Sb 1071

[NLXSK1]

Well NLX, I have completely explained this particular judicial ruling and how it did not change decades of precedent. Stare decisis as a legal principle has not been violated by the Mena ruling, but if you choose to believe otherwise ... well, feel free. My best to you.

I understand why you are bailing on the argument ;]

You stated this in a previous post.

While that decision did result in a 5-4 decision, the decision was narrowly written to only require those who were already under reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime (of which being an illegal alien falls) to identify themselves to state or federal authorities.

Ok, so a cop is standing on the street and someone looks like an illegal alien (which is a misdemeanor). So, suspecting a crime he can walk up to the person and ask their immigration status. There is no restriction in the Federal law (unlike Arizona's) that prevents the federal police from using racial profiling as a criteria in their search.

My point is, and continues to be that the government is suing Arizona over a state law that is more restrictive than the federal law it was written from. You are angry at Arizona for having more restrictive rules than the federal government.

You have actually supported my argument. Thank you. Have a great day... Peace ;]

 

[Countryfarmer]

Incorrect NLX. As I have already explained, the Mena ruling simply established that if the person was already under detention then the officers would not need some indicator of illegal status to ask the individual about their immigration status.

Also, yet again I will say, and this time for the last time .... the Mena decision did not establish any requirement on the detainee to respond to the officer's question.

A police officer can ask you any question they want to. If you voluntarily answer that question, the Mena decision concluded that you could not then come back and claim that since you were being detained (Mena was in handcuffs) and answered the immigration question because of your detention, that the police had violated your fourth amendment rights. It is right there in clearly spelled out black and white. You can also google Mena and see what legal scholars have said about the decision.

Decades long stare decisis has not been breached by this decision, as much as you want to keep claiming to the contrary that it has. Again, if that is what you want to believe, and you can not take the few minutes out of your day to determine that your viewpoint is completely incorrect, then more power to you. I have simply responded to you so far in order to ensure that no one else mistakenly believes your incorrect assertions.

 

[NLXSK1]

Incorrect NLX. As I have already explained, the Mena ruling simply established that if the person was already under detention then the officers would not need some indicator of illegal status to ask the individual about their immigration status.

Also, yet again I will say, and this time for the last time .... the Mena decision did not establish any requirement on the detainee to respond to the officer's question.

A police officer can ask you any question they want to. If you voluntarily answer that question, the Mena decision concluded that you could not then come back and claim that since you were being detained (Mena was in handcuffs) and answered the immigration question because of your detention, that the police had violated your fourth amendment rights. It is right there in clearly spelled out black and white. You can also google Mena and see what legal scholars have said about the decision.

Decades long stare decisis has not been breached by this decision, as much as you want to keep claiming to the contrary that it has. Again, if that is what you want to believe, and you can not take the few minutes out of your day to determine that your viewpoint is completely incorrect, then more power to you. I have simply responded to you so far in order to ensure that no one else mistakenly believes your incorrect assertions.

In the case I asserted the conclusion did not make the detention a requirement for asking the immigration status of the detainee... They simply did not write it in there... Wonder why? Oh yeah, cause it is not required.

And yet this is EXACTLY what Arizona wants to do and the Federal government is suing them over...

So, if the supreme court ruled 9-0 based on stare decisis (you like writing that doncha?) that it is completely legal for the fed's to do it.

And they will rule that it is completely legal for the states to do it.

Because we are the united states of America and each of those states have a right to protect their own borders and have never giving up that right.

But hey, keep throwing around case law like you know what your talking about while being prepared for bad news for Obama... Just like the Oil rig moratorium this is simply not constitutional.

 

[UncleBuck]

they'll just redefine the moratorium so that it is not 'arbitrary and capricious'. i don't see how anyone in their right mind would not want to make sure these rigs are adhering to strict safety standards before allowing them to operate again with the messfuck going on in the gulf right now. i hate to see the jobs lost, but not as much as i hate to see wildlife covered in oil frying in the sun.

 

[NLXSK1]

they'll just redefine the moratorium so that it is not 'arbitrary and capricious'. i don't see how anyone in their right mind would not want to make sure these rigs are adhering to strict safety standards before allowing them to operate again with the messfuck going on in the gulf right now. i hate to see the jobs lost, but not as much as i hate to see wildlife covered in oil frying in the sun.

They have about 10,000 holes in the gulf from drilling over the last 40 years. They have over 3000 rigs operating now. All of those rigs have complied with the current government safety standards.

I dont want this to be another 3 mile island where we cause one accident to prevent American companies drill for oil off of our shores while foreign companies drill just a little further out.

Obama wants gas and oil prices to rise. He cannot sell his ideology of green energy without that happening. So he is going to do everything he can to put more pressure and cost on oil. And that is like implementing a VAT tax on every single American.

 

[UncleBuck]

didn't deepwater-horizon supposedly comply with safety standards?

i am not trying to be an a-hole, i seriously don't know for sure. you seem a little more informed, so i ask you.

i just think at a time like this, we might actually try to enforce safety standards. unlike pre-deepwater days, when apparently the drillers filled out the reports in pencil and the regulators went over them in ink. i don't see any problem with shutting down another however many jobs in the name of a similar spill not happening again anytime soon.

