law would also impact them because they would be in the group of people who constantly illegally entered the U.S. after being deported.
Did you read the decision? There are several prongs to the test. Mexico's proximity to the the U.S. means that the law has a disparate impact because–as you indicated in your comment–naturally, Mexican persons can cross through the border on land. But that only answers one part of the test.
I haven't read the decision, but if 11:17 thinks EU citizens leave when they're supposed to, they clearly haven't been to Boston. There are plenty of undocumented Irish citizens in the NE.
@1:16p – I'm the OP. Living in Las Vegas & California, my experience with undocumented individuals has been almost exclusively the LatinX persuasion with fruit/vegetable farms in California, so honestly that surprises me that there are illegal Irish immigrants in the U.S. I'm having to assume that they overstayed their visa. I didn't think they could get on the plane to the U.S. without a valid visa? Regardless, if there are undocumented Irish citizens in the NE USA then they should be treated the same way any other undocumented immigrant in the U.S.A. are treated.
There are tons of undocumented people in this country from countries where they just overstay their visas. Even LatinX undocumented immigrants usually come here with a valid visa. The story of people sneaking through the desert is overblown and exaggerated.
@1:46, you are correct many illegal aliens do in fact overstay a valid visa. But if you really think coyotes are not herding thousands of people across the southern border and through the deserts of CA, NM, AZ and TX then you are either an eejit, willfully ignorant or a lying shill for open boarders. It is neither overblown or exagerated and is a real problem for the landowners affected by it, not to mention dangerous for the folks who attempt it.
Please do not use the term "Latinx" it is ridiculous. I am latino and know of no other latinos who use this term. Where do wokesters get the cajones to step into someone else's language and culture and declare it improper and come up with their own substitute? It is absolute bullshit and you should be embarrassed if you use the term.
If you were going to run for a judicial office, who would you use as your campaign manager and why?
Dave Thomas. Not because I like him. Because I only want to run for office once.
Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you
Having run for office and gotten crushed (70-30), I would strongly recommend Tom pr Dave, They told me early in the process what would happen, I should have listened.
It's a good thing we let "Tom and Dave" decide who can be a judge as opposed to the Missouri system. I'm also grateful that if we decide we don't like how "Tom and Dave" pick judges, we can vote "Tom and Dave" out. I'd hate to have something as corrupt and unaccountable nominations from the Governor and confirmation by the State Senate. #Democracy. #IndependentJudiciary
As to that GoFundMe article, my two cents is that no one should ever get involved with contributing to something like that unless they personally know the people and the situation, or if it is something with such extensive news coverage that the true facts seem to be pretty well known(and even that can be highly debatable based on how deep the media bothers to digs, and what they choose to report).
But other than those two narrow exceptions,, there are thousands of far more reliable and legitimate ways of giving away your money, rather than a GoFundMe, if you feel so inclined.
A huge percentage of these GoFundMe projects are simply blatant fraud.
The ones that are not necessarily blatant fraud, and may be actual people facing actual serious financial problems, a cursory review of the info. provided(if reliable)reveals that these are people who simply make a lot of bad financial decisions and simply live well beyond their means and their income. That applies to a huge percentage of people. That does not make them a legitimate charity case simply because the matter is not blatant fraud and the people are truly in financial hardship.
Again, a huge percentage of people are in real financial dire straits simply because they are ultimate consumers, make bad decisions, and live well beyond their income.
And sometime those people will add some heart-tugging info. which may be true, but is really not the main motivation behind the GoFundMe.
For example, many people will say something like my daughter needs an operation, without mentioning that their employment insurance policy will pay most of the operation, and that the GoFundMe funds will not be used to cover medical costs for the operation not covered by insurance, but instead will be used for the people's gambling, gross consumer over-spending, or whatever their habits are.
I don't recall seeing GoFundMes wherein you are invited to donate directly to the source that is the issue of the financial challenge–such as donate directly to the medical providers and/or insurance carrier as to costs of the operation or significant heath challenge, or directly to the summer camp the child has been dreaming about, or directly to the drug rehab facility that is supposedly so desperately needed, etc.
5:00 true. Part of the problem is that they are often started by people outside the situation. I have seen a few situations where someone starts one for a family member/friend/neighbor etc, and the recipient is deeply embarrassed when they find out about it. They didn't need it and did not ask for it.
5:00-your post got me thinking of a situation involving a colleague, and this demonstrates your point that even the ones that are not blatant fraud, and are so-called legitimate in that it is actual people with actual serious financial challenges, are still situations that no one should be inclined to contribute to.
When we see human interest stories about GoFundMe nightmares, it is always the blatant fraud and con men and woman pretending to be something they are not, creating false and heart-breaking back stories, etc.
We never see stories concentrating on the far greater problem–the so-called "semi-legitimate" ones where people do not hide who they are, and correctly identify their situation and correctly identify how in the hole they are financially, but they essentially ignore the dynamic that got them there in the first place–i.e. that they are simply like millions of other irresponsible consumers who live well beyond their means.
My colleague's situation is that he has five grown children. Three are in college(two in law school, and one in undergrad). The other two grown children, and their spouses, operate these so-called "businesses" which are nothing more than useless financial drains with huge overhead and almost no income received, and after more than seven or eight years my colleague keeps supporting these two grown children because they both assure him that the businesses will eventually turn the corner and be profitable.
So, when Covid hit, and (supposedly) affected his practice, he created a GoFundMe(or, to be more accurate, his grown children arranged it). Did pretty well today. It helped that he is quite likeable, and attorneys generally really enjoy working with him as opposing counsel
On the GoFundMe, he did emphasize the tuition of his three children, but appeared to make only passing and vague refence to the failing non-business he had been floating for the other two children, and wisely omitted that he drives a Tesla and his stay-at-home wife drives a BMW.
He also omitted that he belongs to a very expensive Golf/Country Club, that his hose(i.e. virtual mansion) is worth well in excess of a cool million(or, probably more like 1.6 million), with a mortgage of thousands and thousands per month.
5:00, 5:16, those ones you emphasize as "legitimate" are, strictly speaking, anything but.
However, I understand your broader point in that by calling them "legitimate" you simply mean they are actual people who are in actual serious financial messes, as opposed to the blatant fraud cases wherein people assume false identities, create totally false and heart-breaking family situations, etc.
And, yes, those ones that are so-called "legitimate" in that they are actual people who truly are experiencing the specific financial challenges they discuss, are far more in number, and far more problematic, than the blatant fraud cases.
From a law of averages standpoint, people are far more likely to get manipulated into a situation wherein they simply contribute to some irresponsible person who can't and won't pay their bills, than they are likely to run into a situation where they contribute because some fraudster couple claims to have conjoined twins, but the operation to separate them costs over a million dollars, or whatever.
So, yes, in that sense, the so-called "legitimate" ones are the far greater problem.
The only legitimate ones are fundraising by innocent indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford the large amount of money necessary to defend against a political DA who is throwing all the state's money again him, like Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm glad this topic has been raised. I've long held the unpopular opinion that GoFundMe campaigns are mostly the result of poor financial decisions. I'm still bitter I for a time I strong-armed by my firm to contribute to one such campaign for a local attorney. An attorney (and, more broadly, anyone with a family) should know better than to not have life and disability insurance in place. I also resent being pressured into donating more recently to another campaign for an attorney (2 of them, actually; an attorney couple) raising money for extravagant home renovations (yes!) because their child was diagnosed with cancer. I'm not apathetic. But two seemingly successful attorneys should be able to financially support their family. For example, there was zero mention that the child's medical treatments were not covered by insurance, which would have earned my sympathy. Just my two long-rambling cents.
If the couple who you are speaking of is whom I think you are speaking of…you are a callous jerk.The home renovations were necessary for the health of that child and were modifications that were necessary to protect her in her own home from outside environmental factors that could be tracked in since her immune system was shot due to the chemotherapy she underwent. Get a life you pathetic piece of pond scum
I'm a single parent of 2 kids, one with substantial medical issues, I didn't know either of them, my firm never helped me with my child's medical issues or finances, and I have little to no extra income. It rubbed me the wrong way.
@8:26 did you ask your firm for help? Did your child go from healthy to beyond critical overnight? Maybe learn the facts before making comments that made it appear like they were having non essential home renovations with the money they got.
Call the home renovators out by name.
Irrelevant.
Sadly, its survival of the fittest.
Daniel Bunin was pulled from the water in Hawaii. Very sad.
Dan Bunin was a damn good man and a better lawyer, and his loss is an absolute tragedy.
My deepest condolences to Dan's family and friends.
Mandatory CRT for law schools?
The American Bar Association, which accredits nearly every law school in the United States, is mulling a plan that would require schools to "provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism," including a mandatory ethics course instructing students that they have an obligation to fight "racism in the law." Schools would also be required to "take effective actions" to "diversify" their student bodies—even when doing so risks violating a law that "purports to prohibit consideration of" race or ethnicity.
The proposal has sparked fierce blowback from legal scholars across the country, including 10 emeritus professors at Yale Law School, who called it a "problematic" and "disturbing" attempt to "institutionalize dogma" through the accreditation process. Violating federal law is "not legally defensible conduct for any institution," they wrote in a public comment on the plan in June, nor is it "a legally defensible requirement by an organization certifying law schools."
Those arguments have so far fallen on deaf ears: When the plan was submitted for final review on Aug. 16, it contained all of the provisions to which the Yale professors had objected.
Nothing new here – Boyd basically implemented mandatory CRT for its students last year when it started requiring all incoming 1Ls to take their new "Policing, Protest, & Reform" course… the class is nothing more than a massive gripe session about about the police and the criminal "INjustice" system.
It is so out of line with the other required courses it is ridiculous — Civ. pro, Con Law, Contracts, Evidence, 3 legal writing classes, Professional Responsibility, Property, Torts, and now this woke crying symposium…
Oh, are they requiring evidence now? They didn't 10 years ago.
Started requiring evidence in 2018
11:36 That explains a lot about Boyd grads.
Ryan Fischer, Lady Gaga's dog walker who was shot has a Go Fund Me page and is homeless. Gaga should be ashamed of herself for not supporting that poor guy.
Eglet Adams had an employee suffering from terminal cancer whose family posted on Go Fund Me. I always wondered about why that would be necessary.
#freejared
#freebonniebulla
#freethestaredecisis