 

[NLXSK1]

didn't deepwater-horizon supposedly comply with safety standards?

i am not trying to be an a-hole, i seriously don't know for sure. you seem a little more informed, so i ask you.

i just think at a time like this, we might actually try to enforce safety standards. unlike pre-deepwater days, when apparently the drillers filled out the reports in pencil and the regulators went over them in ink. i don't see any problem with shutting down another however many jobs in the name of a similar spill not happening again anytime soon.

Immediately after the oil disaster (ok, within a few weeks) every other oil well had been re-inspected by the minerals management service. They are all in compliance. In addition, many of them are of a safer design than the one that exploded. In fact, alot of the experts in the field said that a moratorium would make a problem MORE likely rather than less likely due to the need to shut down current operations.

The other issue is that the government has no idea what caused it or what regulation would be required to prevent another instance of this. Given the once in a thousand occurrence at this time a complete shutdown of the industry will cost tens of thousands of jobs for years and years. There is a CHANCE that this could happen again but the actions of a moratorium would devastate an already bad situation. If you take away tourism and the fishing industry alot of these areas dont have much left in terms of jobs. If you pile on another huge loss of jobs in the oil industry you do more damage.

The court has twice ruled against the president on this already and the White House is going to try yet again to get a moratorium. Obama does not seem to understand the consequences of his actions at times...

The deep water horizon failed several tests in the weeks/months before the explosion. I dont know what the results of the investigation are yet.

 

[UncleBuck]

Immediately after the oil disaster (ok, within a few weeks) every other oil well had been re-inspected by the minerals management service. They are all in compliance. In addition, many of them are of a safer design than the one that exploded. In fact, alot of the experts in the field said that a moratorium would make a problem MORE likely rather than less likely due to the need to shut down current operations.

The other issue is that the government has no idea what caused it or what regulation would be required to prevent another instance of this. Given the once in a thousand occurrence at this time a complete shutdown of the industry will cost tens of thousands of jobs for years and years. There is a CHANCE that this could happen again but the actions of a moratorium would devastate an already bad situation. If you take away tourism and the fishing industry alot of these areas dont have much left in terms of jobs. If you pile on another huge loss of jobs in the oil industry you do more damage.

The court has twice ruled against the president on this already and the White House is going to try yet again to get a moratorium. Obama does not seem to understand the consequences of his actions at times...

The deep water horizon failed several tests in the weeks/months before the explosion. I dont know what the results of the investigation are yet.

very informative synopsis, thank you. you brought to light several things i was not aware of, like the mms apparently hauling ass to re-inspect those thousands of other rigs. makes sense, not sure why i don't recall hearing such on cnn, fox, or msnbc...i guess their forte is in opinion and spin....those fucktards.

one thing i wanted to ask....don't we pretty much know what caused this? wasn't it the faulty blowout preventers and the use of sea water rather than whatever else they were supposed to use? i mean, i'm sure there are other factors...and the investigation is not over yet. but i remember hearing they had several blowout preventers and ALL of them failed.

i don't know really, an issue like this is way out of my ballpark of social equality issues. can we just get back to my satirical sb 1071 and the occasional dick joke? as stoned as i am, that would be more in my sweet spot

 

[NLXSK1]

very informative synopsis, thank you. you brought to light several things i was not aware of, like the mms apparently hauling ass to re-inspect those thousands of other rigs. makes sense, not sure why i don't recall hearing such on cnn, fox, or msnbc...i guess their forte is in opinion and spin....those fucktards.

one thing i wanted to ask....don't we pretty much know what caused this? wasn't it the faulty blowout preventers and the use of sea water rather than whatever else they were supposed to use? i mean, i'm sure there are other factors...and the investigation is not over yet. but i remember hearing they had several blowout preventers and ALL of them failed.

i don't know really, an issue like this is way out of my ballpark of social equality issues. can we just get back to my satirical sb 1071 and the occasional dick joke? as stoned as i am, that would be more in my sweet spot

I get all of my television news from Fox so it is slanted to the right relatively speaking. Most of the info I provide comes from that source although I have updates from the WSJ on major issues that happen during the day, I surf here etc. That being said... These are the things I have heard pertaining to the issue.

1. BP used a cheaper drilling setup that saved them somewhere between 5-10 million dollars. This increased the risk of a problem.

2. The blowout preventer on the rig had failed some tests within weeks and days of the explosion.

3. One of the senior engineers referred to the rig and the drilling on site as a *nightmare* - er: lots of problems, delays, etc...

4. BP had something like 700 citations from the minerals management department while other oil companies had 6 or none, etc.

5. The blowout preventer might still have worked if for some reason the drill bit was not still stuck in the pipe.

I think they know exactly what happened in the accident. And I think it will be determined that BP cut costs and rushed the final drilling to the cost of the gulf coast region and 11 dead men.

1071 should be upheld in court as it does not conflict with the federal law. And if you have been paying attention the federal government is not even bringing the charge that the bill allows for racial profiling as the bill specifically prevents it and there is no F'in way they are gonna win on that issue.